From: Dre West
Sent: Tuesday, 17 October 2017 1:32 PM
To: EGB242 <egb242@qut.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Signal Analysis (EGB242_17se2): Assignment 1B Results Released

My Tutorial Session is tomorrow 8am.
I am, honestly, trying to comprehend what is going through "the markers" mind. It's obvious that if I submitted with an honest expectation of a modest 70-80% but receive 45% then there's a miscommunication rather than anything else.


Please bear with me because I do try to be the best person I can be, and I am the most non-tempermental  and non-judgemental person that I know. However this sort of result angers me greatly, especially when I do understand (the theory) quite well and I see it nothing else other than "bureaucracy" and self-flagellation that causes this sort of result.

If your feedback and wording are to be taken seriously, I would highly suggest you hire someone "from the arts" - preferably a year 12 English class - to scrap and reword the assignment brief so that people who don't pander to ivory tower culture can understand it.
Parts of it surprise me, for instance, the report has a comment "Fourier transform definition?" directly on top of the Fourier transform definition, in which the assignment brief asks for a Fourier transform definition. so I have no idea what this completely useless comment is meant to entail.

I had put the limits in the equation, and there is a comment of "limits?" - what, other than complete useless wankery, is this comment meant to encourage in my learning and understanding ability?

"The main part that let you down was a lack of explanation and discussion in your report. "

I am bewildered by this comment. Where explanation was warranted, I provided it.
Section 2.1 has mentioned to "introduce the topic" but I do not see that in the brief under Section 2.1. in fact I have copied and pasted the entirety of the brief for you. YOU know what we are doing, WE know what we are doing, WHO is this supposed "yet to be informed" audience meant to be? for what purpose is the introduction?


This was the entirety of the start of Section 2. There is not even an "Introduction" here in which to copy off! If there was no introduction here, that is, if YOU don't put an introduction, why would I put an introduction, without it being asked?

"There was very little evidence of code or explanations to back up your working in the assignment."
The code, that contains comments mind you, was submitted alongside the assignment. I can assure you it's not to be confused with a ham sandwich.

"You did make it to the end of the assignment (although a few parts missing), but there was not much explanation along the way."
I am STILL not sure what we are meant to explain and where? Some questions did in fact ask for a comment or explanation, and thus an explanation was given.
Were you to desire an explanation on EVERY step of the process I would recommend you ask for a comment or explanation on EVERY step of the process.

"This makes it quite difficult to assess your knowledge and learning outcomes with a lack (of) discussion."
It astounds me that if this assignment was the entirety of the unit, I was able to "make it to the end" AND decode the signals, while still "failing" the course. Do you not see the uselessness of such a grading scheme? I do concede that I was unable to find the FT for signal 3 and that was largely due to how big and cumbersome that the equation became in all of my efforts. I was unable to find any shortcuts to fit and so rather than include 3-4 pages I opted not to do it entirely.
The assignment brief does not warrant a discussion, it does not ask questions and encourages inquisition or discovery. It is a simple list of steps and I have done all steps WITH screenshots and code to back it up. Sections of the feedback ask for elements that were not mentioned in the assignment brief,

For instance, With the MUXSIGNAL section:  WHY would I put in the fshift frequencies into the report? there's even a screenshot to highlight them in the very next section, if I had got the frequencies wrong, then surely they would show up in the image. It was not asked in the assignment brief to "put fshift values into the report" -- if this sort of report is to "inform" an audience, then what possible information is the individual fshift values meant to convey?

If you were to ask, I would answer.
I do not have the time nor desire to pander to your imaginary requests when they are not explicitly set forth.

Which brings me to an albeit minor, however; important point: The correct demodulation of the MUXsignal code:

Now that the assignment is over, please provide me with the correct demodulation (FDMDemux.m) steps so that I may fortify my understanding of these concepts and decode/demux the signal all at once. I have not been able to demodulate the signal 100% "all at once" for all signals with rounded frequency values, infact I hold that it can't be done however I am quite excited to be shown my error in this. This is something I was not able to do and I would love to figure out how it was able to be done.
Given that this is a second-year course I could imagine and understand that it is largely marked and run by the "smarter" first-year students from the year, so I am neither suprised nor encouraged by the non-probability of a re-mark, however, I would like to receive better and more constructive criticism of my work if I am so obviously "in danger" of failing and misunderstanding this unit. The correct FDMDemux would also greatly benefit.

I'll leave you with a nice comment from an old Roman emperor.



I would love an opportunity to discuss further. I'd want to get my "misunderstanding" out before I am examined on my understanding.

Regards.
-----------
Mr Dre West
n9142461
StudEAust Robotics and Mechatronics
0424 067 102


----

Hi Dre,

We understand that you are upset, and we are willing to discuss this and work with you, but please remember that this is a professional environment. These assignments are set to test your ability to complete the work that is asked of you and test your methods and communication of your solution.

To address some of your concerns in the previous email,
•	Hundreds of students have correctly interpreted the brief in past and current cohorts
•	You should also take care to note that the marking criteria has been available to you for the entirety of the time you've had the assignment, and therefore, the onus is on you to look at your report against this criteria before submission and determine what might be missing.
•	The brief is written as a teaching exercise, as well as assessment. It is laid out to guide you through the tasks. Your report, however, is meant to be written differently, as outlined in the end matter of the brief. The audience is a fictional supervisor or industry client who needs to make decisions based on your findings, and not doubt your work. In industry this person will be real, and will not outline tasks as explicitly as we have. Your role is to teach the reader, while establishing trust with good reasoning and mathematical justifications.
•	The brief explicitly states what is to be included in the report, and that it must be a standalone document. An employer or supervisor would not want to have to check your code. There is also an example report included in Blackboard. You will also note that for assignment 1A you got a 2 for communication, with many comments detailing the importance of providing justification and evidence of your work.
•	The assignment was written so that students who struggle with the content can still get an output, not losing motivation for later assessments. The decoded text and sounds are not the important part - the understanding is. Given the amount of code we provide in class and on Blackboard, that can be used directly in the assignments, we require discussion to assess level of understanding.
•	Your FDMDemux code appears to use the frequency shift property explicitly, rather than multiplying by a cosine, which was shown in the theory section (Part 1).  This results in a complex output.  Since the input signals were real, complex outputs show incorrect recovery.
All 4 tutors have reviewed the assignment, and agree with the marker’s assessment of your work.  Additionally, Wageeh has been consulted, both about the review and your email, and will be in contact with you.
Please continue working with your group on Assignment 2.  Make sure to review general feedback for both assignments, group feedback for Assignment 1A, the criteria sheet, and the end matter of the brief.
Kind Regards,
Sam
On Behalf of EGB242 Teaching Team