Design ProjectPoster Presentation

Course Number – circle one:

COEN 4720 (Embedded Systems) EECE 3015 (Digital Lab)

ELEN 3110 (Fields 1) ELEN 3035 (Analog Lab)

Project name: _________________________________________________________________

Team Members Names: ________________________________________________________

Note: If any of the criteria items listed are missing, then a score of 0 for the particular criteria item is justified.

CRITERIA (weight)

GRADING SCALE SCOREBelow expectations

(10-70)

Satisfies or Exceeds expectations(70-100)

Score(0 – 100)

Project clearly defined(5%)

Vague definition of project – reader not really sure what the project does.

Clear definition of project given. User knows what problem has been solved.

Project rationale clearly defined(5%)

Project rationale is vaguely defined Reader not sure why the project was done

Project rationale is clearly defined Reader knows why the project was done (what need is met)

Approach to design solution guided by understanding of engineering sciences(15%)

Weak indication that team understood science behind design solution

Team demonstrates adequate understanding and use of scientific principles to guide the design process

Form and structure of design clearly communicated (20%)

Form and structure of final design is vague

Form and structure of final design is clearly communicated

Effectiveness of poster(10%)

Poster does not contribute to presentation – ignored or only vaguely referred to during presentation

Poster contributes to presentation – was referred to properly during presentation and can be used as a stand-alone aid for a general audience

Presentation skills (10%)

Presenter falters when presenting technical information (misuses terms)

Presenter uses all technical terms appropriately and defines them if the term is new to the audience.

Teamwork (5%) Reviewer gets the impression that most of the work was done by only one team member.

Reviewer has the impression that all members of the team contributed appropriately to the project design/build/test work.

Overall impression (20%)

Reader is not impressed with the poster or project. Insufficient detail in poster for (external) user to operate the project successfully.

Reader is impressed with poster and project. Sufficient detail is given in poster to convince viewer of project’s value. External user can operate the project successfully.

Quality of engineering work performed (5%)

Below expectations for entry level engineers

Meets expectations for entry level engineers

Quantity of project work completed (5%)

Inadequate amount of work completed for size of team

Reasonable amount of work completed for size of team

PROJECT SUCCESSSystem Performance –Does it work? (100%)

System does not work at all – orSubset of system performs, but project does not meet specifications and/or objectives.

System works and all specifications and objectives are met.

Enter a score from 0 to 100 for each criteria.