In this section we describe in detail how this course is graded. First, there is a group grade based on

1. Whether the intermediate report was submitted and phase one was completed or not.
2. Technical merit of the work done in phase two as described in the final report.
3. Quality of the final report.

Second, after determining the group grade, the grades will be individualized via a peer review process among the members of the group.

Group Grade

The final group grade is calculated by adding the achieved points of the three items below:

Fundamental (3 points)

This consists of the Intermediate Report (IR) plus Phase One. Every group should have completed both during the quarter. This part is considered as all or nothing meaning that the group gets either 0 (nothing) or 3 (all).

Technical Merit (5 points)

This consists of the average of the two grade items below:

• Proposed/Implemented Solution (0 to 5)

  • 0 (fail) - unsystematic approach, no validated use of research/design methodologies, no explanations, nothing beyond phase one
  • 1 (sufficient) - partial/incomplete analysis and motivation of one solution only, no trade-offs discussion
  • 2 (satisfactory) - shallow analysis and motivation of one solution, e.g., only focusing on hardware or software, limited trade-offs discussion
  • 3 (good) - shallow analysis and motivation of multiple solutions in either or both hardware and software, some trade-offs discussed
  • 4 (very good) - in-depth analysis and motivation of proposed solution in hardware or software, trade-offs explained
  • 5 (excellent) - in-depth analysis and motivation of proposed solution in hardware and software, trade-offs well-explained, work could potentially be published

• Interpretation of Results (0 to 5)

  • 0 (fail) - insufficient interpretation and no verification of results, no comparisons at all, no or some (unrelated) conclusions are drawn
  • 1 (sufficient) - findings are treated as straightforward and unproblematic, minimal verification, incomplete comparisons, conclusion are sufficiently linked to results
  • 2 (satisfactory) - findings are treated as straightforward and unproblematic, some comparisons, verification was carried out, conclusions are based on results
  • 3 (good) - uses techniques for interpretation and verification in a mechanical way, mechanical comparisons without discussion, conclusions based on results in a clear way
  • 4 (very good) - good interpretation and verification, detailed comparisons with chosen baseline or related work, conclusions are based on results in a clear way
  • 5 (excellent) - detailed interpretation and verification of results, detailed comparison with chosen baseline and related work, conclusions are based on results in a clear way and are extrapolated to a wider context

Quality of Report (2 points)

This can be either

• 2p which means the report follows the template completely.
• 1p which means the report follows the template partially.
• 0p which means the report does not follow the template at all.

Peer Review

This part is done by the group members. Every student will be asked to assign values to their colleagues’ performance based on the following criterias to answer "how did my colleagues perform within the group?"

• Effort (0-5) - How much did student contribute to the group?
• Presence (0-5) - Availability during meeting, reachability, communicativeness
• Dependability (0-5) - Responsibility to group, trustworthiness, seriousness
• Quality of work (0-5) - Compatibility of work, interfacing with other works
• Overall contribution (0-5)

Procedure and Example

Figure below shows the procedure along with an example on how the course grade is calculated based on the group grade and individual contribution. Please note that in the peer review, each member receives a grade from his/her colleagues. That grade is compared against a benchmark average which shows the student's score compared to the average. The value shown in this figure is just an example and the final value may change by the instructors.