| PROGRAMME | BEng (Hons) Software Engineering |
| DATE | Week – 15 |
| MODULE CODE | SWE5201 |
| MODULE TITLE | Advanced Programming |
| Word Count | 2000 (+/-10%) |
| ASSESSMENT TYPE | Assignment 2 |
| WEIGHTING | 75% |
| Learning Outcomes: LO2: Implement algorithms and data structures using advanced programming approaches LO3: Apply appropriate refactoring strategies to optimise programmed solutions LO4: Implement appropriate testing methodologies for verification and validation |
Assessment Type: Portfolio
The assessment for this module is a portfolio which consists of four required parts. This assessment is worth 75% of your overall grade for this module.
This is an INDIVIDUAL piece of work contributing towards the module assessment. Evidence of plagiarism or collusion will be taken seriously and University regulations followed. You are advised to be familiar with the University definitions of plagiarism and collusion.
Specific Assessment Criteria:
• Use a range of advanced programming techniques appropriately and correctly to produce a program which performs more efficiently and is easier to debug and maintain
• Select and implement appropriate testing methodologies to verify program meets requirements
Requirements / Deliverables:
For this second assignment – Having successfully designed your intended solution during the first assignment earlier in this module – you now required to implement and test an application that makes appropriate and correct use of several advanced programming approaches such as:
Object/Relational Mappers, Encapsulation, Polymorphism, Inheritance, Interfaces, Enumerations Refactoring Design Patterns etc.
By making use of such approaches, you are required to use C# and Visual Studio or Java to build a simple application for the student information system of the Regent College London.
The system must offer the user (a staff member of the company) the ability to:
- Display the record of a student
- Inserting a student into the record
- Deleting a student from the record
- Searching a student record that may show their progress in different modules
- View a list of courses that are being offered by each department
- View a list of students that are being enrolled in different departments
- View a list of undergraduate and post graduate courses that are available in each campus
The program should store data in memory where necessary but should also make appropriate use of file or database storage as appropriate. Your code must be fully commented and should be free of compilation errors at the point of submission. As well as your source code (LO2), you also need to submit an implementation report which documents the following:
• An explanation of the advanced programming approaches you have used and why you feel they lead to a better final program overall (LO2).
• The development/evolution of your solution as you progressed by applying appropriate design pattern(s) (LO2) and refactoring to your code (LO3)
• The process of and results from testing carried out using an appropriate testing methodology (such as unit testing) (LO4)
• Any significant variations to your original design (as submitted for assignment one) and explanations for those variations (LO2)
You also need to demonstrate your system to your lecturer in class on (or before) the deadline shown above.
Report formatting requirements:
- Harvard referencing format must be used to credit secondary research sources. In-text citations. You are expected to include a minimum of 10 sources.
- should be included within your discussion (where relevant) using the author-date format and
- full reference details should be included in your bibliography
- Diagrams should be captioned and discussed in the body of your report
- A table of contents should be included
- Page numbers should be inserted in the centre of the footer
- Your student ID number should be placed in the header of each page
Late submission
For late submission, see Assessment Regulations for Undergraduate Programmes
Specific Marking Criteria
| To be awarded a given grade, submissions will typically (but not necessarily exclusively) exhibit the following indicative attributes | |
| D (40-49%) | Application implements some of the required functionality to a satisfactory standard • A limited number of advanced programming approaches have been utilised in development to a satisfactory standard • Minimal/only satisfactory evidence of refactoring and/or design pattern usage in report or code • Minimal/only satisfactory evidence of using testing methodologies for verification and validation |
| C (50-59%) | Application implements many of required functionality to a good standard • A number of advanced programming approaches have been utilised in development to a good standard • Good evidence of refactoring and/or design pattern usage in report or code • Good evidence of using testing methodologies for verification and validation |
| B (60-69%) | Application implements most of required functionality to a very good standard • A number of advanced programming approaches have been utilised in development to a very good standard • Very good evidence of refactoring and/or design pattern usage in report or code • Good evidence of using testing methodologies for verification and validation |
| A (70- 100%) | Application implements all required functionality to an excellent standard • A number of advanced programming approaches have been utilised in development to an excellent standard • Application may demonstrate a high degree of originality in either design or implementation and/or implements significant additional useful/innovative functionality of student’s own choosing beyond that stated by requirements • Excellent evidence of refactoring and/or design pattern usage in report or code • Excellent evidence of using testing methodologies for verification and validation |
Student Notes
Use this page to scribble any informal notes you feel necessary during discussions about this assignment in class or elsewhere here.
