Rubric for Lab Reports

Given that there are no prelims in this course, lab reports are the primary way to convey your understanding of the course material. As such, please put careful effort into not only completing the lab tasks, but developing a well-organized and comprehensive lab report to showcase your work. Consider aggregating your labs into a section of your portfolio to show future employers. Consider using tools such as Grammarly and ChatGPT to ensure well-written reports. Using a markup language such as Markdown or LaTeX is an easy way to generate clean, professional-looking lab reports.

The following rubric outlines the criteria used to evaluate your lab reports. While you are not required to adhere strictly to this structure, all components listed below must be addressed in your report. You are encouraged to organize the lab report in a manner that aligns naturally with the assignment while ensuring all points in the rubric are thoroughly covered. Please direct any questions to the course instructor.

1. Introduction (15 points):

The introduction should give a concise and clear overview of the contents of the lab, including core concepts from lecture, and provide a compelling motivation for the work. Place the key concepts of the lab into context with regards to CPS design principles. Motivate the need for the experiments conducted in the lab and how your results impact key system architecture design choices.

13–15 points: Clearly states the objectives, background, and relevance of the experiment. Provides sufficient context for the problem.
9–12 points: Adequate discussion of objectives and background, with some lack of depth or clarity.
5–8 points: Limited or unclear description of objectives and background.
0–4 points: Missing or unrelated to the experiment.

2. Methodology (20 points)

Each step of your work should be clearly documented. Short, relevant snippets of code or pseudocode that are critical to core concepts should be included and thoroughly explained. Be sure to convey your knowledge and mastery of the material at hand. Include explanation for any functions or code elements that are critical to functionality of your code. Highlight any engineering and debugging challenges that you faced while implementing the lab as well as how you overcame them.

17–20 points: Detailed description of the procedures, hardware, software, and configurations used. Diagrams and schematics are clear and accurate.
13–16 points: Adequate description of the procedures with minor omissions or unclear details.
7–12 points: Incomplete or unclear methodology, lacking critical details or diagrams.
0–6 points: Missing or largely inaccurate description of methods.

3. Results (20 points)

The results section should neatly summarize your findings. Include appropriate visualizations, tables, and figures. Each figure should be properly labeled so that you can refer to it directly in your writing. Be sure to use appropriate scales and labels for your axes. Each figure should include a short description to help the reader understand the concepts being communicated. Be use to use the most appropriate format for conveying your findings (e.g. don't display large tables of raw data, synthesize results using statistical methods when necessary and visualize whenever appropriate).

17–20 points: Results are clearly presented with appropriate use of tables, graphs, and figures. Data is accurate and well-organized.
13–16 points: Results are presented adequately, but some figures/tables are unclear or disorganized.
7–12 points: Results are incomplete, unclear, or poorly organized.
0–6 points: Results are missing or do not align with the experiment.

4. Analysis and Discussion (25 points)

Thoughtful and thorough analysis should explain and make sense of the results, how they relate to the methodology, and their implications for systems design. This section should demonstrate your understanding of the topic at hand, connecting ideas back to lecture material when needed.

22–25 points: Thorough analysis of results, linking them to theory and objectives. Identifies sources of error, limitations, and implications for cyber-physical systems. Include relevant equations, models, and system architecture diagrams.
18–21 points: Good analysis with minor gaps in linking theory or addressing limitations.
12–17 points: Superficial or incomplete analysis, with limited discussion of errors or theory.
0–11 points: Missing or irrelevant analysis.

5. Conclusion and Application (10 points)

Include a summarization of the lab that connects to broader concepts in cyber-physical systems. Give specific examples of design decisions where the concepts in this lab are relevant. This could be related to your M Eng project, case studies, or design ideas that you generate through research.

9–10 points: Clearly summarizes findings and connects them to broader cyber-physical systems concepts, providing real-world applications or design implications.
6–8 points: Summarizes findings adequately but lacks connection to broader concepts or real-world relevance.
3–5 points: Weak or incomplete summary with minimal relevance to broader concepts or applications.
0–2 points: Missing or fails to provide meaningful context or relevance to the broader field.

6. Presentation (10 points)

Overall presentation, neatness, and organization should be considered when writing a professional and well-formatted lab report. Consider using a markup language such as Markdown or LaTeX to create aesthetic reports. Web-browser-based tools such as stackedit.io or overleaf.com will help simplify this process. Some desktop-based editors include Typora (paid) and Visual Studio Code (free, requires plugins). Also consider how to create neat diagrams using UML, SySML, diagrams.net, or PowerPoint.

9–10 points: Well-structured, professional formatting, free of grammatical errors, and properly cited references.
6–8 points: Adequately structured, with minor formatting or grammatical errors.
3–5 points: Poor organization, with multiple errors or missing citations.
0–2 points: Disorganized or unprofessional presentation.