assignment and marking criteria included
ME503 Telecommunication System Engineering Assignment One ME503 - Telecommunication System Engineering Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines School SITE Course Name MEng Unit Code ME503 Unit Title Telecommunication System Engineering Assessment Author Dr. Rajan Kadel Assessment Type Individual Assessment Assessment Title Assignment-1: Understanding the fundamental systems engineering principles and their applications in telecommunication systems. Unit Learning Outcomes covered in this assessment a. Demonstrate in-depth knowledge of system engineering and understand how to make a system more reliable and efficient; b. Acquire in-depth technical knowledge of signalling, switching and call routing in Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) and population queuing models; c. Obtain conceptual knowledge and understanding of system reliability, maintainability, costing and design for affordability and human factors; Weight 10 % Total Marks 50 Word limit 1200 Release Date Week 3 Due Date Week 6, 24 April 2019, 11:55pm Submission Guidelines · All work must be submitted on Moodle by the due date along with a completed Assignment Cover Page. · The assignment must be in MS Word format, 1.5 spacing, 11-pt Calibri (Body) font and 2 cm margins on all four sides of your page with appropriate section headings. · Reference sources must be cited in the text of the report, and listed appropriately at the end in a reference list using APA or IEEE referencing style for School of Business and School of Information Technology and Engineering respectively. Extension · If an extension of time to submit work is required, a Special Consideration Application must be submitted directly to the School's Administration Officer, in Melbourne on Level 6 or in Sydney on Level 7. You must submit this application three working days prior to the due date of the assignment. Further information is available at: http://www.mit.edu.au/about-mit/institute-publications/policies-procedures-and-guidelines/specialconsiderationdeferment Academic Misconduct · Academic Misconduct is a serious offence. Depending on the seriousness of the case, penalties can vary from a written warning or zero marks to exclusion from the course or rescinding the degree. Students should make themselves familiar with the full policy and procedure available at: http://www.mit.edu.au/about-mit/institute-publications/policies-procedures-and-guidelines/Plagiarism-Academic-Misconduct-Policy-Procedure. For further information, please refer to the Academic Integrity Section in your Unit Description. Assignment Description The purpose of this assignment is to motivate students to seek to understand emerging telecommunications technologies, reliability aspects of emerging technologies and system engineering concepts and principles. The assignment has two parts: Part A and Part B. Part A (Telecommunications Technologies) (30 marks) Question 1: Private Branch Exchange (PBX) (4 x 5 marks = 20 marks) The majority of modern organisations are using Private Branch Exchange (PBX) system for internal communications. By the introduction of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology and cloud network, there are significate changes in PBX system. In this context, prepare a report including the following sections: a) Evolution of PBX b) Comprehensive analysis of current and emerging PBX systems in terms of reliability. c) Architecture of PBX systems. d) Compare and contrast different PBX systems in terms of costing Question 2: High Seed Connectivity (2 x 5 marks = 10 marks) Access to the Internet has arguably become an essential service. However, the quality of the service varies widely in Australia. Multiple governments had promised and begun to deliver a high-speed connectivity throughout Australia via the National Broadband Network (NBN). Prepare a comprehensive report containing following points based on research findings and industry reports. · NBN technology, its architecture including advantages and disadvantages associated. · Compare NBN with the similar technology used in New Zealand. Your comparison should incorporate cost and marketing. Marking Rubric for Telecommunications Problems Grade Mark HD 80%+ D 70%-79% CR 60%-69% P 50%-59% Fail < 50% excellent very good good satisfactory unsatisfactory evaluation logic is clear and easy to follow with strong arguments consistency logical and convincing mostly consistent and convincing adequate cohesion and conviction argument is confused and disjointed sophistication and effectivity the presented solution demonstrated an extreme degree of sophistication and effective. the presented solution demonstrated a high degree of sophistication and effective. the presented solution demonstrated an average degree of sophistication and effective. the presented solution demonstrated a low degree of sophistication and effective. the presented solution demonstrated a poor degree of sophistication and effective. explanation all elements are present and well integrated. components present with good cohesion components present and mostly well integrated most components present lacks structure. reference style clear styles with excellent source of references. clear referencing/ style generally good referencing/style unclear referencing/style lacks consistency with many errors report structure and report presentation proper writing. professionally presented properly written, with some minor deficiencies mostly good, but some structure or presentation problems acceptable presentation poor structure, careless presentation