This document discusses the general criteria for grading the lab reports that graduate students (475) must write for Assignments #1 through #7.
Graduate students (475) are required to do 7 lab reports during the first half of the semester. The text of each Assignment describes in detail the content of each lab report.
Lab reports will be graded using a generalized rubric matrix. While the specific technical content of each lab report is different, all lab reports can be evaluated according to the following 5 criteria:
Format
Introduction
Mechanical Design
Software Design
Performance Analysis
The first 2 lab reports (Assignments #1 and #2) will not be counted toward the course grade. The instructors will read them and assign an informational grade using the rubric matrix. In addition, you must independently grade these 2 lab reports, also using the rubric matrix. The instructors will discuss these self-grades with you. The feedback from this exercise is intended to familiarize you with the instructors' requirements, during a "grace period" that does not penalize you if you don't quite understanding what we want right away. Grades count for the lab reports for Assignments #3 through #7. You are not formally required to self-grade the final 5 lab reports, though you may do so privately if it helps you to write them. The final 5 lab reports count for 15% of your semester grade.
lab reports must be typewritten (includes laser, inkjet, or 24-pin dot matrix printers).
All pages must be consecutively numbered.
There should be a separate cover page with report title, your name, and the date.
Lab reports must be securely bound, either in a 3-ring binder, staples that go all the way through the stack of paper, plastic spirals, or some other sturdy report cover format. Loose sheets are not acceptable.
Figures may be neatly hand-drawn or printed as computer graphics. They must be consecutively numbered and each have a meaningful legend. Detailed legend text is not necessary, but can be included if desired. You may interleave the figures and legends with the text, or else collect them together as a group at the end.
Correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation must be observed in the text, figures, and figure legends.
If references are cited, a separate bibliography page must be provided, using proper journal citation style. To make life easier, please cite references by author and date; do not use footnotes or reference numbers.
Each Assignment has a list of items to be included in the lab report for it; however, the exact organization is up to you. Just be sure that all of the specific content requirements are met. Read the Assignments carefully.
You're still required to have complete design notebooks. If you keep your notebooks correctly, writing the lab reports should be easy. Lab reports are not a substitute for dated, daily design notebook entries.
Take good notes of robot performances during the checkout runs. Don't rely on your memory; write things down as they happen.
Lab reports are due at the start of the first class after you have checked out on an Assignment. The late penalty is one letter grade per calendar day of lateness, across all rubric matrix criteria.
These are the actual evaluation criteria that the instructors will use when assigning grades to your work.
Note that there are blank spaces (greyed out) in some of the matrices. These indicate a major jump in quality, and that, in the instructors' experience, there really isn't a smooth transition at this point. Sometimes, it really is just good, fair, or bad.
A B C D F Format Fonts are clear. Good word processing skills. Photos and figures have adequate contrast. Informative figure legends. Data plots have appropriate axis tick spacing and labels. Printer has adequate ink or toner. Document is bound or firmly stapled; no loose sheets.
Good English grammar and spelling.
Bad font sizes. Poor word processor skills. Poor page layout. Photos and drawings are too small and/or under-labelled, although they are usually of okay quality and focus. Figure legends are not informative. Data plots have absurd axis tick spacing (e.g., whatever fractional default steps Excel happens to spit out), no axis labels, and illegible plot lines.
Misspelled words, poor English grammar and word choice.
Could be improved by being more meticulous, or not waiting until the last minute.
Crazy fonts; many word processor errors. Used-up printer ink or toner cartridge when the pages were printed.
Loose pages, no binding. Many too-small, out-of-focus, or poorly-contrasting photos. Many unlabelled figures. No figure legends. Data plots are illegible and uninformative.
Full of typos and systematic misspellings. Very bad English grammar and usage.
Unacceptable and unprofessional at the college level.
Introduction Good overview of the design and strategy for the Assignment. An effective summary. Gives enough detail to interest the reader and keep him reading.
Not too much, not too little.
Either:
1. Too sketchy. Fails to give an adequate overview of the Assignment, either the design or the general performance.
Or:
2. Too detailed, leading to annoying repetition later in the paper.
There is no Introduction.
Mechanical Design Provides what was explicitly asked for in the Assignment.
Necessary mechanical structures are documented in at least LEGO project card level of detail. Rationale for design choices is clear. Excellent descriptive text and labelled figures. Walks the reader through the design and makes him look at what you want him to see and understand.
You have all the pieces present, but not enough details. Some features of the design are not clearly explained or illustrated, though the reader can usually infer what has been left out. Figures may be somewhat unclear or under-labelled.
Major omissions of required items. Poor integration of text and figures. Figures are of very poor quality. Little explanation of the rationale for designs.
Less commonly, gets sidetracked in irrelevant and unnecessary detail about preliminary versions or other extraneous topics. In this case, the report may be voluminous, but it is of little interest.
Everything has been left out except a few "tourist" photos and some half-baked descriptions of the mechanical design. The reader has no clue at all what your robot looks like or how it's supposed to work.
Mantra: "I built a robot, see, here it is."
Software Design Provides what was explicitly asked for in the Assignment.
The software architecture of your robot is clearly explained in words, pseudo-code, flowcharts, or state diagrams. The function of each piece is demonstrated to the reader in adequate, but not overwhelming, detail.
Discussion lacks adequate detail, but all the necessary points are covered in some way. State diagrams or flowcharts may be confusingly drawn. Especially if the software is complex or novel, you don't take enough time to walk the reader through it.
Sketchy treatment. May have left out the required block diagram or other pictorial illustration of the control software. Figures and text are poorly integrated.
You probably didn't work on the code as much as you should have, and it shows.
There is nothing here except a code listing and some computer buzzwords. The reader has no clue at all what the software architecture of your robot is.
Mantra: "I wrote some code for my robot, it's self-explanatory."
Performance Evaluation Provides what was explicitly asked for in the Assignment.
Complete description of performance. Good postmortem analysis of what worked and what didn't, and critical suggestions for improvement.
Adequate description of the performance, but important details are lacking. If you did something really unusual in hardware or software, you drop the ball and don't comment on how it worked out.
Major omissions. Checkout runs may be described, but no there are evaluations of failures or suggestions for improvement. Often contains vacuous statements like "It worked well" or "The bumpers broke again." Insight is mostly lacking: all what, no why.
There is no substantive evaluation of the robot's performance.
Mantra: "This robot sucks!"
In Adobe PDF format.