Data Structure and Algorithms

Kent Institute Australia Pty. Ltd.
Assessment Brief
ABN 49 003 577 302 CRICOS Code: 00161E RTO Code: 90458
Version 2: 21st March, 2022 Page 1 of 4 TEQSA Provider Number: PRV12051
ASSESSMENT BRIEF

COURSE: Bachelor of IT
Unit Code: DSAA204
Unit Title: Data Structure and Algorithms
Type of Assessment: Assessment 3- Individual Report
Length/Duration: Word limit- 2000 words
Unit Learning Outcomes
addressed:
a) Evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of data structures and
algorithms;
b) Demonstrate reasoning about efficiency of algorithms;
c) Assess and apply suitable recursive data structures and algorithms to IT
systems and applications.
Submission Date: To be submitted in week 11
Assessment Task: The assessment is about a design of a system using OOP.
Total Mark: 20 Marks
Weighting: 20%
Students are advised that submission of an Assessment Task past the due date without a formally signed
approved Assignment Extension Form
(Kent Website MyKent Student Link> FORM – Assignment Extension
Application Form – Student Login Required)
or previously approved application for other extenuating
circumstances impacting course of study, incurs a 5% penalty per calendar day
,
calculated by deduction from the total mark.
For example. An Assessment Task marked out of 40 will incur a 2 mark penalty for each calendar day.
More information, please refer to
(Kent Website MyKent Student Link> POLICY – Assessment Policy &
Procedures – Student Login Required)

Kent Institute Australia Pty. Ltd.
Assessment Brief
ABN 49 003 577 302 CRICOS Code: 00161E RTO Code: 90458
Version 2: 21st March, 2022 Page 2 of 4 TEQSA Provider Number: PRV12051
ASSESSMENT DESCRIPTION:
This assessment is an individual report about the design of an OOP system using Data Structures and
Algorithms. The report should follow the following structure using the actual case study that will be available
on Moodle (in assessment section) by week 8.
1. Title Page
2. Executive Summary
3. Introduction
4. Background
5. Case Study and the Design
5.1 Variables, Ranges and Keys
5.2 Operations and the Justification
5.3 Algorithms and the Justification
5.4 Modifications
6. Conclusion
7. References
CASE STUDY:
This assessment is an individual report.
You are required to design a library system for Kent Institute.
Assume that there are:

i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
two campuses – Sydney and Melbourne
200 VET level students
300 Higher Education students
30 professional staff and 40 academic staff

You need to decide how many books, journals, DVDs or other media the library holds.
Then specify the range of operations which will be needed for the library system. For each of these
operations, discuss the most suitable sorting or searching method and why your chosen algorithm for each
operation is the most appropriate.
A nearby University wants to use your system.
They have:
One campus
25000 undergraduate students
10000 postgraduate students
5000 research students
2000 professional staff
4000 academic staff
What changes, if any, would you make to your system for the University to be able to use it
effectively and efficiently?
TASKS TO BE COMPLETED
Given the above information:
a) Decide the appropriate variables, keys and ranges to be used in the system. Justify.
b) The operations that library system should support.
c) Algorithms for the operations that your system should support. Also, justify the choice of
algorithms.
d) Changes for the larger university, if any, to be made in the original system. Justify.
ASSESSMENT SUBMISSION:
The assignment must be submitted online in Moodle. All materials MUST be submitted electronically in
Microsoft Word format. Other formats (e.g., pdf or MAC file) may not be readable by markers. Please be aware
that any assessments submitted in other formats will be considered LATE and will lose marks until it is presented
in MS Word. No paper based or hardcopy submission will be accepted.

Kent Institute Australia Pty. Ltd.
Assessment Brief
ABN 49 003 577 302 CRICOS Code: 00161E RTO Code: 90458
Version 2: 21st March, 2022 Page 3 of 4 TEQSA Provider Number: PRV12051
MARKING GUIDE (RUBRIC):