General marking criteria for HE5
| % | Relevance | Knowledge | Argument/Analysis | Structure | Presentation | Written English | Research/Referencing | |
| Class I (Exceptional Quality) | 85-100% | Directly relevant to title. Expertly addresses the main assumptions of the title and/or the requirements of the brief. | Demonstrates an exceptional knowledge/understanding of theory and practice for FE3 level through the identification and summary of key themes. | Makes exceptional use of appropriate arguments and/or theoretical models. Presents a comprehensive discussion of material resulting in clear, logical and original conclusions. | Coherently articulated and logically structured. An appropriate format is used. | The presentational style & layout is correct for the type of assignment. Effective inclusion of figures, tables, plates (FTP), where appropriate. | A very well written answer with standard spelling and grammar. Style is clear, resourceful and academic. | A wide range of sources drawn upon. Sources are cited accurately in the text and in the reference list. |
| Class I (Excellent Quality) | 70-84% | Directly relevant to title. Addresses the main assumptions of the title and/or the requirements of the brief. | Demonstrates an excellent knowledge/understanding of theory and practice for FE3 level through the identification and summary of key themes. | Makes excellent use of appropriate arguments and/or theoretical models. Presents a comprehensive summary of material resulting in clear, logical conclusions. | Coherently articulated and logically structured. An appropriate format is used. | The presentational style & layout is correct for the type of assignment. Effective inclusion of figures, tables, plates (FTP), where appropriate. | A well written answer with standard spelling and grammar. Style is clear, and academic. | A wide range of sources drawn upon. Sources well cited in the text and in the reference list – with only minor errors. |
| Class II/i (Very Good Quality) | 60-69% | Generally addresses the title/brief and covers some key issues in sufficiently meaningful detail. | Demonstrates a very good knowledge/understanding of theory and practice for FE3 level through the identification and summary of key themes. | Uses appropriate arguments or theoretical models. Clear and valid summary of the material. Presents clear, logical conclusions. | Logically constructed in the main. An appropriate format is used. | The presentational style & layout is correct for the type of assignment. Inclusion of FTP, where appropriate. | A clearly written answer with standard spelling and grammar. Style is clear, and academic. | A range of sources drawn upon. Most sources cited accurately in the text and in the reference list. |
| Class II/ii (Good Quality) | 50-59% | Generally addresses the title/brief but sometimes considers irrelevant issues. | Demonstrates a good knowledge/understanding of theory and practice for FE3 level through the identification and summary of some key issues. | Presents largely coherent arguments. Valid summary of the material although focus lacking in places. Presents conclusions which are fairly clear and logical. | For the most part coherently articulated and logically structured. An acceptable format is used. | The presentational style & layout is largely correct for the type of assignment. Inclusion of FTP lacks selectivity. | Competently written with minor lapses in spelling and grammar. Style is readable, and generally academic. | Relevant sources drawn upon. Some weaknesses in referencing technique. |
| Class III (Satisfactory Quality) | 40-49% | Some degree of irrelevance to the title/brief. Superficial consideration of the issues. | Demonstrates an adequate knowledge/understanding of theory and practice for FE3 level. An attempt is made to identify and summarise key themes. | Presents basic arguments, but focus and consistency lacking in places. Some issues may lack clarity. Presents conclusions which are not always clear or logical. | Some attempt at articulation and logical structure but gaps in coherence and progression. An acceptable format is used. | The presentational style & layout is largely correct for the type of assignment. Inappropriate use of FTP or not used where clearly needed to aid understanding. | Generally competently written although intermittent lapses in grammar and spelling pose obstacles for the reader. Style limits communication and is non-academic in places. | Some academic sources but overreliance on non-academic sources. A number of errors in referencing technique. |
| Borderline Fail | 35-39% | Significant degree of irrelevance to the title/brief. Onlythe most obvious issues are addressed at a superficial level and in unclear terms. | Demonstrates weaknesses in knowledge of theory and practice for FE3 level, with poor understanding of key themes. | Limited arguments, which lack clarity in places. Presents conclusions which are neither clear nor logical. | Poorly structured. Lack of articulation. Format deficient. | For the type of assignment, the presentational style &/or layout is lacking. FTP ignored in text or not used where clearly needed. | Deficiencies in spelling and grammar makes reading difficult. Simplistic or repetitious style impairs clarity. Style is not academic. | Limited sources and poor referencing. |
| Fail | <34% | Relevance to the title/brief is intermittent or missing. The topic is reduced to its vaguest terms. | Demonstrates a lack of basic knowledge of either theory or practice for FE3 level, with little evidence of understanding. | Severely limited arguments. Lacks clarity. Conclusions presented are sparse. | Unstructured. Lack of articulation. Format deficient | For the type of assignment the presentational style &/or layout is lacking. FTP as above. | Poorly written with numerous deficiencies in grammar, spelling and expression. Style is not academic. | An absence of sources and poor referencing technique. |