part b (reflective journal) (20 marks) every student has to watch all the weekly videos (available on the moodle) relating to the topic for the week and write reflective journal weekly from week one (1) to five (5). the purpose of this assignment is to identify new learning, self-realization and plan for improvement. students will have an opportunity to explore the use of the online tools (e.g.: online blogs) to record and reflect on their learning in different ways. students are required to: · record the development of their ideas or insights. · reflect upon the unit content and personal experiences. · analyse their own learning and self-development. · plan to improve on identified strengths and weaknesses. students are required to explore situations from a personal perspective, and/or based on previous learning/industry experience. they may use the deep method to reflective writing. the four steps in this method are: 1. d - describe experience (past or present) 1. e - explore or consolidate new learning 1. e - evaluate/analyse/self reaction 1. p - plan future learning description week no describe explore evaluate plan mark allocations: section to be included in the report description of the section marks part a: reflective journal for five weeks (4*5=20 marks) weekly reflective journal overall quality of reflective journal 1 technical relevance depth (technical) of the review presented to the subject matter. 2 critical reflection does the report submitted by the student demonstrate reflection? 1 plagiarism did the student do any of these without reference and reflection? · copy from other student(s) · copy from internet source/textbook · copy from other sources -4 marking criteria for reflective journal marking criteria very good good average poor very poor description clear & comprehensive description of an event/issue in a professional matter clear description of an event/issue in a professional matter with minimal elaboration of a comprehensive nature includes description of events, and a little further consideration behind the events and a little further consideration behind the events only includes mere descriptions of theoretical knowledge; unclear reflection is demonstrated beyond the descriptions unclear or disjoint description of the event; no reflection is demonstrated explore writing is well-focused; arguments or perspectives are precisely defined and explained arguments or perspectives are clearly stated; organized flow in writing but not deep enough to be very insightful arguments or perspectives are vaguely mentioned; the writing lacked an organized flow and the ideas were hard to follow unclear arguments or perspectives; the writing lacks the original perspectives do not show any original thinking or perspectives; chaotic in organization and presentation of ideas evaluate critical analysis and evaluation of the event; writing demonstrated objectified thinking; evidence of critical analysis and integration of relevant literature minimal analysis of the event or issue; contemplation of the event or issue for the purpose of deeper understanding; integration of evidence based literature and other resources to inform practice superficial analysis of the event or issue; minimal integration of theory and evidence based literature and other resources basic analysis and/or evaluation of the event; does not employ any critical thinking approach. fails to analyse or evaluate adequately; cannot apply critical thinking approaches plan makes meaning of the experience and its implication of the future practice demonstrates plan with a view to improving practice development gained from the learning process is hardly observed make entries are mere descriptions of events rather than showing a plan for the future learning demonstrates no plans for future learning the end prepared by: dr. rajan kadelmoderated by: dr. amoakoh gyasi-agyeimarch, 2019 prepared by: dr. rajan kadel moderated by: dr. amoakoh gyasi-agyeimarch, 2019 50%="" excellent="" very="" good="" good="" satisfactory="" unsatisfactory="" evaluation="" logic="" is="" clear="" and="" easy="" to="" follow="" with="" strong="" arguments="" consistency="" logical="" and="" convincing="" mostly="" consistent="" and="" convincing="" adequate="" cohesion="" and="" conviction="" argument="" is="" confused="" and="" disjointed="" sophistication="" and="" effectivity="" the="" presented="" solution="" demonstrated="" an="" extreme="" degree="" of="" sophistication="" and="" effective.="" the="" presented="" solution="" demonstrated="" a="" high="" degree="" of="" sophistication="" and="" effective.="" the="" presented="" solution="" demonstrated="" an="" average="" degree="" of="" sophistication="" and="" effective.="" the="" presented="" solution="" demonstrated="" a="" low="" degree="" of="" sophistication="" and="" effective.="" the="" presented="" solution="" demonstrated="" a="" poor="" degree="" of="" sophistication="" and="" effective.="" explanation="" all="" elements="" are="" present="" and="" well="" integrated.="" components="" present="" with="" good="" cohesion="" components="" present="" and="" mostly="" well="" integrated="" most="" components="" present="" lacks="" structure.="" reference="" style="" clear="" styles="" with="" excellent="" source="" of="" references.="" clear="" referencing/="" style="" generally="" good="" referencing/style="" unclear="" referencing/style="" lacks="" consistency="" with="" many="" errors="" report="" structure="" and="" report="" presentation="" proper="" writing.