IMPORTANT: your overall total word count should not exceed 2,500 words (weighted at 70% of the final mark for the module)
The final end-of-term individual coursework consists of performing four key tasks.
Peer feedback should be submitted for 3 submissions.
This peer feedback is a MANDATORY component and should at least cover the following:
Maximum 250 words per feedback.
Native Singapore Writers Team
Develop and implement the proposed functional and non-functional requirements set out for the IoT project in the first submission.
The final report should contain the following:
Provide a clear explanation of the problem and objectives. Include a clear explanation of each of the major aspects of the product including a rationale for each of the design and implementation decisions. Include academic references throughout the report or where possible, to support your justifications/decisions and resources used.
Provide clear evidence of the application of an appropriate software development methodology. Discussion of each of the major stages including how validation and verification were applied at each stage.
Include a critical analysis and reflection of what went wrong and what was right throughout the project? What could be done differently next time? Appraisal of the product; analysis of the approach taken (with hindsight); analysis of software/tools used.
In general, the report should be free of spelling errors and suitable grammar and consistent writing style should be adapted. Also, please ensure to include the following items to enhance the presentation of your report: table of contents, page numbers, referencing list, etc.
The structure for your final report should follow a similar structure to the initial submission but no duplicate submission. For example, the abstract, introduction, and proposal section can be revised and made concise while methodology, literature review, system design, test plan, and implementation progress can be revised or removed completely. Additional sections to fulfill the above objectives can be added such as evaluation results, implementation details, critical reflection, and conclusion.
The main goal of this video demonstration is to provide a short overview of your project and demonstrate the key features of your IoT project. This video serves a twofold purpose, to verify the functionality of your project and validate that it is your work.
You will not be marked on video editing skills, however, please see the following guidelines to support you further.
Some tips: a script can be written for each slide to introduce your project and prepare key features to demonstrate and record it in one take or multiple takes. You can use the above video editing tools to edit and merge the video clips into one final one to submit. Ensure to include your name in the video.
| Criteria | Description | Marks |
|---|---|---|
| Missing or incomplete feedback. | Pass/Fail | |
| Covered all three areas in sufficient depth but inappropriate suggestions were made or poor language was used. | ||
| A clear grasp of peer’s proposal and appropriate suggestions made. However, lacked details and no supporting reference(s) were provided. | ||
| Excellent feedback, proposed suitable enhancements with complementing materials. Showed inspiration and identified areas for self-improvement. | ||
| Exceptional feedback, proposed innovative enhancements with suitable materials. Showed inspiration and identified areas for self-improvement. | ||
| Submitted 3 peer feedbacks. |
| Criteria | Description | Marks |
|---|---|---|
| Limited or no IoT features were implemented. No documentation or missing submission. | 0 | |
| Single zip file was submitted and some set requirements followed. Few proposed requirements developed were implemented. Limited or lack of innovation and details provided on the implementation. Fragment of the code with syntax errors and unclear circuit drawing provided with limited explanations or annotations. Missing testing report and screenshots/images of the system running. | 10 | |
| Most of the requirements were met and requirements implemented. A reasonable effort was made to document the technologies used, justification of implementation decisions and evaluation results in the final report. Most of the proposed requirements/features were implemented and tested with clear results. Most of the code files were developed and submitted with some comments on how to compile and run the system. Some testing reports and screenshots/images of the system running are provided. | 15 |
| Criteria | Description | Marks |
|---|---|---|
| Missing or incomplete report submitted with core sections missing. | 0 | |
| Limited or unclear description/objectives of each major component. | 10 | |
| Limited or no evidence of system development life cycle such as requirements analysis, design, implementation, testing, maintenance, and planning. Vague or no critical analysis and reflection on a project developed. Poor structure and presentation of the report with several spelling and grammar mistakes, missing sections such as table of content, references, page numbers, abstract and conclusion. | 15 | |
| Adequate description/objectives of each major component. Reasonable evidence of system development life cycle such as requirements analysis, design, implementation, testing, maintenance, and planning. Some critical analysis and reflection on the project were developed. Adequate structure and presentation of the report with some spelling and grammar mistakes, some missing sections such as table of content, references, page numbers, abstract, and conclusion. | 20 | |
| Good description/objectives of each major component. Good evidence of system development life cycle such as requirements analysis, design, implementation, testing, maintenance and planning. Good critical analysis and reflection on the project developed. Well-structured report and good presentation of the report with the suitable writing style and covered most of the core sections. | 25 | |
| Excellent description/objectives of each major component. Excellent evidence of system development life cycle such as requirements analysis, design, implementation, testing, maintenance and planning. Excellent critical analysis and reflections on the project developed. Excellent structure and presentation of the report with the suitable writing style and covered most of the core sections. | 30 |
Native Singapore Writers Team
| Criteria | Description | Marks |
|---|---|---|
| No video submitted or poor video quality submitted or video length drastically exceeds the 3-minute-length requirement. | 0 | |
| No project introduction was provided and some features were implemented with a vague description. Limited or no voice-over provided to showcase the developed project. | 2 | |
| Adequate project introduction provided with vague rationale and demonstration of few features showcased. Adequate walkthrough of the project with voice/video. | 4 | |
| Reasonable project introduction provided with clear rationale and demonstration of most of the key features showcased. Reasonable walkthrough of the project with voice/video. | 6 | |
| Good project introduction provided with clear rationale and demonstration of most of the key features showcased. A good walkthrough of the project with voice/video. | 8 | |
| Excellent presentation of the proposed project with clear planning and structure of the video. Excellent demonstration of most, if not all, key features. Excellent walkthrough of the project with voice/video. | 10 |
The post CM3040 Physical Computing and Internet-of-Things (IoT) CourseWork appeared first on Singapore Assignment Help.