This document provides you with general information about the requirements for this assessment task. A generic Criterion Reference Assessment (CRA) rubric that markers will use to help grade the assessment task is included.
Task Overview
| Assessment name: | Assignment 2: Interactive Application |
| Task description: | You are required to develop an interactive computer program which allows its user to selectively view data extracted from multiple sources and export chosen data values for later in- spection. The data sources update regularly so your solution must be resilient to any possible changes to the incoming data set. To complete the task you will need to design and implement an application with an appropriate “front-end” Graphical User Interface and corresponding “back-end” data processing functions. |
| Learning outcomes measured: | ULO 2: Effectively use some of the many computer lan- guages needed to build IT systems. ULO 3: Apply appropriate processes and creative thinking to develop solutions to small IT challenges. |
| Due Date: | Part A, user interface: Friday, end of Week 9, at 23:59 Part B, complete solution: Friday, end of Week 12, at 23:59 |
| Estimated time to com- plete task: | Approximately 50 hours |
| Weighting: | Part A: 7% of final grade Part B: 23% of final grade |
| Individual or Group: | Individual |
| Authentic Assessment: | Yes |
| Formative/Summative: | Summative |
| How will I be assessed: | Grading scale using a supplied rubric |
Task details
| What you need to do: | Part A: Read the Criterion Reference Assessment Rubric.Study the “client’s requirements” for the assignment (on Blackboard).Download the program template and other support tools (from Blackboard) and familiarise yourself with them.Identify suitable data sources for your application and fa- miliarise yourself with their various data formats.Design and implement the front-end Graphical User In- terface for your application.Submit Part A (to Blackboard) by the due date above. Part B: Read the Criterion Reference Assessment Rubric.Develop and test the back-end functions needed to pro- cess any possible inputs from each of the data sources.Upload drafts of your solution (to Blackboard) as you make progress.Be prepared to respond to last-minute changes in the re- quirements made by the “client”.Submit Part B (to Blackboard) by the due date above. |
| Presentation requirements: | See the IFB104 Code Presentation Guide (on Black- board) for tips on code layout.See the assignment’s requirements (on Blackboard) for examples of the standard expected of the program’s in- terface and behaviour.Your program must run in a standard Python 3 environ- ment with no extensions. You may not use any Python modules that need to be downloaded and installed sep- arately, such as “Beautiful Soup” or “Pillow”. Only mod- ules that are part of a standard Python 3 installation may be used. |
| Resources needed to complete task: | The following items will be made available on Blackboard: Program template codeThe “client’s” requirements for the programOther resources to assist with the assignment |
Submission Information
| What you need to submit: | Upload your completed application as a single, self-contained zip archive (do not use other compression formats such as RAR or 7z), after checking the following points: You have added your name and student number to the state- ment of authorship at the top of the program template.Your program code runs without “crashing” (generating un- handled exceptions), even if your solution is incomplete. You will receive partial marks for incomplete solutions.Your program code runs in a standard Python 3 environment and does not rely on any separately-installed extension mod- ules. You may not use any Python modules that need to be downloaded and installed separately, such as “Beautiful Soup” or “Pillow”. Only modules that are part of a standard Python 3 installation may be used.You have included any additional files needed to support your Python program, but no other unnecessary files. |
| How to submit: | A link will be made available on the IFB104 Blackboard site under Assessment Task 2 for uploading your solution file. Click on the Submit Assessment Task 2A or Task 2B link.Drag your Assessment file into the Attach Files box or click on the Browse My Computer button to locate your file. Add any comments you wish to make to the teaching staff in the Comments textbox.Click the Submit button. Notes: You can submit as many drafts of your solution as you like. You are strongly encouraged to submit several draft solutions before the final submission date as insurance against com- puter or network problems near the deadline.If you are unsure whether or not you have successfully up- loaded your file, upload it again!If you encounter problems uploading your files to Blackboard contact HiQ’s Technology Services for advice (http://qut.to/ithelp; askqut@qut.edu.au; 3138 2000).Do not email assignments to the teaching staff. Teaching staff cannot submit assignments to Blackboard on a student’s be- half, and Python files are blocked by Microsoft Outlook and will not be received. |
| What feedback will I receive? | Under normal circumstances, you will receive marks for each cri- terion via a Blackboard rubric within 16 days of submission. Click on your mark in MyGrades to see the rubric. Usually the reason for each choice of mark is self-evident, but sometimes the marker will add a few words of explanation. You should use this feedback to strengthen your performance in the next program- ming unit. |
| Moderation: | All staff who assess your work are instructed on the expected quality of solutions and the technical marking criteria before grading begins. |
| Academic Integrity As a student of the QUT academic community, you are asked to work to uphold the principles of academic integrity during your course of study. QUT sets expectations and responsibilities of students, more specifically it states that students “adopt an ethical approach to academic work and assessment in accordance with this policy and the Student Code of Conduct. E/2.1 (MOPP C/5.3 Academic Integrity). At university, students are expected to demonstrate their own understanding and thinking using the ideas provided by ‘others’ to support and inform their work, always making due acknowledgement to the source. While we encourage peer learning, it is not appropriate to share assignments with other students unless your assessment piece has been stated as being a group assignment. If you do share your assignment with another student, and they copy part of or all of your assignment for their submission, this is considered collusion and you may also be reported for academic misconduct. If you are unsure and need further information you can find this at: http://www.mopp.qut.edu.au/C/C_05_03.jsp#C_05_03.03.mdoc. |
