Fill This Form To Receive Instant Help
Fill This Form To Receive Instant Help
Homework answers / question archive / COM4018 Introduction to Programming Assignment Brief As part of the formal assessment for the programme you are required to submit a Introduction to Programming assignment
COM4018 Introduction to Programming
Assignment Brief
As part of the formal assessment for the programme you are required to submit a Introduction to Programming assignment. Please refer to your Student Handbook for full details of the programme assessment scheme and general information on preparing and submitting assignments. The assignment brief will specifically give details and instructions for the assignment. No examination, or details of, are included within this module.
Description: The assignment is given as three separate tasks. Each task is to be answered individually. Task 1 has been written and designed to check your knowledge and understand of data structures and programming techniques, including pseudocode. Task 2 checks your knowledge and understanding of Algorithms and arrays, in order for you to put given integers in the correctly stated order. Task 3 gives you the opportunity to write an extended code, once the initial pseudocode has been written. This particular task will check your knowledge and understanding of loops and IF statements.
Note: The code that you write in order to complete all three tasks will be documented in two ways. The first being screenshotted evidence within your submitted word document, with detailed reasoning and justification for your processes. Secondly, your written code for each task that you have screenshotted, will be copy / pasted into the appendices at the end of your submission, so it can be checked for validity within the software.
Learning outcomes:
After completing the modules you should be able to:
from concept to development and testing.
Graduate attributes
Your assignment should include: a title page containing your student number, the module name, the submission deadline and the exact word count of your submitted document; the appendices if relevant; and a reference list in AU Harvard system(s). You should address all the elements of the assignment task listed below. Please note that tutors will use the assessment criteria set out below in assessing your work.
You must not include your name in your submission because Arden University operates anonymous marking, which means that markers should not be aware of the identity of the student. However, please do not forget to include your STU number.
Please refer to the full word count policy which can be found in the Student Policies section here:
Please note the following:
Students are required to indicate the exact word count on the title page of the assessment.
The word count includes everything in the main body of the assessment (including in text citations and references). The word count excludes numerical data in tables, figures, diagrams, footnotes, reference list and appendices. ALL other printed words ARE included in the word count.
Please note that exceeding the word count by over 10% will result in a 10-percentage point deduction.
Assignment Task
Task 1:
You are developer and you wish to build five new houses, all from wood and all uniform. Each house has 3 rooms, all with exactly the same dimensions, i.e. 2m x 4m. Wood prices have been set at £6.00 per meter.
You need to determine the total cost of the build of all five houses. Initially, you will need to write the pseudocode to solve the following problem, define the variable name and data types, plus write the code to solve the total build cost.
Hint: Determine the area of each room in each house and the total area of all rooms combined. Thus, giving the total price of the construction.
(30 marks)
(LOs: 1, 2, 3)
Task 2:
As a digital business analysist, you have been asked by your line manager to supply the last seven months traffic figures to your company’s website. At the moment, the traffic numbers are not in ascending order.
Write the pseudocode to solve the initial problem and then write a Java algorithmic program to sort the array of given traffic figures. The traffic numbers to sort correctly are:
2, -17, 8, 26, 1, 0, 84
(30 marks)
(LOs: 1, 2, 3)
An owner of an auto repair shop wishes to organise his team of mechanics at the beginning of the day. To make the distribution of work equal, he organises cars with an even amount of faults into bay 1 and cars with an odd amount of faults into bay 2. There are nine cars in total
Write the pseudocode for the problem, then write a Java program to separate the even and odd number of car faults. Have all even numbers displayed first, then odd numbers at the end. The repairs required for each car are as follows.
18, 14, 12, 6, 4, 21, 19, 9, 3
(40 marks)
(LOs: 1, 2, 3)
End of questions
As technology and platforms may change, your module tutor will provide you with up-to-date details.
You have the opportunity to submit a draft report to receive formative feedback. You are encouraged to submit your assignment for feedback once and it is 30% of your entire submission. You, the student, are to choose 30%, not the tutor. The last day for guaranteed feedback hand in is the last Sunday before submission at 23:58. No formative feedback will be given after the time specified above, either blended, or distance learning.
The Feedback is designed to help you develop areas of your work, encouraging academic skills and independent learning.
If you are a Distance Learning student, then you are encouraged to send 30% of your assignment for feedback by email to your tutor, no later than two weeks before your final submission date. Dates will be given to you by your tutor on a module by module basis.
You MUST underpin your analysis and evaluation of the key issues with appropriate and wide ranging academic research, ensuring all cited literature is referenced using the AU Harvard system(s).
