1

EE323 Digital Control Systems

Mini-Project Marking Rubric

A: Presentation

Criterion Per unit mark Weight

0 (Very Poor)

0.25 (Poor)

0.5 (Average)

0.75 (Good)

1 (Very Good)

Presentation Technique

An extremely poor presentation with several errors. Very poor use of PowerPoint

A poorly constructed presentation with several errors

A structured presentation with some errors was made using PowerPoint and CAD packages

A structured presentation with some minimal errors was made using PowerPoint and CAD packages

A clear, easy to follow presentation with no errors was made using PowerPoint and CAD packages

0.25

Content 1. There was no introduction to the project topic. 2. The methodology and outcomes/results are missing

1. The introduction was not clear. 2. The methodology adopted to complete the project and the outcomes/results was not clear

1. The project topic was introduced with some clarity. 2. The methodology adopted to complete the project and the outcomes/results was somewhat clear

1. The introduction was mostly clear. 2. The methodology adopted to complete the project and the outcomes/results was mostly clear

1. The project topic was introduced clearly. 2. The methodology adopted to complete the project and the outcomes/results was clear

1.5

Demo 1. No system setup was shown.

1. System setup was shown. 2. Few of the system operation procedures were followed and/or explained. Safety issues & hazards not taken into consideration.

1. System setup was shown. 2. Some of the system operation procedures were followed and /or explained. Some safety issues & hazards were explained and

1. System setup was shown. 2. Most of the system operation procedures were followed and /or explained. Many of the safety issues & hazards were explained and followed.

1. System setup was shown. 2. All system operation procedures were followed and /or explained. All safety issues & hazards were explained and followed. 3. A fully functional

2

2

3. Most of the system is not functioning according to the requirements

followed. 3. A partially functioning system. Some parts are working according to the requirements.

3. A near functional system. Several parts are working according to the requirements.

system. All parts are working according to the requirements.

Question & Answers

1. The group was unable to clarify the content and result. 2. None of the questions were answered

1. Clarification of the contents and results was given by the group but it was not clear. 2. Only few questions were answered appropriately.

1. Clarification of the contents and results was given by the group with some clarity. 2. Some questions were answered appropriately.

1. Clarification of the contents and results was mostly clear. 2. Most of the questions were answered appropriately.

1. The group was able to clarify the content and result in a clear manner. 2. All questions were answered well.

1.5

Total Mark

3

B: Report

Criterion Per unit mark Weight

0 (Very Poor)

0.25 (Poor)

0.5 (Average)

0.75 (Good)

1 (Very Good)

Structure & Presentation

1. An extremely poor structured report with several errors & omissions (e.g. in references, appendices, acknowledgements, figures & tables labels). 2. Very poor clarity & use of English – several grammatical errors make it very difficult to read & understand

1. A poorly structured report with errors & omissions (e.g. in references, appendices, acknowledgements, figures & tables labels). 2. Poor clarity & use of English – many grammatical errors make it difficult to read & understand

1. A structured report with some errors & omissions (e.g. in references, appendices, acknowledgements, figures & tables labels). 2. Clarity & use of English is average – some grammatical errors that create confusion for the reader

1. A well-structured report with minimal errors & omissions (e.g. in references, appendices, acknowledgements, figures & tables labels). 2. Clarity & use of English is good – only minor grammatical errors creating minimal confusion

1. A well-structured report with no errors & omissions (e.g. in references, appendices, acknowledgements, figures & tables labels). 2. Clarity & use of English is exemplary – easy to read and understand

0.25

Introduction 1. The report objective is missing. 2. There is no awareness in the wider context of the project 3. Background knowledge (literature review) is missing

1. The report objective is not clear. 2. Awareness in the wider context of the project is not clear 3. Background knowledge (literature review) is minimal

1. The report objective is expressed with some clarity. 2. There is some awareness in the wider context of the project. 3. Some background knowledge (literature review) is presented.

1. The report objective is mostly clear. 2. Awareness in the wider context is mostly clear. 3. Background knowledge (literature review) is clear and almost sufficient

1. The report objective is expressed clearly. 2. Awareness in the wider context is expressed clearly and is exemplary 3. Background knowledge (literature review) is clearly expressed, sufficient and exemplary

1

4

Methodology

1. No evidence that the fundamental steps of a formalized design process have been applied 2. No design details of the solution (control theory design method e.g root locus, bode plots, etc) for the project. 3. No details of how to implement (or replicate) hardware control system are given.

1. Limited (very few) evidence that the fundamental steps of a formalized design process have been applied. 2. Limited (very few) design details of the solution (control theory design method e.g root locus, bode plots, etc) for the project. 3. Limited (very few) details of how to implement (or replicate) hardware control system are given.

1. There is some evidence that the fundamental steps of a formalized design process have been applied. 2. Some design details of the solution (control theory design method e.g root locus, bode plots, etc) for the project are provided. 3. Some details of how to implement (or replicate) hardware control system are given.

1. There is mostly complete and sufficient evidence that the fundamental steps of a formalized design process have been applied. 2. Almost sufficient and complete design details of the solution (control theory design method e.g root locus, bode plots, etc) for the project are provided. 3. Almost sufficient and complete details of how to implement (or replicate) hardware control system are given.

1. There is well-documented (sufficient & complete) evidence that the fundamental steps of a formalized design process have been applied. 2. Sufficient and complete design details of the solution (control theory design method e.g root locus, bode plots, etc) for the project are provided. 3. Sufficient and complete details of how to implement (or replicate) hardware control system are given.

2.25

Results 1. Details of system testing in simulation & hardware (tables/ graphs/ figures/ photos/ videos) are not provided. 2. System not working.

