Week 11: Portfolio Submission Guide

Deadline: Sunday May 15, 2026, 23:59 Beijing Time — all five items below.

Late penalty: −5% per day, maximum 5 days. After 5 days: 0%.

---

What you submit (five items)

Item	Format	Where	File name
Project Brief	Word (.docx) via LMO Turnitin	Group leader submits	Session[X]Group[Y]_ProjectBrief.docx
Technical Documentation	Word (.docx) via LMO Turnitin	Group leader submits	Session[X]Group[Y]_TechnicalDoc.docx
Validation Report	Word (.docx) via LMO Turnitin	Group leader submits	Session[X]Group[Y]_ValidationReport.docx
Group Reflection & Dev Log	Word (.docx) via LMO	Group leader submits	Session[X]Group[Y]_Log.docx
Peer Evaluation Form	PDF signed by all members via LMO	Group leader submits	Session[X]Group[Y]_PeerEvaluation.pdf

All documents must include the cover page (download from LMO) as the first page. Cover page must list all Student IDs.

The Dev Log must be submitted as a Word document to preserve version history — assessors use this to verify weekly contributions.

---

Document requirements

Project Brief (5% of grade · 2 pages)

• Problem statement — why it matters and who is affected
• Target users — specific segment with characteristics
• Proposed solution — what you built, in one paragraph
• Success metrics — 3–5 measurable outcomes

Technical Documentation (15% of grade · 6–9 pages)

Required sections and page allocations:

Section	Pages	What to include	Weight
System Architecture	2–3	Component diagram · data flow · technology stack overview	5%
Technology Justification	2–3	Why you chose each tool · alternatives considered · trade-offs	5%
Deployment Guide	1–2	Step-by-step setup · environment requirements · troubleshooting	3%
IP Strategy	1	Novelty analysis · prior art (2–3 examples with links) · patent decision (yes/no + reason) · alternative protection if not patenting	2%
Limitations & Future Work	1	Known issues · scalability constraints · next features	—

IP Strategy

This section is assessed on strategic thinking, not legal accuracy. Cite 2–3 real products or patents. State your protection decision and the reason (cost, time, enforceability). If not patenting, name the alternative strategy (trade secret, first-mover advantage, network effects). AI tools may be used — but write your own reasoning, not a copy-paste of AI output.

Technology Justification

“We used React” is not justification. “We chose React because our team already knew it from ENT207TC, and component reuse reduced development time for similar screens” is justification. The assessors reward the reasoning, not the tool choice.

Validation Report (10% of grade · 4–6 pages)

Required sections:

• Research Methodology — how you recruited participants, how many, what you asked
• Key Findings — organised by theme, with direct quotes and data
• Iteration History — what you built → what users said → what you changed (before/after)
• Evidence Appendix — links to interview recordings, session notes, screenshots, test videos

Assessed on three dimensions:

• Methodology rigor — scientific approach, sufficient sample size, unbiased recruitment
• Data richness — mix of qualitative and quantitative, supporting quotes and metrics
• Iteration clarity — clear cause-and-effect between findings and what you changed

Evidence quality

Links must be functional. A sentence like “we interviewed five users” without a link to notes or recordings scores poorly. The rubric explicitly states: generic statements without supporting evidence score poorly.

Group Reflection & Development Log (20% of grade)

Your Dev Log must contain 7 weekly entries (Weeks 3–9) plus a Group Reflection (150–250 words).

Each weekly entry must include:

• What your team accomplished — specific tasks with named contributors (100–150 words)
• Evidence links — GitHub commits, Figma files, interview notes, photos, videos (3–5 links)
• Each person’s individual contribution — 30–50 words written by that person
• One key decision — what you decided and why (50–100 words)
• Challenges faced and solutions attempted
• Next week’s plan

The Group Reflection (add after Week 9 entry, before submission):

• What did your team learn?
• What worked well?
• What would you do differently?
• Focus on the project journey and process — not individual members.

Peer Evaluation Form (individual contribution — up to 15 points)

• Use the template provided on LMO
• Every team member completes their own section — signed PDF
• Rates each teammate on: Reliability · Quality · Initiative · Communication (0–5 each)
• Your peer score (0–20) is averaged across your teammates’ ratings
• Converted: (Your Score / 20) × 15 = up to 15 points added to your final grade

---

Formatting requirements (all portfolio documents)

• Font: Times New Roman or Calibri, 12pt
• Line spacing: 1.5
• Margins: Justified left and right
• Cover page first, with group number and all Student IDs
• References: APA 7th edition (in-text citations + reference list at end)
• Reference lists are NOT counted in page limits
• No references from Wikipedia or student papers

---

How to submit on LMO

One person on your team submits everything — the group leader, unless your pathfinder has told you otherwise.

Step by step:

1. Log in to LMO with your XJTLU account
2. Open ENT208TC Industry Readiness → Week 11 Portfolio Submission
3. You will see five separate upload slots — one per item. Submit each file to its own slot:
   • Project Brief → Turnitin slot (plagiarism check runs automatically)
   • Technical Documentation → Turnitin slot
   • Validation Report → Turnitin slot
   • Group Reflection & Dev Log → Word document upload slot
   • Peer Evaluation Form → PDF upload slot (each member’s signed section combined into one file)
4. Check that each file name matches the required format: Session[X]Group[Y]_DocumentName
5. Confirm that every file has the cover page as the first page, with all Student IDs listed
6. Click submit — you will receive a confirmation email. Screenshot it.

Turnitin submissions

Turnitin submissions cannot be replaced after submission without contacting the module leader. Check your file before clicking submit — open it, scroll through it, confirm it is the right version.

What each team member does individually:

• Complete your own section of the Peer Evaluation Form
• Sign it (typed name is acceptable)
• Send your section to the group leader before the deadline so they can combine and submit

Deadline: Sunday May 15, 23:59 Beijing Time. The LMO submission portal closes at midnight. Do not leave this to the last hour — file uploads can be slow.

---

Final grade

Final Grade = (Team Grade × 70%) + Peer Points + Pathfinder Points

Source	How it works	Max points
Team deliverables	Your group’s grade × 70%	70 pts
Peer rating	Teammates rate you 0–20 → converted: (score/20) × 15	15 pts
Pathfinder rating	Pathfinder rates you 0–20 → converted: (score/20) × 15	15 pts
Total		100 pts

Example: Team gets 75%. You get peer 18/20, pathfinder 19/20. Final = (75 × 0.70) + (18/20 × 15) + (19/20 × 15) = 52.5 + 13.5 + 14.25 = 80.25%

Strong individual scores can raise you above your team’s grade. Weak individual scores can lower you below it.

Pathfinder rating breakdown (0–20 points)

Category	Points	What it assesses
Documentation Quality	0–7	Consistent, substantive logbook entries with functional evidence links
Professional Practice	0–7	Workflow setup, planning methods, quality processes, reflection
Process Engagement	0–6	Participation in pathfinder sessions, bringing evidence, responding to feedback

How to succeed: document individual contributions each week (30–50 words + links), engage with professional practice tasks introduced in sessions, attend pathfinder check-ins (minimum 2).

See the full Assessment Brief for complete rubric and grade calculation examples.