Wilteq Arduino Uno Course - Practical assessment

Final Project: Individual Microcontroller System

When: Proposal in week 6, build in weeks 11-12 | Time: Milestones from week 6; final demonstration in the last session of week 12 | Result: Competent / Not Yet Competent

Learner: ______________________________ Assessor: ______________________________ Date: ______________

The brief

Design, build and document a microcontroller system of your own that solves a real problem for a user you can name - at home, in a workshop, on a farm, in a shop or at college. You may use any device from the course, including the extension modules (ultrasonic, keypad, RFID, SD card), or another extra-low-voltage module approved by your facilitator.

What your system must do

At least two inputs, including one analogue sensor or measured value
At least one actuator (servo, DC motor, stepper, relay module or buzzer) driven safely through a driver or module
A user interface: the I2C LCD, or a documented Serial interface
Mode or state logic (a state machine) and non-blocking millis() timing
Extra-low-voltage DC only; actuators on their own supply with common GND
Code organised into functions, with named constants and comments

Conditions

Individual project. The proposal must be approved before building starts.
Code from lessons or other sources may be adapted if it is credited in comments and you can explain it.
Each milestone is signed off by the facilitator; a missed milestone gets a new date, not a fail.

Kit

Your bench equipment and kit modules, plus approved parts from the class stores.

Milestones

When	Milestone	What is checked
Week 6	Proposal	Problem, named user, success criteria, block diagram, parts list - approved or returned with changes
Week 10	Plan review	Pin and power plan, BOM, state table, risk list
Week 11, session 2	Subsystems	Each subsystem proven with its own test sketch
Week 11, session 5	Integration	Working prototype and test table started
Week 12, last session	Hand-in	Demonstration, 5-minute presentation and complete portfolio

Evidence to submit

Approved proposal with success criteria
IPO or block diagram, state table, pin and power plan, BOM and circuit diagram
Staged integration log
Final sketch (.ino), with any borrowed code credited
Test table mapped to the success criteria, including a failure injection
Fault log with resolved and unresolved entries
One-page user guide
5-minute presentation and demonstration

Assessment criteria

Tick one box per criterion. ★ marks a critical criterion.

#	Criterion	Competent when	Not yet competent if
1	Proposal and success criteria	Proposal approved by week 6 with measurable success criteria and a named user.	No approved proposal, or criteria that cannot be tested.
2	★ Minimum scope	Two or more inputs including one analogue, an actuator through a driver or module, a user interface, state logic and millis() timing.	One or more scope requirements missing.
3	Design documentation	IPO diagram, state table, pin and power plan, BOM and circuit diagram that match the build.	Documents missing or contradict the build.
4	★ Safe build	Extra-low-voltage only, correct drivers and supplies, common GND, tidy and traceable wiring.	Any unsafe drive, supply or wiring.
5	Functionality	Meets its success criteria in a live demonstration.	One or more success criteria not met in the demonstration.
6	Code quality	Functions, named constants, non-blocking timing and comments; borrowed code credited.	Blocking code, magic numbers, or uncredited code the learner cannot explain.
7	Integration and testing	Staged integration log and a test table mapped to every criterion, including a failure injection.	No evidence of staged testing, or criteria untested.
8	Fault log and reflection	Faults recorded with method and fix, and honest unresolved limits with ideas to improve.	No fault log or reflection.
9	User guide	One page that lets someone else set up and use the system safely.	Missing, or a user could not operate the system from it.
10	Presentation and questions	Explains the problem, design decisions and test results, and answers questions about their own code.	Cannot explain how the system works or answer questions about the code.
11	★ Own work	Design and code are the learner's own; any adapted code is credited and understood.	Uncredited copied work, or work the learner cannot explain.

Criterion

Competent when

Not yet competent if

NYC

Proposal and success criteria

Proposal approved by week 6 with measurable success criteria and a named user.

No approved proposal, or criteria that cannot be tested.

★ Minimum scope

Two or more inputs including one analogue, an actuator through a driver or module, a user interface, state logic and millis() timing.

One or more scope requirements missing.

Design documentation

IPO diagram, state table, pin and power plan, BOM and circuit diagram that match the build.

Documents missing or contradict the build.

★ Safe build

Extra-low-voltage only, correct drivers and supplies, common GND, tidy and traceable wiring.

Any unsafe drive, supply or wiring.

Functionality

Meets its success criteria in a live demonstration.

One or more success criteria not met in the demonstration.

Code quality

Functions, named constants, non-blocking timing and comments; borrowed code credited.

Blocking code, magic numbers, or uncredited code the learner cannot explain.

Integration and testing

Staged integration log and a test table mapped to every criterion, including a failure injection.

No evidence of staged testing, or criteria untested.

Fault log and reflection

Faults recorded with method and fix, and honest unresolved limits with ideas to improve.

No fault log or reflection.

User guide

One page that lets someone else set up and use the system safely.

Missing, or a user could not operate the system from it.

Presentation and questions

Explains the problem, design decisions and test results, and answers questions about their own code.

Cannot explain how the system works or answer questions about the code.

★ Own work

Design and code are the learner's own; any adapted code is credited and understood.

Uncredited copied work, or work the learner cannot explain.

How the result is decided

Each criterion is marked Competent (C) or Not Yet Competent (NYC) on the evidence seen. There are no partial marks.
The overall result is Competent only when every criterion is Competent.
Critical criteria (marked ★) cover safety and the core purpose of the task. They cannot be made up by strong work elsewhere.
A Not Yet Competent result lists the criteria still to meet, written feedback and a reassessment date.
One reassessment is offered, normally in the next buffer session. Only the criteria marked NYC are reassessed.

Assessor guidance

Approve proposals only when the minimum scope is met and the parts are available.
Sign each milestone in the learner's logbook with the date.
In the presentation, ask the learner to change one constant in their sketch and predict the effect before uploading.

Feedback and reassessment

Criteria not yet met (numbers)
Feedback to the learner
Reassessment date

Sign-off

Result	Competent Not Yet Competent
Assessor signature		Learner signature