1. Limited (very few) details of system testing in simulation & hardware (tables/ graphs/ figures/ photos/ videos) are given. Both have

1. Some details of system testing in simulation & hardware (tables/ graphs/ figures/ photos/ videos) are given. Both have

1. Mostly sufficient & complete details of system testing in simulation & hardware (tables/ graphs/ figures/ photos/ videos) are

1. Well-documented (sufficient & complete) details of system testing in simulation & hardware (tables/ graphs/ figures/ photos/

1.25

5

major omissions or one is incomplete while the other is not provided. 2. Several and major parts of system not functional.

some missing details or one is complete while the other is not provided. 2. Some parts of the system are functional.

given. Some minor omissions. 2. Most parts of the system are working.

videos) are given. 2. All parts of the system are working.

Discussion 1. There is no indication of the extent to which the project objectives have been met. 2. The design implementation has not been critically evaluated.

1. The extent to which the project objectives have been met is very unclear. 2. A limited (hardly any) critical evaluation of the design implementation has been done.

1. The extent to which the project objectives have been met is somewhat clear. 2. Some critical evaluation of the design implementation is provided.

1. The extent to which the project objectives have been met is mostly clear. 2. A detailed critical evaluation of the design implementation that is mostly clear is provided.

1. A clear statement on the extent to which the project objectives have been met is given. 2. A detailed and clear critical evaluation of the design implementation is provided.

1

Finale 1. Conclusions & future work/suggestions are missing. 2. Abstract is missing

1. Conclusions, future work/suggestions are very unclear and insufficient. There are major omissions 2. Abstract is very unclear and insufficient. There are major omissions.

1. Conclusions, future work/suggestions are somewhat clear but not sufficient. There are some omissions. 2. Abstract is somewhat clear but not sufficient. There are some omissions.

1. Conclusions, future work/suggestions are mostly clear & sufficient. Some minor omissions. 2. Abstract is mostly clear & sufficient. Some minor omissions.

1. Conclusions, future work/suggestions are clear and well- documented (sufficient & complete) 2. Abstract is clear and well- documented (sufficient & complete)

1

Total Mark

6

C: Management

Criterion Per unit mark Weight

0 (Very Poor)

0.25 (Poor)

0.5 (Average)

0.75 (Good)

1 (Very Good)

Initial Plan 1. The scope of work tasks and schedule (Gantt Chart) is missing. 2. The plan does not include methodology, final report & final presentation. 3. The responsibilities table is missing

1. A list of tasks to be accomplished is provided in the scope of work tasks and schedule (Gantt Chart) but there are several tasks/items missing. 2. Several parts of methodology, final report & final presentation are missing. 3. A very unclear table (matrix) of group member responsibilities (leading and/or assisting tasks) is provided.

1. A list of tasks to be accomplished is provided in the scope of work tasks and schedule (Gantt Chart) but there are some omissions. 2. The plan includes some of the methodology, final report & final presentation. 3. A table (matrix) of group member responsibilities (leading and/or assisting tasks) is provided but the responsibilities are not clear.

1. A mostly complete list of tasks to be accomplished is provided in the scope of work tasks and schedule (Gantt Chart). 2. The plan includes most of the methodology, final report & final presentation. 3. A mostly complete & clear table (matrix) of group member responsibilities (leading and/or assisting tasks) is provided.

1. A clear, complete & easy to follow list of tasks to be accomplished is provided in the scope of work tasks and schedule (Gantt Chart). 2. The plan includes all parts of the methodology, final report & final presentation. 3. A complete & clear table (matrix) of group member responsibilities (leading and/or assisting tasks) is provided.

0.5

Work Done each week vs weekly plan

Carry forward (i.e. insert) the average marks across the duration of the project for the weekly assessments and divide by three (3)

1st week (8-9) 2nd Week (9-10) 3rd Week (10-11) 4th week (11-12) 5th week (12-13) 6th week (13-14)

Total marks / (3 x number of weeks) =

1

Total Mark

7

D: Teamwork Effectiveness

Criterion Per unit mark Weight

0 (Very Poor)

0.25 (Poor)

0.5 (Average)

0.75 (Good)

1 (Very Good)

Teamwork 1. The project appears to have been carried out by only minimal (1-2) members

2. The work load and variety on each member is very unfairly distributed with only one or two members doing all the technical tasks.

3. No evidence of leadership role being assumed by each member for different tasks.

4. Scheduled meetings minutes are not recorded and efforts are unknown

1. The project was carried out by most (3-4) members

2. The work load and variety on each member does not seem to be fairly distributed and more than one member has been assigned trivial non-technical tasks (e.g. writing the report)

3. Hardly any evidence of leadership role being assumed by each member for different tasks.

4. Scheduled meetings minutes are rarely recorded and the efforts are scattered.

1. The project was carried out by most (3-4) members

2. The work load and variety on each member does not seem to be fair and one member has been assigned trivial non-technical tasks (e.g. writing the report)

3. Leadership role being assumed by each member for different tasks is somewhat apparent

4. Scheduled meetings minutes are often recorded and the contribution of each team members are NOT identified

1. The project was carried out by all (5) members

2. The work load and variety on each member seem fair

3. Leadership role being assumed by each member for different tasks is apparent but not clear

4. Scheduled meetings minutes are usually recorded and the contribution of each team members are identified

1. The project was carried out by all (5) members

2. The work load and variety on each member is fairly distributed

3. Leadership role being assumed by each member for different tasks is clearly evident

4. Scheduled meetings minutes are always recorded and the contribution of each team members are identified

1.5

Total Mark