代写IDEPG001、Python/c++编程代做

日期：2024-03-30 07:54

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