Follow this link to find the referencing guides for your subject: Arden Library
Assignments submitted late will not be accepted and will be marked as a 0% fail.
Your assessment should be submitted as a single Word (MS Word with your student number as the file name). The submission for each task should be presented under a relevant heading e.g.
Task 1 – as heading
Pseudocode for task 1– as heading
Content related to pseudocode under this heading
Code for task 1 – as heading
Content related to code for task here
The code clearly presented so that it can be copied and pasted into a suitable coding platform to be executed and tested. For more information please see the
“Submitting an Assignment - Guide” document available on the A-Z key information on iLearn.
You must ensure that the submitted assignment is all your own work and that all sources used are correctly attributed. Penalties apply to assignments which show evidence of academic unfair practice. (See the Student Handbook which is available on the A-Z key information on iLearn.)
Assessment Criteria (Learning objectives covered - all)
|
Level 4 is the first stage on the student journey into undergraduate study. At Level 4 students will be developing their knowledge and understanding of the discipline and will be expected to demonstrate some of those skills and competences. Student are expected to express their ideas clearly and to structure and develop academic arguments in their work. Students will begin to apply the theory which underpins the subject and will start to explore how this relates to other areas of their learning and any ethical considerations as appropriate. Students will begin to develop self-awareness of their own academic and professional development. |
||
|
|
||
|
Grade |
Mark Bands |
Generic Assessment Criteria |
|
First (1) |
80%+ |
Outstanding performance which demonstrates the ability to analyse the subject area and to confidently apply theory whilst showing awareness of any relevant ethical considerations. The work shows an excellent level of competence and confidence in managing appropriate sources and materials, initiative and excellent academic writing skills and professional skills (where appropriate). The work shows originality of thought. |
|
70- 79% |
Excellent performance which demonstrates the ability to analyse the subject and apply theory whilst showing some awareness of any relevant ethical considerations. The work shows a high level of competence in managing sources and materials, initiative and very good academic writing skills and professional skills (where appropriate). The work shows originality of thought. |
|
|
Upper second (2:1) |
60- 69% |
Very good performance which demonstrates the ability to analyse the subject and apply some theory. The work shows a good level of competence in managing sources and materials and some initiative. Academic writing skills are good and expression remains accurate overall. Good professional skills (where appropriate). The work shows some original thought. |
|
Lower second (2:2) |
50- 59% |
A satisfactory to good performance which begins to analyse the subject and apply some underpinning theory. The work shows a sound level of competence in managing basic sources and materials. Academic writing skills are satisfactory and expression remains accurate overall although the piece may lack structure. Satisfactory professional skills (where appropriate). The work lacks some original thought. |
|
Third (3) |
40- 49% |
Basic level of performance in which there are some omissions in understanding the subject, its underpinning theory and ethical considerations. The work shows a basic use of sources and materials. Academic writing skills are limited and there are some errors in expression and the work may lack structure overall. There are some difficulties in developing professional skills (where appropriate). The work lacks original thought and is largely imitative. |
|
Marginal fail |
30- 39% |
Limited performance in which there are omissions in understanding the subject, its underpinning theory and ethical considerations. The work shows a limited use of sources and materials. Academic writing skills are weak and there are errors in expression and the work may lack structure overall. There are difficulties in developing professional skills (where appropriate). The work lacks original thought and is largely imitative. |
|
|
29% and below |
A poor performance in which there are substantial gaps in knowledge and understanding, underpinning theory and ethical considerations. The work shows little evidence in the use of appropriate sources and materials. Academic writing skills are very weak and there are numerous errors in expression. The work lacks structure overall. Professional skills (where appropriate) are not developed. The work is imitative. |
|
Criteria and weighting |
Outstanding 80% - 100% |
Excellent 70% - 79% |
Very Good 60% - 69% |
Good 50% - 59% |
Pass 40% - 49% |
Poor 30 – 39% |
Fail 0 – 29% |
|
Task 1 Building contractor
Pseudocode (20%)
|
An outstanding level of documention and design, which addresses all aspects of the problem specification and the design process and demonstrates a practitioner level of understanding of the process of design. |
An excellent level of documention and design, which addresses all aspects of the problem specification and the design process and demsonstrates an excellent level of understanding of the process of design. |
An very good level of documention and design, which addresses most aspects of the problem specification and the design process , with some minor omissions or errors and demsonstrates an very good level of understanding of the process of design. |
A good level of documention and design, which addresses some aspects of the problem specification and the design process but there is scope for more depth and/or there are some errors or omissions. Demonstrates a good level of understanding of the process of design. |
A basic level of documention and design, which addresses some aspects of the problem specification and the design process but there is scope for much more depth and/or there are a number of errors or omissions. Demonstrates a basic level of understanding of the process of design. |