="" professionally="" presented="" properly="" written,="" with="" some="" minor="" deficiencies="" mostly="" good,="" but="" some="" structure="" or="" presentation="" problems="" acceptable="" presentation="" poor="" structure,="" careless="" presentation="" part="" b="" (reflective="" journal)="" (20="" marks)="" every="" student="" has="" to="" watch="" all="" the="" weekly="" videos="" (available="" on="" the="" moodle)="" relating="" to="" the="" topic="" for="" the="" week="" and="" write="" reflective="" journal="" weekly="" from="" week="" one="" (1)="" to="" five="" (5).="" the="" purpose="" of="" this="" assignment="" is="" to="" identify="" new="" learning,="" self-realization="" and="" plan="" for="" improvement.="" students="" will="" have="" an="" opportunity="" to="" explore="" the="" use="" of="" the="" online="" tools="" (e.g.:="" online="" blogs)="" to="" record="" and="" reflect="" on="" their="" learning="" in="" different="" ways.="" students="" are="" required="" to:="" ·="" record="" the="" development="" of="" their="" ideas="" or="" insights.="" ·="" reflect="" upon="" the="" unit="" content="" and="" personal="" experiences.="" ·="" analyse="" their="" own="" learning="" and="" self-development.="" ·="" plan="" to="" improve="" on="" identified="" strengths="" and="" weaknesses.="" students="" are="" required="" to="" explore="" situations="" from="" a="" personal="" perspective,="" and/or="" based="" on="" previous="" learning/industry="" experience.="" they="" may="" use="" the="" deep="" method="" to="" reflective="" writing.="" the="" four="" steps="" in="" this="" method="" are:="" 1.="" d="" -="" describe="" experience="" (past="" or="" present)="" 1.="" e="" -="" explore="" or="" consolidate="" new="" learning="" 1.="" e="" -="" evaluate/analyse/self="" reaction="" 1.="" p="" -="" plan="" future="" learning="" description="" week="" no="" describe="" explore="" evaluate="" plan="" mark="" allocations:="" section="" to="" be="" included="" in="" the="" report="" description="" of="" the="" section="" marks="" part="" a:="" reflective="" journal="" for="" five="" weeks="" (4*5="20" marks)="" weekly="" reflective="" journal="" overall="" quality="" of="" reflective="" journal="" 1="" technical="" relevance="" depth="" (technical)="" of="" the="" review="" presented="" to="" the="" subject="" matter.="" 2="" critical="" reflection="" does="" the="" report="" submitted="" by="" the="" student="" demonstrate="" reflection?="" 1="" plagiarism="" did="" the="" student="" do="" any="" of="" these="" without="" reference="" and="" reflection?="" ·="" copy="" from="" other="" student(s)="" ·="" copy="" from="" internet="" source/textbook="" ·="" copy="" from="" other="" sources="" -4="" marking="" criteria="" for="" reflective="" journal="" marking="" criteria="" very="" good="" good="" average="" poor="" very="" poor="" description="" clear="" &="" comprehensive="" description="" of="" an="" event/issue="" in="" a="" professional="" matter="" clear="" description="" of="" an="" event/issue="" in="" a="" professional="" matter="" with="" minimal="" elaboration="" of="" a="" comprehensive="" nature="" includes="" description="" of="" events,="" and="" a="" little="" further="" consideration="" behind="" the="" events="" and="" a="" little="" further="" consideration="" behind="" the="" events="" only="" includes="" mere="" descriptions="" of="" theoretical="" knowledge;="" unclear="" reflection="" is="" demonstrated="" beyond="" the="" descriptions="" unclear="" or="" disjoint="" description="" of="" the="" event;="" no="" reflection="" is="" demonstrated="" explore="" writing="" is="" well-focused;="" arguments="" or="" perspectives="" are="" precisely="" defined="" and="" explained="" arguments="" or="" perspectives="" are="" clearly="" stated;="" organized="" flow="" in="" writing="" but="" not="" deep="" enough="" to="" be="" very="" insightful="" arguments="" or="" perspectives="" are="" vaguely="" mentioned;="" the="" writing="" lacked="" an="" organized="" flow="" and="" the="" ideas="" were="" hard="" to="" follow="" unclear="" arguments="" or="" perspectives;="" the="" writing="" lacks="" the="" original="" perspectives="" do="" not="" show="" any="" original="" thinking="" or="" perspectives;="" chaotic="" in="" organization="" and="" presentation="" of="" ideas="" evaluate="" critical="" analysis="" and="" evaluation="" of="" the="" event;="" writing="" demonstrated="" objectified="" thinking;="" evidence="" of="" critical="" analysis="" and="" integration="" of="" relevant="" literature="" minimal="" analysis="" of="" the="" event="" or="" issue;="" contemplation="" of="" the="" event="" or="" issue="" for="" the="" purpose="" of="" deeper="" understanding;="" integration="" of="" evidence="" based="" literature="" and="" other="" resources="" to="" inform="" practice="" superficial="" analysis="" of="" the="" event="" or="" issue;="" minimal="" integration="" of="" theory="" and="" evidence="" based="" literature="" and="" other="" resources="" basic="" analysis="" and/or="" evaluation="" of="" the="" event;="" does="" not="" employ="" any="" critical="" thinking="" approach.="" fails="" to="" analyse="" or="" evaluate="" adequately;="" cannot="" apply="" critical="" thinking="" approaches="" plan="" makes="" meaning="" of="" the="" experience="" and="" its="" implication="" of="" the="" future="" practice="" demonstrates="" plan="" with="" a="" view="" to="" improving="" practice="" development="" gained="" from="" the="" learning="" process="" is="" hardly="" observed="" make="" entries="" are="" mere="" descriptions="" of="" events="" rather="" than="" showing="" a="" plan="" for="" the="" future="" learning="" demonstrates="" no="" plans="" for="" future="" learning="" the="" end="" prepared="" by:="" dr.