CSE4202 Fundamentals in Programming CSE4202 Assessment Brief 2026  Module Code Module Title CSE4202 Fundamentals in Programming Academic Year 2026 Module Leader

CSE4202 Fundamentals in Programming CSE4202 Assessment Brief 2026  Module Code Module Title CSE4202 Fundamentals in Programming Academic Year 2026 Module Leader email thisaruR@icbtcampus.edu.lk Assessment Details Assessment title Abr. Weighting Smart Cafe Management System for Cafe Central Perk WRIT1 50% Pass marks are 40% for undergraduate work and 50% for postgraduate work unless stated otherwise. Task/Assessment Brief: 2000 words Report (50%)

Central Perk is a small but popular local café known for its quick service and freshly brewed beverages; such as coffee, sandwiches, pastries, and juices with unique prices. Currently, the staff use paper-based order slips, which often lead to miscalculations, delays, and missing records. Due to an increasing number of customers, the café’s staff are struggling to handle orders manually especially during peak hours. The café manager has been hired you as a junior software developer to implement a simple Python-based Smart Cafe Management System to automate basic daily operations in a structured way.

System Requirements Functional Requirements Menu Display: Display all available food and beverage items with / Menu items should be stored in a dictionary or list to the customers. Order Management: Allow cashier to select multiple items and enter quantities. / Validate input to ensure valid menu selections and numerical quantities. Bill Calculation: Calculate subtotal, discount (if applicable), and final payable amount. / Apply a 10% discount for orders above LKR 2000. Search and Sorting Features: Search for an item by name and display its price or availability. / Sort menu items alphabetically or by price. Receipt Generation: Display ordered items, quantity, unit price, subtotal, discount, and final Exit Option: Provide an option to exit the system safely after completing an Non-Functional Requirements The system must be user friendly, modular, with separate functions for menu display, ordering, billing, discount calculation, searching, and sorting. Use input validation and error The code must follow PEP8 coding standards for Include appropriate comments and . Question 1 – Program Development (Python Implementation – LO3) – 60 Marks Develop a modularized Python program that implements the Central Perk Smart Café Management System based on the mentioned System Requirements (Functional Requirements and Non-Functional Requirements). Ensure the program uses functions for modularization, follows Python coding standards, includes meaningful variable names and comments, and produces clear, user-friendly output. Consider following for the completion of the task:

1. 1 Technical Document Annex ( 1-2 Pages) – 10 Marks

Problem Summary (1 Paragraph) Input–Process–Output (IPO) Analysis – A table showing what data the program will take as input, how it will be processed, and what the expected output will be. Data Representation Plan – Brief explanation of how data such as menu items, prices, and orders will be stored (Use of dictionaries/lists/tuples/objects) Function Planning (Modularization Map) – A table listing each function you plan to include, its purpose, and how it supports modular design. Algorithmic Logic Discussion – A brief explanation of the algorithms or decision structures used 1.2 Python Program Source File(s) – 40 Marks

1.3 Evidence of Program Run – 10 Marks

Submit the created Python program (.py file and any saved file(s)), sample runs/screenshots (or console logs) showing the developed functions along with the WRT1 and attach the above mentioned evidences to the document under title of Python Implementation.

Question 2 – Testing, Debugging, And Documentation (LO4) – 40 Marks  Compile and test your Python program to verify that all features of the Central Perk Smart Café Management System work correctly. Create a Test Plan with input data, expected output, and actual output. Record any errors encountered during testing and describe how you resolved them through debugging techniques. Finally, prepare a documentation report summarizing your system’s purpose, features, functions, testing results, limitations, and reflection on the development process.

Guidelines For The Report Format Paper A4

Margins 1.5” left, 1” right, top and bottom

Page numbers – bottom, right Line spacing 1.5

Font

Headings 14pt, Bold Normal 12pt

Font face- Times New Roman

Referencing and in-text citation should be done strictly using

Harvard Referencing Referencing Guidance To use Harvard referencing for citation and compile reference list you can go through following guidance provided by Anglia Ruskin University. In the Harvard system, the author’s surname and year of publication are cited in the text of your work. The full details of the source are included in a reference list at the end of the assignment. (Anglia Ruskin University,2013)

Word Count (Or Equivalent): 2000 This a reflection of the effort required for the assessment. Word counts will normally include any text, tables, calculations, figures, subtitles and citations. Reference lists and contents of appendices are excluded from the word count. Contents of appendices are not usually considered when determining your final assessment grade.

Academic Or Technical Terms Explained: PEP8 refers to the official Python style guide that ensures code readability, consistency, and maintainability by defining standards such as proper indentation, meaningful variable names, and clear commenting.

