EE lab report discussion part.

University of Dayton -Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering

ECE 303L: #3 FA14 8-Oct-14

ECE 303L: Signals and Systems Laboratory

Linearity, Frequency Response and Passive Filter Performance

0-2 3-6 7-10

Section 2: Theory

Theoretical development is missing or

substantially incomplete and fails to

address the subject content of the

experiment. Key analytical assumptions

or conditions are not stated. Analysis is

poorly structured and does not provide

a succinct statement of key analytical

results necessary to understand

experimental results or to provide a

basis for related computational work.

Formatting errors make the analysis

difficult to follow.

Theoretical development is appropriate to the

subject content of the experiment. The

development is poorly developed with some

assumptions or conditions not stated.

Analysis in essentially complete but poorly

structured or sometimes overly detailed.

Inconsistent attention to labeling of variables

and use of symbol conventions makes the

analysis difficult to follow. Formatting

conventions are essentially followed with

analysis integrated into narrative structure.

Theoretical development is appropriate to the

subject content of the experiment. Necessary

mathematical assumptions and conditions are

explicitly addressed. Analysis is complete and

well-structured, without verbose detail.

Equations are well developed using common

symbols and labeling conventions. Equations

are appropriately formatted, sequentially

numbered and integrated into narrative

structure.

Section 3.1: Computational Results

Results are incomplete reflecting poor

attention to necessary analytical or

computational requirements. Frequent

inaccuracies are evident. Formatting

guidelines are not consistently followed.

Legends and annotations are

insufficient leaving important details to

the whim of the reader.

Some expected results are missing and

analytical details are not always consistent

with the experimental design. Presented

results are essentially accurate. Formatting is

satisfactory but would benefit from closer

attention to basic sizing and layout issues,

and/or more informative legends and

annotations.

Results are essentially complete.

Computational details are accurate,

corresponding to expected requirements and

adjusted to reflect related experimental

conditions. Well presented with appropriate

formatting including appropriate annotations

and legends.

Section 3.2: Experimental Results

Results are incomplete reflecting poor

attention to experimental details and

procedures. Frequent inaccuracies are

evident. Formatting guidelines are not

consistently followed. Legends and

annotations are insufficient leaving

important details to the whim of the

reader.

Some expected results are missing and

experimental details are not always

consistent with the experimental design.

Presented results are essentially accurate.

Formatting is satisfactory but would benefit

from closer attention to basic sizing and

layout issues, and/or more informative

legends and annotations.

Results are essentially complete.

Experimental details are accurate,

corresponding to expected requirements and

adjusted to reflect related experimental

conditions. Well presented with appropriate

formatting including appropriate annotations

and legends.

Section 4: Discussion – Organization & Structure

Experimental and computational

results are no logically grouped and

Some effort is apparent to logically group

experimental and computational results.

Experimental and computational results are

logically grouped. The grouped results are

University of Dayton -Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering

ECE 303L: #3 FA14 8-Oct-14

are presented in chronological order or

randomly introduced. No key measures

and/or metrics are identified and no

effort is made to facilitate a

comparative, quantitative comparison

of theoretical, computational and

experimental results.

Some results exist outside this logical

grouping and are either not discussed or are

introduced randomly into the narrative

discussion. Key measures and/or metrics are

identified and tabulated. Some measures

and/or metrics that could provide a

summative, quantitative comparison are

missing and/or not tabulated.

sequenced logically to provide structure to the

discussion of results. Key measures and/or

metrics are identified, annotated on the results

and tabulated. Tables are well presented with

appropriate formatting and legends.

Section 4: Discussion – Technical Content

Experimental and computational results

are introduced although the order is

unstructured and random. Results are

not well connected to the theoretical

analysis that provides the foundation for

the investigation. Little effort is made to

provide either qualitative or quantitative

comparisons between related results.

Only a cursory effort is made to identify

and quantify measures and/or metrics

to support qualitative observations.

All experimental and computational results

and their respective groupings are

purposefully introduced. The relevance of the

results is sometimes, but not always,

explained in terms of their connection to or

illustration of key theoretical results.

Observed differences are described

qualitatively although specific reference to

tabulated measures and/or metrics to

support qualitative observations is not

typically made. Observable differences are

not always specifically identified and few, if

any, plausible causes are identified.

All experimental and computational results

and their respective groupings are

purposefully introduced. The relevance of the

results is explained in terms of their

connection to or illustration of key theoretical

results. Observed differences are described

qualitatively. Specific reference to tabulated

measures and/or metrics is made and

observable differences are identified and

likely, plausible causes are identified.

Section 4: Discussion – Writing Mechanics

Writing is verbose, poorly-structured

and repetitive. Descriptions of results

and commentary on those results is

confusing and lacks a clear purpose.

Text is replete with grammatical and

spelling errors.

Writing is concise, well-structured and non-

repetitive. Descriptions of results and/or

commentary on those results lacks clarity

and its purpose is not always clear. Text is

essentially free of grammatical and spelling

errors.

Writing is concise, well-structured and non-

repetitive. Descriptions of results and

commentary on those results is clear and

purposeful. Text is essentially free of

grammatical and spelling errors.

University of Dayton -Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering

ECE 303L: #3 FA14 8-Oct-14

ECE 303L: Signals and Systems Laboratory

Linearity, Frequency Response and Passive Filter Performance

Name: ________________________________________________ Summary Score:

Item Points Score

Section 2: Theory: 10

Section 3.1: Computational Results: 10 points 10

Section 3.2: Experimental Results: 10 points 10

Section 4: Discussion – Organization & Structure 10

Section 4: Discussion – Technical Content 10

Section 4: Discussion – Writing Mechanics 10

Discussion Outline 20

Total 80

Isidore Score 50

General Comments: