0% found this document useful (0 votes)
121 views2 pages

6 ICP Marking Scheme

This document outlines a marking scheme for an Introduction to C Programming course. It evaluates students on design solution (20%), coding/implementation (30%), documentation (15%), test (10%), and presentation (5%). Students can earn marks in each category and an overall grade. Higher marks are given for thorough understanding, unique solutions, good structure/style, and few errors. Lower marks are given for incomplete or incorrect work.

Uploaded by

Yasmine Yous
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
121 views2 pages

6 ICP Marking Scheme

This document outlines a marking scheme for an Introduction to C Programming course. It evaluates students on design solution (20%), coding/implementation (30%), documentation (15%), test (10%), and presentation (5%). Students can earn marks in each category and an overall grade. Higher marks are given for thorough understanding, unique solutions, good structure/style, and few errors. Lower marks are given for incomplete or incorrect work.

Uploaded by

Yasmine Yous
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Introduction to C Programming Marking Scheme Page 1 of 2

Student Name (ID): ___________________________________ Total Marks: _________/100

Fail Marginal Fail Pass Credit Distinction


0-7 8-9 10 - 12 13 - 14 15 - 20
 Hardly any understanding  Minimal understanding of  Some understanding of the  Good understanding of the  Excellent understanding of
of program design program design program design program design the program design
 Poor illustration of  Attempted to design the  Simple design of the solution  Good design of the solution  Detailed design of the
program design solution in pseudo-code in pseudo-code and in pseudo-code and solution in pseudo-code and
 Did not document the and flowchart but with flowchart in terms of logic flowchart in terms of logic flowchart in terms of style
design of the solution major errors or omission and style and style. and unique logics
Design Solution using pseudo-code and  Design solution covers  Design solution covers  Design solution covers  Design solution covers
(20%) flowchart or any other less than 50% of the basic between 50% - 65% of the between 65% - 75% of the more than 75% of the basic
design tool requirements of the system basic requirements of the basic requirements of the requirements of the system.
system system  Hardly any errors /
 Some errors / omissions in  Minor errors / omissions in omissions in design –
design – pseudo-code and design – pseudo-code and pseudo-code and flowchart
flowchart flowchart

0 - 10 11 – 14 15 – 19 20 – 23 24 - 30
 Not done  Basic coding done  Coding solution done  Coding solution contains  Coding solution contains
 Unresolved compilation  Program – able to covering all basic C concepts basic and intermediate C basic, intermediate and
errors compile and execute  Common solution concepts advanced C concepts
 Program not executable  Less than 50% of basic  Program – able to compile  Unique solution  Unique solution
 Less than 20% of basic requirements are met and execute  Program – able to compile  Program – able to compile
Coding requirements are met.  Poor coding styles  Between 50% - 65% of the and execute and execute
(Implementation)  The coding solution lacks  No validation. basic requirements are met  Between 65% - 75% of the  More than 75% of the basic
proper structure  Little or no mapping  Basic coding styles basic requirements of are requirements of the system
(30%)  Program solution does not between design and  Minor validations for menu met runs
map with design program solution options  Good coding styles  Excellent coding styles
presented  Some mapping between  Good validation – beyond  Excellent validation
design and program solution menu options  Excellent mapping between
 Good mapping between design and program
design and program solution solution

Level 1 Asia Pacific University of Technology and Innovation 2019


Introduction to C Programming Marking Scheme Page 2 of 2

Fail Marginal Fail Pass Credit Distinction


0-5 6-7 8-9 10-11 12 - 15
 No documentation  Incomplete  Document missing some  Good layout / flow  Excellent layout / flow
submitted documentation with minor components  No missing components of the  No missing components of the
 Documentation merely missing major  Average layout / flow documentation documentation
contains the cover page component  Did some referencing but  Good documentation standards  Excellent documentation
and printout of the  Poor layout / flow did not adhere to Harvard  Adhered to Harvard Name standards
Documentation source code  No referencing Name Referencing Referencing standards but with  Adhered to Harvard Name
 No referencing 
(15%) Sample outputs available minor errors / omissions Referencing standards with no
without any explanation.  Sample outputs available with obvious errors / omissions
some explanation.  Sample outputs available with
clear explanation

0-3 4 5-6 7 8 - 10
 Did not turn up for test  Most questions posed  Some questions posed were  Most questions posed were  All questions posed were
Test  Not able to answer were not answered answered correctly answered correctly answered correctly
all/most of the questions correctly
(10%) posed

0-1 2 3 4 5
 Did not turn up for  Barely able to trace  Able to trace some codes /  Able to trace the codes and work  In depth understanding of the
presentation the codes / work done work done with hesitation done codes / work done
 Not able to trace any of  Had difficulty in  Able to execute the system  Able to execute the program  Able to execute the program
Demonstration the codes / work done executing the system  Able to explain and shows a good  Able to explain and argues the
(5%)  Did not know how to understanding of how the system work submitted.
execute the system works.  Show additional concepts /
new ideas used in the solution

0-7 8-9 10 - 12 13-14 15 - 20


Unable or barely able to Mostly inaccurate / illogical  Able to answer some  Able to answer most questions  Able to answer all questions
Question and answer any of the question answers / explanation questions posed accurately posed accurately. posed with minimal
asked provided or barely able to
Answer answer some of the
or logically omissions.

(20%) questions asked

Remarks:
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Level 1 Asia Pacific University of Technology and Innovation 2019

You might also like