Modularization Map represents how a program is structured into smaller, independent functions, each handling a specific task making the developed system easier to debug, update, and reuse.

Input–Process–Output (IPO) Analysis outlines how data flows through the system, showing what information is entered, how it is processed, and what outputs are produced , ensuring logical and efficient program design.

Submission Details Submission Deadline: This will be provided on the Moodle submission point.   Estimated Feedback Return Date

This will normally be 20 working days after initial submission. Submission Time: By 2.00pm on the deadline day. Moodle/Turnitin: Any assessments submitted after the deadline will not be marked and will be recorded as a non-attempt unless you have had an extension request agreed or have approved mitigating circumstances. See the School Moodle pages for more information on extensions and mitigating circumstances. File Format: The assessment must be submitted as a pdf document (save the document as a pdf in your software) and submit through the Turnitin submission point in Moodle. Your assessment should be titled with your: student ID number, module code and assessment ID, e.g. st12345678 BHL5007 WRIT1

Feedback Feedback for the assessment will be provided electronically via Moodle. Feedback will be provided with comments on your strengths and the areas which you can improve. View the guidance on how to access your feedback. All marks are provisional and are subject to quality assurance processes and confirmation at the programme Examination Board.

Assessment Criteria Learning Outcomes Assessed LO3: Develop a modularized computer programme for a prepared design

LO4: Compile, test, and document software effectivel.

Other Skills/Attributes Developed This includes elements of the Cardiff Met EDGE (Ethical, Digital, Global and Entrepreneurial skills) and other attributes developed in students through the completion of the module and assessment. These will also be highlighted in the module guidance, which should be read by all students completing the module.

Assessments are not just a way of auditing student knowledge. They are a process which provides additional learning and development through the preparation for and completion of the assessment.

IPO Modulerization Program Implementation Struggling With CSE4202 Fundamentals in Programming Assignment?

Order Non Plagiarized Assignment Marking/Assessment Criteria Report – Assessment Criteria Task Poor (0-2) Satisfactory (3-5) Good (6-8) Excellent (9-10)    

Task 1.1 – Technical Design Document (LO3)(10

Marks)

  Weak understanding of the problem.

Missing or incomplete Problem Summary, IPO, or Function Plan. No clear data representation method. Limited or no discussion on algorithmic logic.

Adequate problem analysis with basic Problem Summary and partial IPO table. Data representation mentioned briefly.

Some modularization ideas presented but lacking clarity.

  Clear and structured technical document. Includes Problem Summary, IPO, Data Representation, Function Planning, and Algorithmic Logic.

Demonstrates good understanding of modular design and system flow.

Comprehensive and professional technical document. All components (Problem Summary, IPO, Data Plan, Function Map, Algorithmic Logic) are complete, coherent, and logically linked. Strong reasoning and attention to modularity and clarity in design. Task Poor (0-10) Satisfactory (11-20) Good (21-30) Excellent (31-40) Task 1.2 – Python Program Implementatio Program incomplete or fails to execute. No modularization or poor code structure. Missing

Program partially functional with some modularization. Includes some system

features but may have

Functional and modular program covering all major features. Uses functions effectively

Fully functional, modular, and professionally written program. All system requirements (menu,

n (LO3)(40 Marks)

major requirements (menu display, ordering, billing, searching, sorting). Minimal comments or validation. logical/syntax errors. Limited input validation and documentation. with proper validation, readable format, and user-friendly output. Includes docstrings and follows most PEP8 conventions.

order, billing, discount, search, sort, receipt, exit) correctly implemented. Includes excellent input validation, error handling, meaningful variable names, comments, and adherence to PEP8. Code is efficient, readable, and user- focused.

Task Poor (0-2) Satisfactory (3-5) Good (6-8) Excellent (9-10)    

Task 1.3 – Evidence of Program Run (LO3)(10

Marks)

Minimal or no evidence of program execution. Outputs unclear or irrelevant. Missing proof of working features. Some screenshots or outputs shown but incomplete. Limited demonstration of core functions. 

Adequate program run evidence showing functional modules with clear output examples. Covers main system features.

Comprehensive and clear evidence of successful program runs. Includes multiple sample executions, demonstrating all major system functionalities (menu, ordering, billing, search, sort, receipt generation). Well-labeled and organized outputs.

Task Poor (0-10) Satisfactory (11-20) Good (21-30) Excellent (31-40)    

Task 2 – Testing, Debugging & Documentation (LO4)(40

Marks)

Little to no testing performed. Test plan missing or incomplete.

Debugging not documented. Final documentation lacks structure or detail.

