程序代写代做代考 Excel scheme algorithm ELEC 3662 – Embedded Systems Assessment Criteria

ELEC 3662 – Embedded Systems Assessment Criteria
This document outlines the main criteria that will be used to assess students’ projects
Project Criteria
A successful project should
• Correctly interface TM4C123GH6PM microcontroller with the keypad matrix, LCD and perform simple mathematical calculations, etc.
• The circuit should be well-designed – correct use of jumper connections, avoid entanglement, appropriately labelled connections, clear and labelling of keys on the keypad.
• The software should be well-written – indented, commented, makes use of functions, appropriately named/sized variables with an attempt made to make it as efficient as possible in terms of both time and program memory space. The calculator is expected to execute floating- point calculations and nested calculations (more than two operands with correct operator’s precedence).
Extra “Credits”
– Adding a password to access the keypad/calculator, with the option for the user to change the password. – Display graphics on the LCD.
– Any additional tasks that you find useful (get the module leader approval first)
Project Demonstration and Presentation
• Orally summarise the objectives of the project and the main deliverables.
• Successfully demonstrate your working project to a member of staff.
• The system should work reliably and be able to carry out its tasks without error/crashing.
• Be able to answer technical questions on your project.

Project Demonstration and Presentation Marking Scheme
Student Name
Module Code
ELEC3362
Assignment Title
Project Presentation & Demonstration
Assessor
Achievement level
→
Poor
Marginal
Adequate
Good
Very Good
Excellent
Weight %
E (<40% of max.) D (40-49% of max.) C (50-59% of max. ) B (60-69% of max.) A ( 70-79% of max.) A* (80% of max.) [30] Functionality of Demo (both h/w & s/w) & match to specification Negligible or non-functioning hardware Basic level of functionality. Specification not met. Reasonable level of functionality. The main specification’s aspects were partially met. The main aspects of the specification were met. The hardware meets almost all aspects of the specification The hardware fully meets all aspects of the specification [10] Quality of circuit design Poor circuit design with fundamental errors Basic circuit design: inelegant, with numerous errors. An adequate circuit design, but far from an optimum solution. Some errors, and some inappropriate choices of component types/ratings. Good circuit design, although not the optimum solution. Mostly correct choices of component types. Intelligent circuit design with no errors and all components specified correctly. An optimum or innovative solution. All design aspects and choices are technically correct. [20] Technical achievement and understanding No real evidence that the student understands the topic. Superficial description of technical achievement. No critical analysis of achievement. Basic level of understanding. Reasonable description of technical achievement showing understanding of the main aspects of the work. Rather lacking in depth and with no significant critical analysis. Good description of technical achievement, showing understanding of all main aspects, with depth shown in some aspects. Comprehensive description of technical achievements, with critical analysis, demonstrate good understanding of the work. Thorough description of technical achievements, with good critical analysis, demonstrating an in- depth understanding of the work. [40] Response to questions (on h/w & s/w) Could not answer questions. Questions could not be answered without prompting. Able to answer some of the questions. Reasonable attempts to answer questions. Most questions answered well. All questions answered fluently. [50] Code structure and quality of algorithm Very poorly structured code. Poorly conceived or erroneous algorithms. Not very well structured code: inefficient algorithms The code has some structure but with room for improvement. Algorithms are not very logical. Generally well structured code: mostly logical algorithms but not always the best solution. Very well structured code and logical, concise algorithms. Approaching a professional standard of code structure with highly elegant algorithms. [25] Presentation & layout, Poor: disorganised, Not very tidy Reasonable standard of presentation/organisation, but untidy in places. Mostly well- presented & organised Well-presented & organised throughout. Very high standard with impressive attention to detail. [25] Commenting / labelling / documentation Missing Minimal Partially included, but not always clear. Mostly included & mostly clear Clear & essentially complete. Very high standard with impressive attention to detail Main achievements Areas for improvement Overall mark/120: Software Code Q&A Demo Weighting Breakdown Assessment Source Code + Description* Demo + Q & A Total Keypad 15% 10% 25% LCD + Calculations 20% 15% 35% Deadline** Week 12 Week 13 Description*: A poster containing a flowchart, a schematic and an abstract description of your achievements. Deadline**: - Source Code: Week 12, Monday 11 January 2021 at 23:49 UK time, via Minerva TurnitIn. - Demo + Q & A: Week 13, a 10 mins examination slots will be published over Monday and Tuesday. Examination slots will be available on Minerva soon.