1 · Our ConnectEA course website
Register your full name, GitHub repository and live website. Use the project board and agents for progress and feedback. These links do not prove your individual learning.
Register or update project links ↗0403EE · MINOR DIGITAL SKILLS · YEAR 4 · 7 EC
Show your work.
Not just your website.
Explain what you started with, what you personally changed, how you tested it and what you learned. Your website is one piece of the evidence.
Two places. Two different purposes.
2 · The university’s Connect platform
Open the official Year 4 assessment assignment. Upload your individual PDF portfolio and supporting evidence, complete its submission action and check the submitted status or receipt.
Use the deadline and assessment opportunity shown there. This course website does not submit work to the university on your behalf.
A project link, saved draft, AI practice log or agent score is not your final university portfolio submission. Each student submits their own evidence, even when the team shares one website.
Three steps to submit
Register your project
Add your full name, GitHub repository and live website. Each student identifies their own contribution, including shared projects.
Prepare one individual PDF
Copy the short template into Word or Google Docs. Explain your starting point, then add evidence under the four graded components. For each meaningful task: before → your prompt/method → your correction → actual test result → what you learned. Put screenshots and links beside your answers.
Upload to the university’s Connect assignment
Export Surname_Firstname_0403EE_Portfolio.pdf, check evidence access, upload it with supporting files if needed and confirm the submitted status. Use the deadline shown on the university assignment. Registering links here does not submit that PDF.
Exactly what to upload
One individual PDF portfolio, named with your name, student ID, course and date/version, plus indexed evidence links and supporting screenshots, recordings or files as needed. Follow the university platform’s accepted file formats and size limits.
Use the short template’s four component headings. The reference below explains the evidence you can place within those sections; it does not require eight separate documents or add grading categories.
| Portfolio section | What the assessor needs to see |
|---|---|
| Introduction · Starting point & contribution | What existed before the course; dated baseline where available; reused material and credits; your responsibilities; changes you made during the course. |
| Within each component · Work & prompt trail | Task/date → actual prompt and relevant output, where used → your judgement/correction → change/version → observed test → learning. Select meaningful examples, not an unexplained chat dump. |
| 1 · Participation · 15% | Dated workshop contributions, practical work, discussion and peer feedback. The Field Expert checks attendance and participation records; commits do not prove attendance. |
| 2 · Digital Presence · 30% | Live website and source/version; repeatable demo steps and dated journey-test evidence; Google Analytics implementation and an observed test visit/action in the correct property; social profile setup and dated post index. |
| 3 · Advertising · 20% | Campaign setup, objective, audience, targeting, creative/ad and landing page; dated optimisation records showing observation → change → reason → subsequent result. Label draft, simulated and live activity. |
| 4 · Experimentation · 35% | Own-account screenshots or short recordings and explanations for the supplied blockchain, crypto, NFT, DeFi and day-trading criteria. Identify the action, date, result, learning and limitations. AI prompting alone is not a substitute. |
| Within each component · Learning & evidence | What you can now do/explain; a decision and a correction you made; your individual learning; an index linking each claim to a dated file or artefact and your role. |
| Optional · Response to agent feedback | Where used: report date/version, finding, your verification, change and retest—or your evidence-based reason for rejecting the advice. |
Optional detailed evidence guide ↓
What counts as evidence of learning?
Insufficient on its own: “Here is my site. I used AI. It works.”
Illustrative example—not a claim about your work: “The starting version had a contact button but no confirmation. My prompt asked the agent to implement a submission flow. I rejected its first version because it exposed an API key. I moved the call server-side, linked the fix, then tested valid and invalid submissions. The recording shows the confirmation and error state. I learned why secrets belong on the server.”
The assessor can trace the starting state, your decision, the change and the observed result. The same approach applies to analytics, campaigns and other assessed work.
Keep private account evidence on the university’s submission platform. Do not paste the full private portfolio, credentials, private keys or customer data into public project cards or quests. Use safe test data and redact irrelevant personal information.
How website verification works
Agent feedback is optional and depends on service availability. If the checker is unavailable, continue testing your website yourself and submit your portfolio normally. You do not need an agent score to submit.
| Stage | What happens | What it does not prove |
|---|---|---|
| Project registration | You add your name, repository and live URL to our board. | Authorship, course-period learning, functionality or a completed university submission. |
| Automated checks | Selected public source files, public quest evidence and cached commit metadata are inspected. A LEGIT Agentic technical website scan is requested when available. | A complete code audit, an executed customer journey, private analytics activity or ownership of the work. |
| Utility agent | Formative feedback on usefulness, implementation, tests and iteration; reasons, ideas and copyable prompts. | An official mark out of 10. Its /100 rubric is not the university rubric. |
| Design agent | Separate source-based design feedback and optional score. | A rendered visual inspection or any pass/fail decision. Design score is excluded from university grading. |
| Your verification | You run the relevant task, capture its actual result, check an agent finding and document a correction/retest. | Untested claims must remain labelled as claims; an AI-generated test plan is not an executed test. |
| Instructor assessment | The Field Expert examines the individual portfolio, tries the relevant website task, reviews component evidence and asks for explanations where needed. | Missing evidence cannot be replaced by a high technical score. An unavailable API or private link is “unverified” until clarified. |
To run the checker, choose your registered project and use the browser where you submitted it, or ask the instructor to run it. Public source inspection needs a public repository; arrange direct assessor access for private material. Keep the report timestamp and the version reviewed.
Open Utility + Design checker ↗ Technical scope and limits →
Google Analytics: show a dated test visit/action in the correct property. Installing a package is not proof that data arrives. Other analytics tools can support classroom experiments but do not automatically replace Google Analytics in the supplied university brief.
How your official marks are awarded
- Access and completeness: the assessor checks the portfolio, supporting files and links. Missing evidence is recorded for clarification; completing a checklist does not earn a pass.
- Individual work and learning: your baseline, prompts/method, corrections, tests and explanation show what you contributed during the course.
- Four component decisions: the Field Expert matches evidence to each component’s university grade-band descriptor, records a mark and explains the reason, strengths and gaps. No exact mark is generated from a count of prompts, commits or tools.
- Weighted result and pass check: apply the formula below. Every component must reach 5.5; a higher average cannot compensate for a failed component. Missing marks remain pending.
Final result = Participation × 15% + Digital Presence × 30% + Digital Advertising × 20% + Experimentation × 35%.
Each component is marked out of 10. Bands: 0–5.4 Not sufficient · 5.5–6.9 Sufficient · 7–8.4 Good · 8.5–10 Excellent.
AI practice scores, Utility scores, optional Design scores, link-submission points and quest points are separate feedback/progress measures. None automatically converts into an official component grade. Design taste is not an additional assessed component; the required social-profile setup and website functionality remain part of Digital Presence.
Deadlines: use the official university Connect assignment. The 19 November working-version and 26 November improvement checkpoints are classroom practice milestones, not automatically the final assessment deadline.
COHORT CONFIRMED · 7 EC VERSION · 15 / 30 / 20 / 35
Full product targets and university grade bands
The targets and original grade-band descriptions below come from the supplied 7 EC brief. The target names three social accounts, two campaign platforms and experimentation actions; lower bands describe less evidence. The Field Expert applies the published bands and explains the judgement. The targets are not extra automatic pass gates invented by our checker.
View the project-link tracker — progress only
This tracks links, not portfolio uploads to the university or awarded grades.