="" rajan="" kadel="" moderated="" by:="" dr.="" amoakoh="" gyasi-agyei="" march,="" 2019="" prepared="" by:="" dr.="" rajan="" kadel="" moderated="" by:="" dr.="" amoakoh="" gyasi-agyei="" march,=""> 50% excellent very good good satisfactory unsatisfactory evaluation logic is clear and easy to follow with strong arguments consistency logical and convincing mostly consistent and convincing adequate cohesion and conviction argument is confused and disjointed sophistication and effectivity the presented solution demonstrated an extreme degree of sophistication and effective. the presented solution demonstrated a high degree of sophistication and effective. the presented solution demonstrated an average degree of sophistication and effective. the presented solution demonstrated a low degree of sophistication and effective. the presented solution demonstrated a poor degree of sophistication and effective. explanation all elements are present and well integrated. components present with good cohesion components present and mostly well integrated most components present lacks structure. reference style clear styles with excellent source of references. clear referencing/ style generally good referencing/style unclear referencing/style lacks consistency with many errors report structure and report presentation proper writing. professionally presented properly written, with some minor deficiencies mostly good, but some structure or presentation problems acceptable presentation poor structure, careless presentation part b (reflective journal) (20 marks) every student has to watch all the weekly videos (available on the moodle) relating to the topic for the week and write reflective journal weekly from week one (1) to five (5). the purpose of this assignment is to identify new learning, self-realization and plan for improvement. students will have an opportunity to explore the use of the online tools (e.g.: online blogs) to record and reflect on their learning in different ways. students are required to: · record the development of their ideas or insights. · reflect upon the unit content and personal experiences. · analyse their own learning and self-development. · plan to improve on identified strengths and weaknesses. students are required to explore situations from a personal perspective, and/or based on previous learning/industry experience. they may use the deep method to reflective writing. the four steps in this method are: 1. d - describe experience (past or present) 1. e - explore or consolidate new learning 1. e - evaluate/analyse/self reaction 1. p - plan future learning description week no describe explore evaluate plan mark allocations: section to be included in the report description of the section marks part a: reflective journal for five weeks (4*5=20 marks) weekly reflective journal overall quality of reflective journal 1 technical relevance depth (technical) of the review presented to the subject matter. 2 critical reflection does the report submitted by the student demonstrate reflection? 1 plagiarism did the student do any of these without reference and reflection? · copy from other student(s) · copy from internet source/textbook · copy from other sources -4 marking criteria for reflective journal marking criteria very good good average poor very poor description clear & comprehensive description of an event/issue in a professional matter clear description of an event/issue in a professional matter with minimal elaboration of a comprehensive nature includes description of events, and a little further consideration behind the events and a little further consideration behind the events only includes mere descriptions of theoretical knowledge; unclear reflection is demonstrated beyond the descriptions unclear or disjoint description of the event; no reflection is demonstrated explore writing is well-focused; arguments or perspectives are precisely defined and explained arguments or perspectives are clearly stated; organized flow in writing but not deep enough to be very insightful arguments or perspectives are vaguely mentioned; the writing lacked an organized flow and the ideas were hard to follow unclear arguments or perspectives; the writing lacks the original perspectives do not show any original thinking or perspectives; chaotic in organization and presentation of ideas evaluate critical analysis and evaluation of the event; writing demonstrated objectified thinking; evidence of critical analysis and integration of relevant literature minimal analysis of the event or issue; contemplation of the event or issue for the purpose of deeper understanding; integration of evidence based literature and other resources to inform practice superficial analysis of the event or issue; minimal integration of theory and evidence based literature and other resources basic analysis and/or evaluation of the event; does not employ any critical thinking approach. fails to analyse or evaluate adequately; cannot apply critical thinking approaches plan makes meaning of the experience and its implication of the future practice demonstrates plan with a view to improving practice development gained from the learning process is hardly observed make entries are mere descriptions of events rather than showing a plan for the future learning demonstrates no plans for future learning the end prepared by: dr. rajan kadelmoderated by: dr. amoakoh gyasi-agyeimarch, 2019 prepared by: dr. rajan kadel moderated by: dr. amoakoh gyasi-agyeimarch, 2019>