代做IDEPG001、代寫c/c++，Java編程設(shè)計(jì)
時(shí)間：2024-04-12 來源： 作者： 我要糾錯(cuò)
Programming
Programming V1 2324 © NCUK Ltd. 2023 Page 1 of 8
NCUK INTERNATIONAL YEAR ONE ENGINEERING
IDEPG001 Programming
Coursework
2023-2024
Coursework
The marks for each element are clearly indicated in the attached marking
scheme.
This assignment constitutes 70% of the total marks for this subject.
Programming
Programming V1 2324 © NCUK Ltd. 2023 Page 2 of 8
The brief
As part of a climate change project, a nature reserve near the city of Durham, North East
England requires a program to record and analyse rainfall data. The data are collected
from rain gauges and entered manually into a test file. The program will load and analyse
the data.
Your program should perform the following functions:
1. Load data from a text file. The format, and sample data are shown below.
2. Display formatted data onto the screen, for example:
3. Perform data analysis in the following way, displaying results on the screen in a
suitably formatted way.
a. For a specific year which is entered by the user: The rainfall for each month,
total annual rainfall, mean monthly rainfall, the month with least rainfall (&
its value), the month with the most rainfall (& its value).
i. NB To demonstrate you can use structures, the statistics (should be
calculated and stored in a suitable data structure (C struct).
b. For a specific period between 2 years (which are entered by the user): The
mean annual rainfall, year with least rainfall (& its value), the year with
most rainfall (& its value).
c. For a specific period between 2 years (which are entered by the user): a
sorted list of years and annual rainfall.
d. For a specific period between 2 years (which are entered by the user): the
driest month and wettest month in the period (with year, month & values).
e. For a given year, the variance from the long term mean of annual rainfall.
4. The options should be offered as a menu on the screen, Option 3 should provide a
sub-menu for the analysis options. There should be options to exit the sub-menu
and program. A simple text menu, such as the following is appropriate:
Programming
Programming V1 2324 © NCUK Ltd. 2023 Page 3 of 8
5. Validation of inputs should be included as follows:
a. Menu choices should be limited to integers in the range of options
b. Years that are entered should be limited to integers in the range of the fullyear data.
c. Where two years are entered (for a range), the second year must be greater
than the first.
Guidance
1. Your program should be well structured and commented, with meaningful variable
names. Constants and user-defined functions should be used in appropriate places
for clarity and to reduce duplication.
2. The program should be developed in an incremental way, we recommend that you
start by creating the menus, and validation of the menu choices before moving
onto the more complex elements.
3. Functions should be used to break the program up into meaningful (and reusable)
modules.
4. Look carefully at the marking scheme and grading rubric to ensure you meet the
requirements of the assignment in full. Ask your tutor if there are any aspects that
you do not understand.
5. Note that the results of the single-year analysis must be stored in a data structure
(struct).
6. At the end, it is recommended that you put your program through a pretty printer
to ensure it is consistently formatted.
Data
The data to be used by the program is shown below. This should be copied into a text file
for the program to read. The name of the text file can be hard coded into the program in
this assignment.
2000 35 30 21 150 46 89 49 44 84 119 148 72
2001 46 104 43 60 15 38 13 76 75 77 36 54
2002 37 84 37 19 53 47 80 91 25 86 84 92
2003 62 18 18 24 44 61 50 16 41 42 46 65
2004 97 29 25 54 22 68 63 156 20 120 18 20
2005 36 42 45 82 20 36 73 38 64 75 72 38
2006 21 44 79 24 84 13 10 57 35 53 126 77
2007 56 70 21 11 50 119 100 31 39 13 61 53
2008 113 13 38 84 21 77 134 95 98 45 41 57
2009 39 36 21 37 38 78 169 37 14 46 147 81
2010 60 68 68 12 24 56 62 45 76 62 157 41
2011 36 58 25 7 40 48 66 125 28 54 27 52
2012 30 10 15 134 66 137 98 103 116 84 125 99
2013 81 27 59 23 101 23 53 71 85 100 54 65
2014 91 61 33 56 78 47 54 79 16 51 64 27
Programming
Programming V1 2324 © NCUK Ltd. 2023 Page 4 of 8
2015 49 15 40 21 71 28 86 81 38 70 104 120
2016 117 30 52 83 39 50 35 70 36 52 86 46
2017 33 57 42 29 20 103 71 49 89 29 86 25
2018 55 51 76 75 25 31 48 50 47 53 56 44
2019 15 28 53 30 37 108 70 81 84 88 107 29
2020 33 87 24 4 18 83 56 111 57 95 26 112
2021 137 82 24 14 82 29 69 45 44 86 51 71
2022 16 65 41 27 51 40 49 13 99 90 104 60
2023 38 20 53 50
Programming
Programming V1 2324 © NCUK Ltd. 2023 Page 5 of 8
Marking scheme
Part 1 – Design (30%)
It is expected that you will follow the guidance provided in the lectures to produce
your models. Flowcharts and Pseudo code are alternative ways of process
modelling. To demonstrate that you can use both representations, you should
provide models as follows:
Pseudo code (10%) should be provided for the analysis options 3a (single
year analysis) and 3c (sorted list).
Flow chart (10%) should be provided for the Load data option.
STD (10%) A State Transition Diagram should be provided for the menu
system.
