| Category | Assignment | Subject | Engineering |
|---|---|---|---|
| University | Coventry University | Module Title | 600EN Embedded Systems Engineering |
| Assessment Type | Coursework |
|---|---|
| Assessment Title | Assignment 1 |
| Academic Year | T1-2025 |
This document is for CU-PSB Academy students for their own use in completing their assessed work for this module and should not be passed to third parties or posted on any website.
| Assessment Type: Coursework | Assessment Number: 1 | Study Mode: Part-Time | Weighting: 40% |
| Submission Date: Week 5 or 12 of T1-2025 | Submission Time: 23:59 (Singapore Time) |
This module allows the students to employ appropriate theoretical and practical methods to critically analyse, design, develop, operate, and maintain embedded systems. This module aims to develop the skills necessary to design and implement industry-standard network-based applications-specific systems on engineering problems using modern programming models such as Unified Modelling Language (UML) and Object-Oriented Programming (OOP), while generating documentation to facilitate maintenance and modification.
Completion of this assignment will address the following learning outcomes:
You are required to design (Hardware and Software project. You will also be required to produce an infomercial based on the project design and explain the operations of the project. It is assumed the project will be implemented using ARM architecture and programmed using Object Oriented Programming language (C++) or Microchip MCU and using C programming language or ATMega MCU Arduino nano module using C/C++ programming language.
You will work as part of a group (minimum of 2 students and maximum of 3 per group) on designing an Obstacle Avoidance for the visually handicapped that could be used at home or on the move. The system is assumed to be developed using an mbed NXP LPC1768 board (or equivalent), which will be programmed using the C++ programming language and the mbed compiler, or STM32F401RE using C++ programming language and mbed compiler, or an ATMega MCU Arduino nano module using C/C++ programming language.
As the Chief Hardware/Software Architect of your company, you have been tasked with executing the contract to design an Obstacle Avoidance System for Visually Handicapped Individuals. The system should provide the following features:
Ultrasonic Sensor (or equivalent): Detects obstacles from 1-3 meters away.
Audio and Vibrational Alerts: Helps the user avoid obstacles through sound and vibration.
Temperature Sensor: Measures the surrounding temperature and alerts the user about any impending hot zones for individuals who are not sensitive to temperature changes.
Panic Button: Allows the user to alert for help if they fall and cannot get up.
LCD Display: Communicates the status of the user to passers-by, particularly when the user has fainted.
Accelerometer: Detects falls (or fainting) and triggers an alert (audio and/or visual LED) to notify passers-by to seek rescue.
Additional Components: Students are encouraged to add their own components to improve the device’s functionality and performance.
| Accelerometer (optional) | Panic button | Bluetooth Module |
| Keypad | Ultrasonic Sensor | Mbed development kit |
| Microchip PIC MCU kit | Temperature Sensor | Buzzer |
| Arduino MCU kit | LCD | RGB LEDs |
| USB | Gyroscope (optional) | Speaker |
Infomercial (See Infomercial supplementary sheet)
The software design should be completed using a Modelling tool
Hardware design should be completed using a CAD tool:
| Infomercial | 25 marks |
| Design | 75 marks |
Submission Guidelines: This assignment should be submitted via Blackboard. It is important that you do not cut and paste material from the web or other sources; always put the material into your own words.
If you are not able to complete your coursework on time due to extenuating circumstances, the ONLY way to receive an extension (up to 5 working days) or a deferral (anything longer than 5 working days) is to contact a Registry team member located at your specific CU site.
PSB Academy Singapore – CU_ENG@psb-academy.edu.sg
Where earlier work by you is citable, ie. It has already been published/submitted; you must reference it clearly. Identical pieces of work submitted concurrently will also be considered to be self-plagiarism.
There should be a title page which clearly identifies the following;
The word count identified includes quotations, but excludes the bibliography, and unless specifically stated, encompasses a discrepancy of + or – 10%.