Marking Criteria Fail (0- 9.8) Pass (10 – 12.8) Credit (13 -14.8) Distinction (15-
16.8)
High Distinction (17-
20)
Specification of
K/V/R with
justification
/20
Little or no
specification of keys,
values and ranges with
no justification is
given.
Only one out of three
(K/V/R) are specified
with no or little
justification provided.
Only two out of three
(K/V/R) are specified
with no or little
justification provided.
Only two out of three
(K/V/R) are specified
with right
justifications.
All keys, values and
ranges are clearly
specified and
supported by right
arguments.
Fail (0- 9.8) Pass (10 – 12.8) Credit (13 -14.8) Distinction (15-
16.8)
High Distinction (17-
20)
Operations
/20
No operations are
specified that are
required for proper
functioning of the
system. Some
rudimentary/un
necessary operations
are specified which are
not crucial for the
functioning of the
system.
Minimal operations
are specified that are
essential for the
working of the
system.
50% of operations
that are crucial for
working of the
system are provided.
75% of operations
that are crucial for
working of the
system are provided.
Some of the reasons
that justify the need
of these operations
are also specified.
A complete list of
operations is provided
that makes system
functional and
operational. Reasons
for the need of those
operations are also
provided.
Fail (0- 14.2) Pass (15- 19.2) Credit (19.5- 22.2) Distinction (22.5-
25.2)
High Distinction
(25.5-30)
Choice of algorithms
with Justification
/30
No algorithm is
specified for listed
operations. If there is
some algorithm
mentioned, it is not
supported by the right
arguments as to why
the said algorithm is
best suited to the
operation.
Algorithms for
majority of the
operations are
specified. However,
there is no
justification provided
for the choice of
algorithms.
Algorithms for
majority of the
operations are
specified.
Justifications are
given but the
arguments show a
lack of understanding
for different
properties of
algorithms.
Algorithms for
majority of the
operations are
specified. Student has
an understanding of
some of the
properties of
algorithms. However,
he fails to choose the
right algorithm for
some of the
operations.
Algorithms for all of the
operations are
specified. The
justification shows a
sound understanding of
the different properties
of algorithms. The
capability for choosing
the right algorithm for
any operation is shown.
Fail (0- 5.4) Pass (5- 6.4) Credit (6.5- 7.4) Distinction (7.5-
8.4)
High Distinction
(8.5- 10)
Modifications
/10
No comments or
superficial comments
are provided on the
modified system.
The change in
requirements has
been understood but
a decision about
modifications has not
been made.
The change in
requirements is
understood but the
modifications
suggested are not
related to key data
structures or
algorithms.
The change in
requirements is
understood and
modifications are
suggested. The
arguments given in
support of
modifications, or no
modifications are
little or have minor
issues.
The change in
requirements is
understood and
modifications are
suggested. The
arguments given in
support of
modifications, or no
modifications are
comprehensive and
accurate.
Fail (0- 5.4) Pass (5- 6.4) Credit (6.5- 7.4) Distinction (7.5-
8.4)
High Distinction
(8.5- 10)
Language and
presentation
/10
Poor standard of
writing. Word limit
may not be adhered
to.
Basic and sound
standard of writing;
some errors in
punctuation,
grammar and spelling
Good standard of
writing; few errors in
punctuation,
grammar and
spelling.
Very good standard
of writing; very few
or minor errors in
punctuation,
grammar and
spelling.
Professional standard
of writing; no errors in
punctuation, grammar
and spelling.
.
Fail (0- 5.4) Pass (5- 6.4) Credit (6.5- 7.4) Distinction (7.5-
8.4)
High Distinction
(8.5- 10)
Structure and
referencing
/10
No referencing is
evident or, if done, is
inconsistent and
technically incorrect.
No or minimal
reference list, mixed
styles. No in text
citations
Basic and sound
attempt to reference
sources; may be some
inconsistencies and
technical errors in
style. Reference list is
generally complete
with 1 or 2 references
missing.
Good attempt to
reference sources,
inconsistencies and
technical errors in
style. Few
inaccuracies in
reference list and all
references listed.
Very good attempt to
reference sources,
very minor
inconsistencies and
technical errors in
style. Thorough and
consistent reference
list and all references
listed.
Professional level of
referencing and
acknowledgment; no
errors of style evident.
Thorough and
consistent reference
list and all references
listed.

Kent Institute Australia Pty. Ltd.
Assessment Brief
ABN 49 003 577 302 CRICOS Code: 00161E RTO Code: 90458
Version 2: 21st March, 2022 Page 4 of 4 TEQSA Provider Number: PRV12051
GENERAL NOTES FOR ASSESSMENT TASKS
Content for Assessment Task papers should incorporate a formal introduction, main points and conclusion.
Appropriate academic writing and referencing are inevitable academic skills that you must develop and
demonstrate in work being presented for assessment. The content of high-quality work presented by a student
must be fully referenced within-text citations and a Reference List at the end. Kent strongly recommends you
refer to the Academic Learning Support Workshop materials available on the Kent Learning Management System
(Moodle). For details please click the link
http://moodle.kent.edu.au/kentmoodle/mod/folder/view.php?id=3606
and download the file titled “Harvard Referencing Workbook”. This Moodle Site is the location for Workbooks
and information that are presented to Kent Students in the ALS Workshops conducted at the beginning of each
Trimester.
Kent recommends a minimum of
FIVE (5) references in work being presented for assessment. Unless otherwise
specifically instructed by your Lecturer or as detailed in the Unit Outline for the specific Assessment Task, any
paper with less than five (5) references may be deemed not meeting a satisfactory standard and possibly be failed.
Content in Assessment tasks that includes sources that are not properly referenced according to the “
Harvard
Referencing Workbook
” will be penalised.
Marks will be deducted for failure to adhere to the word count if this is specifically stated for the Assessment Task
in the Unit Outline. As a general rule there is an allowable discretionary variance to the word count in that it is
generally accepted that a student may go over or under by 10% than the stated length.
GENERAL NOTES FOR REFERENCING
References are assessed for their quality. Students should draw on quality academic sources, such as books,
chapters from edited books, journals etc. The textbook for the Unit of study can be used as a reference, but not
the Lecturer Notes. The Assessor will want to see evidence that a student is capable of conducting their own
research. Also, in order to help Assessors determine a student’s understanding of the work they cite, all in-text
references (not just direct quotes) must include the specific page number(s) if shown in the original. Before
preparing your Assessment Task or own contribution, please review this ‘YouTube’ video (Avoiding Plagiarism
through Referencing) by clicking on the following link: link:
http://moodle.kent.edu.au/kentmoodle/mod/folder/view.php?id=3606
A search for peer-reviewed journal articles may also assist students. These type of journal articles can be located
in the online journal databases and can be accessed from the Kent Library homepage. Wikipedia, online
dictionaries and online encyclopaedias are acceptable as a starting point to gain knowledge about a topic, but
should not be over-used – these should constitute no more than 10% of your total list of references/sources.
Additional information and literature can be used where these are produced by legitimate sources, such as
government departments, research institutes such as the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC),
or international organisations such as the World Health Organisation (WHO). Legitimate organisations and
government departments produce peer reviewed reports and articles and are therefore very useful and mostly
very current. The content of the following link explains why it is not acceptable to use non-peer reviewed websites
(Why can’t I just Google?):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N39mnu1Pkgw
(thank you to La Trobe University for access to this video).