Part 2 – Test plan (20%)
Details of what is to be tested, why, what was the expected outcome, remedial
action if required. All tests should be supported by a screen shot proving the test
was completed.
Part 3 – Application (40%)
All source code provided in a numbered listing with a consist use of comments,
appropriate naming convention and pretty printing.
The code must be suitably demonstrated for the marks to be awarded for this
element. You are expected to be able to answer questions about your program
and handle the tutor modifying the source data.
Part 4 – Review (10%)
A suitably written reflective report communicating your learning through the
assignment, the skills you have developed and areas that need further
improvement.
All submissions are to be in the format detailed by your tutor.
Programming
Programming V1 2324 © NCUK Ltd. 2023 Page 6 of 8
Criteria Assessed
Element
Acquisition and application of requisite knowledge
Novice [0 – 39%] Beginner [40 –49%] Competent [50 –
59%]
Proficient [60 – 69%] Expert [70 – 100%]
Quality of models.
30%
Pseudo code
(10%) Flow
chart (10%)
STD (10%)
Very poorly presented
models inappropriate
or wholly ineffective.
Issues with models which
undermines the
appropriateness and
efficacy. But there is clear
evidence of effort in the
attempt and techniques
are identifiable.
Acceptable models
though there are minor
issues with
appropriateness and
efficacy and/or
notational errors.
No noticeable limitations in
the models. Techniques
have been used to an
appropriate standard
though there may be
some minor omissions or
errors that reduce the
completeness of the
models.
Models are extremely
effective and
professionally presented,
notations have been used
appropriately and the
models wholly map to the
provided solution.
Test documentation
20%
Plan including
reason for
testing,
expected
result, actual
result and
evidence of
remedial
action and test
execution
Very poor testing,
major functionality
untested and/or lack
of any real plan,
evidence of execution
or management.
Basic level of testing
evident though errors and
omissions evident and the
plan has evidence of test
executions though it is not
convincing in its
application or
management.
Satisfactory plan testing
the major executable
functions of the system
and evidence of tests
being executed and
managed but not
compelling.
Good plan with significant
majority of the system
tested as required with
minor omissions. Clear
evidence of execution and
management.
Excellent and
comprehensive plan;
comprehensive evidence
of the tests being
executed and managed.
Application
40%
Execution
(50%)
Application is limited in
features, poorly
engineered lacking
robustness and
extensibility and
rigour.
Application has most of
the required features
evident though lacks
thorough engineering
leading to insufficient
extensibility and/or
robustness with limited
rigour evident.
Acceptable solution
thorough not
convincingly engineered
which may limit
extensibility and/or
robustness, rigour is
deficient.
Solution is well engineered
with evidence of
extensibility. There may be
some minor lack of
robustness and/or
features, or rigour
Wholly professional
approach with solution
well-engineered, robust
and extensible.
Usability
(10%)
No interaction and
very limited output.
System functions but there
is no interaction and only
minimum output.
Acceptable usability
though no user
interaction to load data
and/or very basic
output.
Good, usable application
with basic user interface
provide, loads data as
required and has the
minimum output well
displayed.
Excellent, near
professional quality
interface and interactivity.
User has freedom to load
data and the outputs are
extensive with excellent
presentation.
Quality (20%) Program does not
produce correct
results; the standard
of coding is poor with
no real attempt to
meet a quality
threshold.
Code executes and results
are produced but they are
not validated and/or the
standard of the code is
basic.
Acceptable quality with
clear evidence the
correct result is
produced, the standard
of coding is acceptable
though there are clearly
issues with consistency.
Good quality throughout,
the application executes as
required and results are
valid code quality has
some issues such as pretty
printing or naming
convention not consistent.
Excellent quality, executes
as required, results are
valid and code is
professionally presented.
Programming
Programming V1 2324 © NCUK Ltd. 2023 Page 7 of 8
Evidence of
comprehension
(20%)
Lacking, student
appears unable to
explain the code and
features used and had
very little evidence of
skills being acquired
and applied.
Basic evidence of
comprehension, can
explain the major parts of
the program though
lacking evidence of
understanding the more
complex language features
applied. Skill level was
sufficient to complete the
basic tasks but not more
advanced work.
Acceptable though there
are some more
fundamental areas that
the student is not so
confident explaining or
has misunderstood.
They display the skill
level expected to
succeed with the
assignment.
Good knowledge of the
code though not
comprehensive or
compelling they are able
to explain the main
features of the program
and how it executes and
display an above average
skill in their work.
Excellent, student fully
understood all the work
submitted, could explain
the relationship between
the model and the code,
the how the program
executes and showed well
above average and skill in
the production of the
work.
Review
10%
Degree to
which you
have reflected
appropriately
on the work
you have
produced, the
lessons learnt,
strengths and
weaknesses
etc.
Not a reflective
account, details are
presented as is
rather than
considering the
impact upon the
learner.
Evidence of some
reflection rather than
just a narrative of the
process though not
consistent.
Clear evidence of
reflection though
lacking depth and
some objectivity.
Reflection is evident
throughout identifying
areas of development
and skill acquisition
though minor
inconsistencies present.
Deeply reflective
account with clear
evidence of
development and skill
acquisition along with
evaluation of previous
skill and knowledge
deployment.
Programming
Programming V1 2324 © NCUK Ltd. 2023 Page 8 of 8
請(qǐng)加QQ：99515681 郵箱：99515681@qq.com WX：codinghelp
標(biāo)簽：
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|