| University | Coventry University (CU) |
| Subject | 600EN: Embedded Systems Engineering |
Assessment Brief
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. Any infringements of this rule should be reported to CU_ENG@psb-academy.edu.sg.
| Module Title: Embedded Systems Engineering |
| Module Code: 600EN |
| 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) |
Hire a Professional Essay & Assignment Writer for completing your Academic Assessments
Native Singapore Writers Team
- 100% Plagiarism-Free Essay
- Highest Satisfaction Rate
- Free Revision
- On-Time Delivery
Introduction: |
| 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 pertaining to 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: | |
| 1 | Critically analyse the principles of a programming model |
| 2 | Identify objects and classes in object-oriented engineering problems and represent those using UML notations. |
| 3 | Analyse, review and select techniques, procedures, and methods to undertake engineering tasks associated with a microprocessor considering the constraints of cost, environmental and safety factors. |
| 4 | Appraise and design the structure and requirement of a network-based embedded system. |
You are required to design (Hardware and Software) project. You will also be required to produce an infomercial based on the project design, and expecting operations of the project. It is assumed the project will be implement 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 mbed NXP LPC1768 board (or equivalent) which will be programmed using C++ programming language and mbed compiler or STM32F401RE using C++ programming language and mbed compiler or ATMega MCU Arduino nano module using C/C++ programming language.
You will be required to produce an infomercial to demonstrate your design and expected operation of your final application.
Task: |
|
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:
|
*** Available Resources ****
| 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 |
| Assessment Guidelines | |
| Infomercial (See Infomercial supplementary sheet) | |
| Design outline: | |
|
|
| Marking Criteria: | |
| 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.
Guidance notes and considerations
Late Submission
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
- Extenuating circumstances are defined by CU as ‘genuine circumstances beyond your control or ability to foresee, and which seriously impair your assessed work’.
- Please note that you will need to provide third party evidence to support your reasoning for requiring an extension or deferral.
- Your course tutor is NOT able to approve an extension or a deferral, if you have not completed the official forms and had your request approved your work will count as not submitted and receive a zero mark.
Plagiarism and Malpractice
- You are encouraged to check the originality of your work by using the draft Turnitin links on your Blackboard online.
- Collusion between students (where sections of your work are similar to the work submitted by other students in this or previous module cohorts) is taken extremely seriously and will be reported to the academic conduct panel. This applies to all coursework and exam answers.
- A marked difference between your writing style, knowledge and skill level demonstrated in class discussion, any test conditions and that demonstrated in a coursework assignment may result in you having to undertake a Viva Voce in order to prove the coursework assignment is entirely your own work.
- If you make use of the services of a proof reader in your work you must keep your original version and make it available as a demonstration of your written efforts.
- You must not submit work for assessment that you have already submitted (partially or in full), either for your current course or for another qualification of this university, unless this is specifically provided for in your assignment brief or specific course or module information.
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.
Submission Guidelines
There should be a title page which clearly identifies the following;
- Student number * Name of the module
- Title of the Assessment * Assessment number * Word count
The word count identified includes quotations, but excludes the bibliography and unless specifically stated, encompasses a discrepancy of + or – 10%.
Buy Custom Answer of This Assessment & Raise Your Grades
Rubric
| 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 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. Answer is likely to include inappropriate references which are misunderstood and not integrated. Possibility of plagiarism
OR no evidence of academic research. 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 CU version of Harvard referencing style. |
Buy Custom Answer of This Assessment & Raise Your Grades
Struggling with Embedded Systems Engineering assignments at CU-PSB Academy? Designing hardware/software projects like an Obstacle Avoidance System can be challenging, especially when integrating UML, OOP, and microcontroller programming. Our experts at Singapore Assignment Help provide AI-free, plagiarism-free, human-written guidance to help you complete your coursework effectively. Explore our expert assignment help or get our engineering assignment help to achieve top grades with confidence.
Looking for Plagiarism free Answers for your college/ university Assignments.
- BUS105 Statistics Assignment: Inferential Analysis of Customer Satisfaction Scores Between Total Sensing Corporation and Building Sensing Enterprise
- ICT 133 Structured Programming Tutor-Marked Assignment July 2025 Presentation
- BUS354 Customer Relationship Management Group-based Assignment July 2025 Semester
- LOG351 Lean Six Sigma for Supply Chains Group-based Assignment July 2025 Semester
- 7009CL Global Strategic Management Assignment Coursework brief
- PSYC 326 Design and Analysis Assignment Report 2
- HR9516 HRM Essentials Assignment – Well-Being at IMH and Personal Reflection with Nestlé
- MKTG3040 Service Marketing Assessment Item Two Case Study Analysis Report
- 07 41413 Management and Organisation Part 2 Individual Assignment
- ELT201 Understanding Poetry Tutor-Marked Assignments-02 July 2025 Presentation