An insufficient level of documention and design, which addresses limited aspects of the problem specification and the design process Demonstrates a insufficient level of understanding of the process of design. |
A very limited or wholly absent level of documention and design. |
|
Task 1
Code (60%)
|
A professional level of coding that demonstrates an exceptional level of understanding in terms of structure, use of programming constructs, |
An excellent level of coding that demonstrates an excellent level of understanding in terms of structure, use of programming constructs, |
A very good level of coding that demonstrates a very high level of understanding in terms of structure, use of programming constructs, |
A good level of coding that demonstrates a good understanding in terms of structure, use of programming constructs, |
A satisfactory level of coding that demonstrates some understanding in terms of structure, use of programming constructs, |
An unsatisfactory level of coding that demonstrates a lack of understanding at the required level in terms of structure, use of programming |
An mosty absent level of coding that demonstrates a little to no of understanding at the required level in terms of structure, use of programming |
|
|
readability, naming conventions for variables and commenting and satisfies the problem specification at a professional level. |
readability, naming conventions for variables and commenting and satisfies the problem specification to an excellent level. |
readability, naming conventions for variables and commenting, though three may be minor issues or areas for development. A very good attempt at addressing theproblem specification. |
readability, naming conventions for variables and commenting, though there is scope for improvement ina number of areas. A good attempt to address the problem specification but there may be some issues or omissins. |
readability, naming conventions for variables and commenting, but there is scope much more development in a number of areas. A basic attempt to address the problem specification with scope for further work |
constructs, readability, naming conventions for variables and commenting, An insufficient attempt to address the problem specification with scope for much more work. |
constructs, readability, naming conventions for variables and commenting, A lack of evidence that the problem specification has been attempted. |
|
Task 1
Execution (20%)
|
An outstanding level of execution which satisfies all requirements and operates without errors. |
An excellent level of execution which satisfies all requirements and operates without errors. |
An very good level of execution which satisfies the majority of requirements and operates mostly without errors. |
An good level of execution which satisfies most requirements, though there are omissions or errors. |
An basic level of execution which satisfies some requirements, though there are major errors omissions. |
An sufficient level of execution, where the program runs, but mostly incorrectly. |
The program does not run or compile at all. |
|
Criteria and weighting |
Outstanding 80% - 100% |
Excellent 70% - 79% |
Very Good 60% - 69% |
Good 50% - 59% |
Pass 40% - 49% |
Poor 30 – 39% |
Fail 0 – 29% |
|
Task 1 Building contractor
Pseudocode (20%)
|
An outstanding level of documention and design, which addresses all aspects of the problem specification and the design process and demonstrates a practitioner level of understanding of the process of design. |
An excellent level of documention and design, which addresses all aspects of the problem specification and the design process and demsonstrates an excellent level of understanding of the process of design. |
An very good level of documention and design, which addresses most aspects of the problem specification and the design process , with some minor omissions or errors and demsonstrates an very good level of understanding of the process of design. |
A good level of documention and design, which addresses some aspects of the problem specification and the design process but there is scope for more depth and/or there are some errors or omissions. Demonstrates a good level of understanding of the process of design. |
A basic level of documention and design, which addresses some aspects of the problem specification and the design process but there is scope for much more depth and/or there are a number of errors or omissions. Demonstrates a basic level of understanding of the process of design. |
An insufficient level of documention and design, which addresses limited aspects of the problem specification and the design process Demonstrates a insufficient level of understanding of the process of design. |
A very limited or wholly absent level of documention and design. |
|
Task 1
Code (60%)
|
A professional level of coding that demonstrates an exceptional level of understanding in terms of structure, use of programming constructs, readability, naming conventions for variables and |
An excellent level of coding that demonstrates an excellent level of understanding in terms of structure, use of programming constructs, readability, naming conventions for variables and |
A very good level of coding that demonstrates a very high level of understanding in terms of structure, use of programming constructs, readability, naming conventions for variables and |
A good level of coding that demonstrates a good understanding in terms of structure, use of programming constructs, readability, naming conventions for variables and |
A satisfactory level of coding that demonstrates some understanding in terms of structure, use of programming constructs, readability, naming conventions for variables and |
An unsatisfactory level of coding that demonstrates a lack of understanding at the required level in terms of structure, use of programming constructs, readability, naming conventions for |
An mosty absent level of coding that demonstrates a little to no of understanding at the required level in terms of structure, use of programming constructs, readability, naming conventions for |