  Basic test plan with limited inputs and expected results.

Debugging mentioned briefly. Documentation minimal and lacks reflection.

Structured test plan covering main features with expected vs actual results. Debugging steps and corrections described.

Documentation summarizes purpose, features, and limitations adequately.

Comprehensive and professional report including detailed test plan (varied inputs, expected vs actual results). Debugging process explained with problem-solving justification. Final documentation well- organized and reflective, detailing purpose, functionality, testing results, limitations, and suggestions for future improvement.

 Final Grading Criteria  Marks Final Grade

=70 Distinction 69-55 Merit 54-40 Pass <40 Fail Further Information Who Can Answer Questions About My Assessment? Questions about the assessment should be directed to the staff member who has set the task/assessment brief. This will usually be the Module Leader. They will be happy to answer any queries you have.

Staff members can often provide feedback on an assignment plan but cannot review any drafts of your work prior to submission. The only exception to this rule is for Dissertation Supervisors to provide feedback on a draft of your dissertation.

Referencing And Independent Learning Please ensure you reference a range of credible sources, with due attention to the academic literature in the area. The time spent on research and reading from good quality sources will be reflected in the quality of your submitted work.

Remember that what you get out of university depends on what you put in. Your teaching sessions typically represent between 10% and 30% of the time you are expected to study for your degree. A 20-credit module represents 200 hours of study time. The rest of your time should be taken up by self- directed study.

Unless stated otherwise you must use the HARVARD referencing system. Further guidance on referencing can be found in the Study Smart area on Moodle and at www.citethemrightonline.com (use your university login details to access the site).

Correct referencing is an easy way to improve your marks and essential in achieving higher grades on most assessments.

Technical Submission Problems It is strongly advised that you submit your work at least 24 hours before the deadline to allow time to resolve any last minute problems you might have. If you are having issues with IT or Turnitin you should contact the IT Helpdesk on (+44) 2920 417000. You may require evidence of the Helpdesk call if you are trying to demonstrate that a fault with Moodle or Turnitin was the cause of a late submission.

Extensions And Mitigating Circumstances Short extensions on assessment deadlines can be requested in specific circumstances. If you are encountering particular hardship which has been affecting your studies, then you may be able to apply for mitigating circumstances. This can give the teachers on your programme more scope to adapt the assessment requirements to support your needs. Extensions and mitigating circumstances policies and procedures are regularly updated. You should refer to your degree programme or school Moodle pages for information on extensions and mitigating circumstances.

Unfair Academic Practice Cardiff Met takes issues of unfair practice extremely seriously. The University has procedures and penalties for dealing with unfair academic practice. These are explained in full in the University’s Unfair Practice regulations and procedures under Volume 1, Section 8 of the Academic Handbook. The Module Leader reserves the right to interview students regarding any aspect of their work submitted for assessment.

Types Of Unfair Practice, Include: Plagiarism, which can be defined as using without acknowledgement another person’s words or ideas and submitting them for assessment as though it were one’s own work, for instance by copying, translating from one language to another or unacknowledged paraphrasing. Further examples include:

Use of any quotation(s) from the published or unpublished work of other persons, whether published in textbooks, articles, the Web, or in any other format, where quotations have not been clearly identified as such by being placed in quotation marks and acknowledged. Use of another person’s words or ideas that have been slightly changed or paraphrased to make it look different from the original. Summarising another person’s ideas, judgments, diagrams, figures, or computer programmes without reference to that person in the text and the source in a bibliography/reference list. Use of assessment writing services, essay banks and/or any other similar agencies (NB. Students are commonly being blackmailed after using essay mills). Use of unacknowledged material downloaded from the Internet. Re-use of one’s own material except as authorised by your degree programme. Collusion, which can be defined as when work that that has been undertaken with others is submitted and passed off as solely the work of one person. Modules will clearly identify where joint preparation and joint submission are permitted, in all other cases they are not.

Fabrication of data, making false claims to have carried out experiments, observations, interviews or other forms of data collection and analysis, or acting dishonestly in any other way.

How Is My Work Graded? Assessment grading is subject to thorough quality control processes. You can view a summary of these processes on the Assessment Explained Infographic.

Grading of work at each level of Cardiff Met degree courses is benchmarked against a set of general requirements set out in Volume 1, Section 4.3 of our Academic Handbook. A simplified version of these Grade Band Descriptors (GBDs) with short videos explaining some of the academic terminology used can be accessed via the Facilitation of Learning resource page.

We would strongly recommend looking at the Study Smart area of Moodle to find out more about assessments and key academic skills which can have a significant impact on your grades. Always check your work thoroughly before submission.