Semester 3: Software Design: Rubric and Passing Standards
The World-Class Strand evidence is non-compensatory: every required category must pass even when the rest of the submission is strong.
This rubric applies to the semester-level checkpoint, exam, and project. Use it with the answer key and solution outlines to keep grading consistent and learner-visible.
Minimum Passing Standard
To pass Semester 3: Software Design, the learner must satisfy all of the following:
- Checkpoint: at least 80% of checkpoint prompts are answered correctly and independently, with no critical gaps in refactoring, design principles, patterns, testing, and reviewable design decisions.
- Exam: overall score is at least 70%, and no major section that tests a core semester outcome is below 60%.
- Project: all required deliverables are present, the artifact can be inspected or reproduced by another person, and the learner can defend the main tradeoffs.
- Integrity: sources, collaboration, generated assistance, and borrowed code or examples are acknowledged.
- Module gates: all three C01–C10 sets in Modules 1, 2 and 3, BD1–BD6, Module 4 C01–C06, SC1–SC6 and AR1–AR6 each reach level 2 or above; all HCI/accessibility categories pass.
- Remediation: unresolved required evidence means incomplete. Repair the gap and pass a fresh reassessment before progression; retain delayed rechecks.
Failure in any one of these categories means the semester should not be marked complete yet, even if the other artifacts look strong.
Grading Rubric
| Dimension | Needs repair | Minimum pass | Strong pass | Excellent / portfolio-ready |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concept command | Uses terms loosely or confuses core ideas. | Defines and applies the required concepts with minor gaps. | Explains concepts through examples, counterexamples, and constraints. | Teaches the ideas clearly and connects them across semesters. |
| Reasoning quality | Jumps to answers; hides assumptions. | Shows enough steps to inspect correctness. | Makes assumptions, invariants, and tradeoffs explicit. | Compares alternatives and anticipates edge cases or objections. |
| Evidence | Claims are unsupported or impossible to reproduce. | Provides basic proofs, tests, diagrams, traces, or outputs. | Evidence targets the riskiest claims and is easy to verify. | Evidence is organized as a review packet a third party can audit. |
| Semester integration | Treats modules as unrelated topics. | Connects the main semester themes to the assessment. | Synthesizes multiple modules in one coherent explanation or artifact. | Shows how mastery of refactoring, design principles, patterns, testing, and reviewable design decisions shapes engineering judgment beyond the course examples. |
| Communication | Hard to follow; missing context. | Understandable and complete enough to grade. | Clear structure, named decisions, and concise explanations. | Professional presentation with honest limitations and next steps. |
Strong Submission Traits
Strong submissions usually demonstrate these traits:
- concise explanations that reveal the mental model, not just the final answer
- concrete artifacts that can be run, checked, reviewed, or traced
- explicit handling of edge cases, constraints, and failure modes
- visible revision: mistakes were found, corrected, and documented
- appropriate connections between refactoring, design principles, patterns, testing, and reviewable design decisions and prior semester foundations
Common Weak Submission Patterns
Watch for these patterns during self-review:
- vocabulary recognition without the ability to apply the idea to a new prompt
- impressive-looking diagrams, code, or prose with no verification evidence
- hidden dependencies on tutorials, solution videos, or AI-generated answers
- project scope that is too broad to inspect or too narrow to prove the required skill
- missing reflection about tradeoffs, limitations, or what would be done differently
Calibration Decision Guide
- Pass: all minimum standards are met and weak patterns are minor.
- Repair required (incomplete): one or more required outcomes need fresh evidence. Do not advance to Semester 4 until reassessment passes.
- Repeat / revisit: a core concept, core deliverable, or integrity requirement is missing.
When uncertain, grade against evidence rather than effort. Time spent is useful context, but the semester is complete only when the learner can demonstrate the outcomes.
HCI And Accessibility Rubric
| Dimension | Repeat | Pass | Strong |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discovery | Feature request treated as evidence | Recent behavior, obstacle, assumption, and success condition | Evidence causes a justified rejection or scope change |
| Usability | Opinion or coached demo | Representative tasks, observations, revision, and retest | Limitations and transfer risks are explicitly evaluated |
| Accessibility | Scanner output only | Keyboard, semantics, focus, errors, contrast, reflow, and applicable WCAG evidence | Assistive-technology evidence changes a reusable component contract |
| Integrity and defense | Hidden AI assistance or memorized prose | AI use declared; evidence and rejected alternative defended | New interface is evaluated correctly under questioning |
Every row must reach Pass; accessibility cannot be averaged away by strong code design.
Behavioral runtime-contract evidence
Every BD1–BD6 gate is additionally required at level 2 or above. No aggregate score or conditional-pass label waives an unresolved lifecycle, history or failure-boundary error. Retain the independent trace and delayed recheck evidence.
Structural composition evidence
Every Module 4 C01–C06 and SC1 –SC6 gate must reach level 2 or above. No aggregate score or conditional pass waives incorrect unit translation, unbounded/unsafe retry, hidden wrapper behavior or missing cleanup evidence.
Applied review evidence and gate index
Use Module 1 C01–C10, Module 2 C01–C10, Module 3 C01–C10 and BD1–BD6, Module 4 C01–C06 and SC1–SC6 and AR1–AR6. Every gate needs at least 2; the HCI rows above each need Pass. The checkpoint 80% and exam 70%/section 60% thresholds remain additional requirements. “Conditional pass” in older examples must be read as repair required, not permission to advance.
Construction and semantics gate
Module 1 DS1–DS4 must each score at least 2, in addition to all existing module, semester and HCI requirements. This evidence is included in the revised 473–688-hour workload.
Core construction and applied-review coverage
The final packet also includes Module 4 C01–C06: product families, validated construction, copying/alias topology, composite semantics, proxy lifetime and a changed-requirement design defense. Each needs level 2 alongside SC1–SC6. Reuse the core workshop artifacts within the existing semester allowance.
Module 5's review workbench maps its independent tasks to AR1–AR6 and the existing HCI/accessibility work. Passing the regression kit alone does not establish usability, independent review or delayed transfer. Use one evidence index rather than duplicate projects.