|
|
commenting and satisfies the problem specification at a professional level. |
commenting and satisfies the problem specification to an excellent level. |
commenting, though three may be minor issues or areas for development. A very good attempt at addressing theproblem specification. |
commenting, though there is scope for improvement ina number of areas. A good attempt to address the problem specification but there may be some issues or omissins. |
commenting, but there is scope much more development in a number of areas. A basic attempt to address the problem specification with scope for further work |
variables and commenting, An insufficient attempt to address the problem specification with scope for much more work. |
variables and commenting, A lack of evidence that the problem specification has been attempted. |
|
Task 1
Execution (20%)
|
An outstanding level of execution which satisfies all requirements and operates without errors. |
An excellent level of execution which satisfies all requirements and operates without errors. |
An very good level of execution which satisfies the majority of requirements and operates mostly without errors. |
An good level of execution which satisfies most requirements, though there are omissions or errors. |
An basic level of execution which satisfies some requirements, though there are major errors omissions. |
An sufficient level of execution, where the program runs, but mostly incorrectly. |
The program does not run or compile at all. |
|
Criteria and weighting |
Outstanding 80% - 100% |
Excellent 70% - 79% |
Very Good 60% - 69% |
Good 50% - 59% |
Pass 40% - 49% |
Poor 30 – 39% |
Fail 0 – 29% |
|
Task 1 Building contractor |
An outstanding level of |
An excellent level of documention |
An very good level of documention |
A good level of documention and |
A basic level of documention and |
An insufficient level of documention |
A very limited or wholly absent level |
|
Pseudocode (20%)
|
documention and design, which addresses all aspects of the problem specification and the design process and demonstrates a practitioner level of understanding of the process of design. |
and design, which addresses all aspects of the problem specification and the design process and demsonstrates an excellent level of understanding of the process of design. |
and design, which addresses most aspects of the problem specification and the design process , with some minor omissions or errors and demsonstrates an very good level of understanding of the process of design. |
design, which addresses some aspects of the problem specification and the design process but there is scope for more depth and/or there are some errors or omissions. Demonstrates a good level of understanding of the process of design. |
design, which addresses some aspects of the problem specification and the design process but there is scope for much more depth and/or there are a number of errors or omissions. Demonstrates a basic level of understanding of the process of design. |
and design, which addresses limited aspects of the problem specification and the design process Demonstrates a insufficient level of understanding of the process of design. |
of documention and design. |
|
Task 1
Code (60%)
|
A professional level of coding that demonstrates an exceptional level of understanding in terms of structure, use of programming constructs, readability, naming conventions for variables and commenting and satisfies the problem specification at a professional level. |
An excellent level of coding that demonstrates an excellent level of understanding in terms of structure, use of programming constructs, readability, naming conventions for variables and commenting and satisfies the problem specification to an excellent level. |
A very good level of coding that demonstrates a very high level of understanding in terms of structure, use of programming constructs, readability, naming conventions for variables and commenting, though three may be minor issues or areas for development. A very good attempt at addressing |
A good level of coding that demonstrates a good understanding in terms of structure, use of programming constructs, readability, naming conventions for variables and commenting, though there is scope for improvement ina number of areas. A good attempt to address the problem |
A satisfactory level of coding that demonstrates some understanding in terms of structure, use of programming constructs, readability, naming conventions for variables and commenting, but there is scope much more development in a number of areas. A basic attempt to address the problem |
An unsatisfactory level of coding that demonstrates a lack of understanding at the required level in terms of structure, use of programming constructs, readability, naming conventions for variables and commenting, An insufficient attempt to address the problem specification with scope for much more work. |
An mosty absent level of coding that demonstrates a little to no of understanding at the required level in terms of structure, use of programming constructs, readability, naming conventions for variables and commenting, A lack of evidence that the problem specification has been attempted. |
|
|
|
|
theproblem specification. |
specification but there may be some issues or omissins. |
specification with scope for further work |
|
|
|
Task 1
Execution (20%)
|
An outstanding level of execution which satisfies all requirements and operates without errors. |
An excellent level of execution which satisfies all requirements and operates without errors. |
An very good level of execution which satisfies the majority of requirements and operates mostly without errors. |
An good level of execution which satisfies most requirements, though there are omissions or errors. |
An basic level of execution which satisfies some requirements, though there are major errors omissions. |
An sufficient level of execution, where the program runs, but mostly incorrectly. |
The program does not run or compile at all. |
Already member? Sign In