IFB104 | Building IT Systems | Assessment Task 2 (30% of Final Grade)
| Criteria | Perfect | High Distinc- tion | Distinction | Credit | Pass | Marginal Fail | Fail | Low Fail | No Evidence |
| PART A | |||||||||
| Intuitive, ca- pable Graph- ical User In- terface Weight (of final grade): 7% | Intuitive, at- tractive GUI with all widgets re- quired for: identifying the app; controlling data access and display; and control- ling data ex- port. (7%) | Excellent but some slight flaw in the user inter- face, e.g., a spelling er- ror or colour choices that make text hard to read. (6.5%) | All necessary widgets are provided but a noticeable problem with the GUI’s layout or basic op- eration, e.g., some widg- ets overlap. (5.6%) | Generally good but some signifi- cant prob- lem with one of the widg- ets, e.g., its intended purpose or operation is unclear. (4.9%) | Good, with all necessary widgets, but layout and clarity of the user inter- face could be improved significantly. (4%) | Significant problems such as one or more nec- essary widg- ets missing or inappro- priate choices of widgets. (3.2%) | Serious problems such as most necessary widgets missing or choices of widgets that cannot meet the user in- teraction re- quirements. (2.3%) | Only a trivial GUI is cre- ated with few widgets and no pos- sibility of supporting the neces- sary user in- teraction. (0.9%) | No evidence of address- ing this crite- rion. (0%) |
| PART B | |||||||||
| Data can be imported from external sources com- pletely and accurately Weight: 7% | Under user control, it is evident that all necessary data can be imported ac- curately and completely from all sources. (7%) | All data can be imported correctly ex- cept in an extreme case, e.g., an abnormally long text value is trun- cated. (6.5%) | All necessary data can be imported but there is some minor formatting error in a small part, e.g., spuri- ous charac- ters or mark- ups. (5.6%) | All necessary data can be imported but there are several formatting errors, inac- curacies or data values missing. (4.9%) | Most data can be im- ported cor- rectly but a significant is- sue with one data source, e.g., many incomplete or mis- matching values. (4%) | Data can be imported from only some of the required data sources or there are serious inad- equacies in large parts of the data imported. (3.2%) | Serious limi- tations, e.g., only one data source can be im- ported cor- rectly or all data sources are hard- wired to re- trieve fixed values only. (2.3%) | Program is hardwired to work with fixed data values only; no ability to import new data. (0.9%) | No evidence of address- ing this crite- rion. (0%) |
| Criteria | Perfect | High Distinc- tion | Distinction | Credit | Pass | Marginal Fail | Fail | Low Fail | No Evidence |
| Data can be displayed cor- rectly using the GUI Weight: 5% | Under user control, all required ex- ternal and imported data can be displayed completely and accu- rately using the GUI. (5%) | Excellent but a slight flaw in the data displayed, e.g., punctu- ation or ty- pographical errors. (4.6%) | All data can be displayed but noticea- ble format- ting errors in a small part, e.g., some slightly ob- scured text. (4%) | Generally good but there are small for- matting problems that affect readability, e.g., bad line breaks or some text truncated. (3.5%) | Good but a small part of the data is presented incorrectly or not at all, e.g., some values miss- ing, or signif- icant prob- lems with readability. (2.9%) | Large parts of the data cannot be displayed, contain sig- nificant inac- curacies, and/or are displayed in a hard-to- read form. (2.3%) | Serious limi- tations in the ability to display data such as only one data source dis- playable or all data dis- played con- tains signifi- cant inaccu- racies. (1.6%) | Program code for dis- playing data cannot run to comple- tion or can display only fixed data values. (0.6%) | No evidence of address- ing this crite- rion. (0%) |
| Data can be exported cor- rectly Weight: 6% | Under user control, any chosen data set can be exported completely and cor- rectly, and is well-format- ted. (6%) | All chosen data can be exported but a small part has a slight formatting error, e.g., one or two spurious characters or symbols. (5.6%) | Chosen data can be ex- ported but there are a few minor formatting errors, or an incorrect or missing value. (4.8%) | Chosen data can be ex- ported but there are a few format- ting errors and inaccu- racies, e.g., mis-matched values. (4.2%) | The majority of the data can be ex- ported but some parts have format- ting errors or inaccuracies, e.g., several missing or mis-matched values. (3.5%) | Many for- matting er- rors or some significant part of the data cannot be exported at all or is in- correct. (2.7%) | Major prob- lems with the ability to choose and export data, e.g., large parts of the data missing or inaccu- rate. (2%) | Only some fixed data values can be exported and/or the user has no control over data export. (0.8%) | No evidence of address- ing this crite- rion. (0%) |
| Code concise- ness, clarity and presenta- tion Weight: 5% | All code is concise, neatly laid out, uses meaningful identifiers, | Excellent but with a minor flaw such as a misleading comment, an obscure | One or two substandard elements such as unin- formative identifiers | Generally good but a few unin- formative identifiers, inadequately | Good but some signifi- cant parts are hard to understand due to poor | Insufficient commenting in many parts, many unhelpful identifiers, | Little code to assess and/or barely any commenting and/or large | Very little code to as- sess or code is inade- | No evidence of address- ing this crite- rion. (0%) |
| Criteria | Perfect | High Distinc- tion | Distinction | Credit | Pass | Marginal Fail | Fail | Low Fail | No Evidence |
| and is com- mented helpfully. (5%) | choice of identifier, etc. (4.6%) | (“i”, “j”, “n”, etc) or inad- equately commented code blocks. (4%) | commented blocks, or unneces- sarily dupli- cated code segments. (3.5%) | commenting or identifier choices, or significant amounts of unnecessary duplication. (2.9%) | and/or large amounts of unneces- sarily dupli- cated code. (2.3%) | amounts of confusing, unneces- sarily dupli- cated code. (1.6%) | quately pre- sented throughout. (0.6%) |
Get expert help for IFB104 BUILDING IT SYSTEMS and many more. 24X7 help, plag-free solution. Order online now!