| Banding | Knowledge and
Understanding (30%) |
Analysis, Interpretation and Application of
Theory (30%) |
Quality of Research (20%) | Academic Writing (20%) |
| 90-100% | Exceptional knowledge base exploring and analysing the discipline and its theory with extraordinary originality and autonomy. | Makes exceptional use of a range of relevant techniques of interpretation, application and/or analysis, where relevant to the module learning outcomes. Demonstrates an exceptional theoretical understanding, where relevant, with appropriately selected theoretical knowledge integrated into the overall assignment tasks and all learning outcomes. | Exceptional exploration of wider academic sources with a high degree of independent learning which exceeds the assignment brief. Sources have been accurately interpreted and integrated with flawless synthesis and evaluation leading to innovative and interesting ideas. | Exceptional answer with coherent and logical presentation of ideas. The answer is clearly expressed with flair and originality. No language errors present and academic writing style was adhered to throughout. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard has been employed in an accurate manner. |
| 80-89% | Outstanding knowledge base exploring and analysing the discipline and its theory with clear originality and autonomy. | Makes outstanding use of a range of relevant techniques of interpretation, application and/or analysis, where relevant to the module learning outcomes. Shows a well-developed ability to compare alternative theories and apply them within the context of the assignment task and all learning outcomes, where relevant. | Outstanding exploration of wider academic sources with a high degree of independent learning which exceeds the assignment brief. Sources have been accurately interpreted and integrated with a high degree of analysis and application, leading to innovative and interesting ideas. | Outstanding answer with coherent and logical presentation of ideas. The answer is clearly expressed with originality. No language errors present and academic writing style was adhered to. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard has been employed in an accurate manner. |
| 70-79% | Excellent knowledge base that supports analysis and/or interpretation and problem-solving in theory and/or practice within the discipline, with considerable originality. | Makes excellent use of established techniques of interpretation, application and/or analysis, where relevant to the module learning outcomes. Shows a systematic and accurate understanding of key theories, which are consistently and appropriately applied within the context of the assignment task and all learning outcomes, where relevant. | Excellent exploration of wider academic sources with evidence of independent learning which may exceed the assignment brief. Sources have been accurately interpreted, integrated and analysed, with an attempt made at synthesis leading to interesting ideas. | Excellent answer with coherent and logical presentation of ideas. The answer is entirely relevant and focused. Minimal language errors which have no impact on clarity of expression. Academic writing style was adhered to. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard has been employed in an accurate manner. |
| 60-69% | Very good knowledge base that supports analysis and/or interpretation and problem-solving in theory and/or practice within the discipline, with some originality displayed. | Makes very good use of established techniques of interpretation, application and/or analysis, where relevant to the module learning outcomes. Shows an accurate understanding of key theories, where relevant, which are appropriately applied within the context of the assignment task and the module learning outcomes. | Very good evidence of wider academic reading which indicates an approach to independent learning. Sources have been accurately interpreted and integrated with some attempt at analysis. | Very good answer with coherent and logical presentation of ideas. The answer is largely relevant and focused. Some language errors may be present but do not impact on the clarity of expression. Academic writing style was inconsistently adhered to. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard is mostly accurate with some minor errors. |
| 50-59% | Good knowledge base that supports some analysis and/or interpretation and problem-solving in theory and/or practice within the discipline.
|
Makes good use of established techniques of interpretation, application and/or analysis, where relevant to the module learning outcomes. Sound descriptive knowledge of key theories, where relevant, with some appropriate application.
|
Good evidence of academic reading, with some attempt at moving beyond the recommended texts.
Interpretation of sources has been largely accurate, but there may be some instances of misunderstanding. Limited evidence of integration and analysis. |
Good answer with some attempt at coherent and logical presentation. The answer contains some irrelevant material and lacks focus at points. Some language errors are present which impacts on clarity at times. Academic writing style is not adhered to at all times. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard is present, however may not be entirely accurate at times. |
| 40-49% | Satisfactory knowledge base demonstrating
comprehension and formulation of basic knowledge with some omissions at the level of theoretical understanding. Limited ability to discuss theory and solve problems within the discipline. |
Makes satisfactory but limited use of established techniques of interpretation, application and/or analysis, where relevant to the module learning outcomes.
Selection of theory, where relevant, is satisfactory but application and/or understanding is limited. |
Satisfactory evidence of academic reading, with no obvious attempt to move beyond the recommended texts. Interpretation of sources may be inaccurate and poorly integrated. Analysis is unlikely to have been attempted. | Satisfactory answer, however, issues with coherence and logical presentation are likely to be present. The answer contains irrelevant material and lacks focus. Language errors are frequent which impacts on clarity and academic writing style is not present. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard may be incomplete and is inaccurate. |
| 35-39%
(Marginal Fail) |
Outcomes not or only partially met. Restricted knowledge base demonstrated. Limited understanding of discipline. Difficulty with linking theory and problem solving within the discipline. | Attempts at analysis, where relevant, and interpretation are ineffective and/or uninformed by the discipline. Knowledge of theory, where relevant, is inaccurate and/or incomplete. Choice of theory inappropriate. Application and/or understanding demonstrated is very limited. | Limited evidence of reading at an academic level. Sources used may be inappropriate and interpreted poorly. No evidence of integration, analysis or interpretation. Poor academic practice may have resulted in sections of plagiarised material. | Answer is attempted but limited. Poor coherence and illogical presentation. The answer contains irrelevant material and lacks focus throughout. Language errors are consistent and impact on the clarity of expression. Academic writing style is not present. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard is incomplete and inaccurate. |
| 0 – 34% | Little or no evidence of a knowledge base. Little evidence of understanding of discipline. Significant difficulty with theory and problem-solving within the discipline. | Absence of relevant theoretical content and/or use of theory, where relevant.
Lacks any analysis and interpretation. |
Inadequate evidence of reading at an academic level, with poor application of sources and ideas. The answer is likely to include inappropriate references that are misunderstood and not integrated. Possibility of plagiarism
OR no evidence of academic research. The answer may not be research-based. |
Serious and fundamental flaws leading to an unclear answer. Very weak academic skills and writing ability. Poorly structured with multiple language errors. Inadequate application of the CU version of the Harvard referencing style. |
Submit Your 600EN Assignment Questions & Get Plagiarism-Free Answers
Order Non-Plagiarized AssignmentHaving trouble completing your 600EN Embedded Systems Engineering assignment on time? Our Engineering Assignment Help service is the best for you! Our expert writers offer high-quality, plagiarism-free, and AI-free assignments at pocket-friendly rates. You can even check our free assignment samples before placing your order. We promise on-time delivery and 24/7 support, no matter your academic needs. From Business Management to technical subjects, we cover it all. We also provide Coventry University Assignment Samples that have been written by the phd expert writers. Contact us now!
Let's Book Your Work with Our Expert and Get High-Quality Content
