FACULTY of COMPUTING,ENGINEERING & SCIENCEFinal mark awarded:_____Assessment Cover Sheet and Feedback Form 2016/17Module Code:NG1S217Module Title:Engineering ComputingApplicationsModule Lecturer:Palaniappan ValliappanAssessment Title and Tasks: Writing Python command line programAssessment No. 1No. of pages submitted in total including this page:Completed by studentWord Count of submission(if applicable):Completed by studentDate Set:25 OCT 2016Submission Date: 4 DEC 2016Return Date:20 working daysPart A: Record of Submission (to be completed by Student)Extenuating CircumstancesIf there are any exceptional circumstances that may have affected your ability to undertake or submit this assignment, make sure you contact the Advice Centre on your campus prior to your submission deadline.Fit to sit policy:The University operates a fit to sit policy whereby you, in submitting or presenting yourself for anassessment, are declaring that you are fit to sit the assessment. You cannot subsequently claimthat your performance in this assessment was affected by extenuating factors. Plagiarism and Unfair Practice Declaration:By submitting this assessment, you declare that it is your own work and that the sources of information and material you have used (including the internet) have been fully identified and properly acknowledged as required1. Additionally, the work presented has not been submitted for any other assessment. You also understand that the Faculty reserves the right to investigateallegations of plagiarism or unfair practice which, if proven, could result in a fail in this assessment and may affect your progress.Intellectual Property and Retention of Student Work:You understand that the University will retain a copy of any assessments submitted electronically for evidence and quality assurance purposes; requests for the removal of assessments will only be considered if the work contains information that is either politically and/or commercially sensitive (as determined by the University) and where requests are made by the relevant module leader or dissertation supervisor.Details of Submission:Note that all work handed in after the submission date and within 5 working days will be capped at 40%2. No marks will be awarded if the assessment is submitted after the late submission date unless extenuating circumstances are applied for and accepted (Advice Centre to be consulted).You are required to acknowledge that you have read the above statements by writingyour student number(s) in the box:Student Number(s):1University Academic Misconduct Regulations2 Information on exclusions to this rule is available from the Advice Centre at each CampusPage 1 of 7
IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO KEEP RECORDS OF ALL WORK SUBMITTEDPart B: Marking and Assessment(to be completed by Module Lecturer)Assessment Task: This assignment will be marked out of 100.This assignment contributes to 50% of the total module marksTitle: Writing python command line programTask: Refer to assignment – programming problem on Page 6 of this documentAssignment to be submitted on blackboard and a printed copy (just stapled on topleft in colour with python keywords highlighted as in the editor, no binding / folders needed) to myself before submission date. Don’t email as might be stopped by spam / antivirus programs.Learning Outcomes to be assessed (as specified in the validated module descriptor https://icis.southwales.ac.uk/):To write computer code to simulate or solve engineering problemsGrading Criteria:On next pagePage 2 of 7
MarkingCriteriaMaxGradeMarksRationaleKnowledge andunderstanding2014-20(1st)Demonstrated substantial understanding of and respondsappropriately and insightfully to the topic.12-13(2:1)Good level of understanding of the topic demonstrated, butwithout the depth of knowledge shown by the first classstudent.10-11(2:2)General level of understanding of the topic areasdemonstrated but some evidence of minor mis-conceptionand gap in certain areas.8-9(3rd)Limited understanding of the topic area. Frequent factual orother errors.0-7(Fail)Inadequate knowledge and understanding demonstratedwith substantial mis-match between topic and content.Analysis anddiscussion5035-50(1st)Demonstrates a very good analytical treatment of theproblem, resulting in a clear synthesis. Evidence of criticaldiscussion.30-34(2:1)A good analytical treatment of the problem which is logicallyexplained but without the depth shown by the first classstudent.25-29(2:2)Evidence of analytical treatment, but the results may not bewell discussed. May contain minor errors in the calculationthat are not critical.20-24(3rd)Largely descriptive with little evidence of analyticalargument. Analysis may be flawed in some areas.0-19(Fail)A content offering inadequate and often inaccuratedescription of the design objectives.Argument andStructure1511-15(1st)The main themes and issues are clearly identified.Argument is coherent and logical.9-10(2:1)The report is well organised and material mostly well used.8(2:2)The report is well structured though there may be lapses inplaces.6-7(3rd)The report has a discernible structure but some sectionsmay lack coherence and/or direction.0-5(Fail)Disorganised and lacks a logical structure.Conclusions 1511-15(1st)Provide final perspective with reference to aims andobjectives and significance of the results from evaluation ofthe experimental data.9-10(2:1)Provides appropriate final perspective but without the depthshown by the first class student.8(2:2)Provides a general summary that relates clearly to the topic.6-7(3rd)Provides a summary but strays from the main topic.0-5(Fail)Conclusion is absent or irrelevant to the topic and / orintroduces new material.Total Mark:Page 3 of 7
Found this document preview useful?
NG2S902 - Analogue and Digital Electronicslg...
AF3S130 Business Analysis for Accountants Assignmentlg...
Advanced Embedded Systems: Assignmentlg...
A Critical Evaluation of Management Practice at Netflixlg...
PY3001: Professional & Scientific Skills for Pharmacy - Capstone Project - Reassessmentlg...