1. D. E. Koditschek kod@seas.upenn.edu 358 GRW
ESE 290/291 Introduction to Electrical & Systems Engineering Research Methodology & Design Lecture 7: Pitch Your Story (Final Project Presentation)
D. E. Koditschek
358 GRW

2. Final Oral Presentation (cf. Proposal)
Pitching Environment
Context:
many ideas; few resources ($, time) ….
…. many advances; little insight ….
Social Challenge: get them as excited and curious as you; defeat the saboteurs
Technical Challenge: identify and summarize the few key ideas
Logistics Challenge: cover the ground but talk to the audience
Pitch Components
intellectual: same as proposal
logistical: carefully pruned and organized slides
less is more: brief notes to yourself (that make sense to audience “just in time”)
localize for audience where you are in the logic
[often: take-home notes for potential sponsor]
[sometimes: picture or worth 1000 or movie worth words]
design: as little as possible
white space is good
animation can be good (or very, very bad)
21st Century Skill: passion-driven technical pedagogy
technical communication: results not easily comprehended; impact even less so
envision the best case: meticulous honesty is not incompatible with advised optimism

3. This Week’s Assignment
Statement: give a 10 min oral presentation of your completed project
pitch: convince potential users of your results (your peers); impress sponsors (present, future)
same format as C.4: title + six slides + details (“in case”)
strict time limit: earn additional 3 min for generating audience questions
presentation due next Tuesday class (4/28); slides due following Thurs., 4/30
Rubric (40 pts = 24 for 6 slides for oral presentation)
Slide Content
Problem & Motivation: what was/is the missing knowledge or capability?
Project: specifically what was attempted?
Results: exactly what was accomplished; most important discovery; greatest disappointment
Interpretation: how do you know the project has finished (or not)? …. Succeeded (or failed)?
Impact: short term (competition); long term (society)
Future work (why, how hard?)
Slide Structure
telegraphic style (bullets; minimal possible words/symbols)
outline conveys logical structure of paragraph arguments
include “hidden” notes (pacing/timing; reminder of “punch line”)
Presentation
cover the ground but talk to the audience not the slides
crowd control
stimulate questions: listeners should be (nearly) as interested and curious as you
triage them (quick, direct response; come back at end of talk; don’t know – will find out)
stay on point: the minutes belong to you (the outcome belongs to them)
DON’T OVERSTAY YOUR WELCOME !!

4. Week 12 Assignment Statement: write up a draft technical report
Final refinement of introductory (problem formulation, literature, methods) materials
account for critique and suggestions from C.3, C.4, C.5
aim to be finished with introduction to your final report
new: statement of principles and techniques actually used
scientific/mathematical principles
what instruments or methods
what data treated in what manner
Results section
logic: story line
data: what, where,
visualization: planned – not yet achieved/formatted
Appendices
old: annotated bibliography
new: progress of work
detailed report of predicted vs. actual milestones
revised calendar or benchmarks with dependencies noted
Rubric (35 pts)
C.6.1 refine C.3, C5.1 (5)
C.6.2 literature review and bibliography (5)
C.6.3 progress report (5)
C.6.4 scientific and mathematical methods (5)
C.6.5 analytical and experimental equipment and facilities (5)
C.6.6 data analysis methods (5)
C.6.7 results (5)

5. Week 8 Assignment
Statement: refine project formulation and add a methods section
Refinement
account for critique and suggestions from C.3 & C.4
aim for near-to-final draft of introduction to your final report
Methods section
plan of work: schedule of milestones with task dependencies noted
data: what, where, how
methods: equipment, supplies, tools, instruments; acquisition details
Rubric (30 pts)
C.5.1 refine C.3 (5)
C.5.2 plan of work (5)
C.5.3 data base structure (2)
C.5.4 data processing (3)
C.5.5 scientific, mathematical, statistical processing methods (5)
C.5.6 setup (5)
C.5.7 sources (5)

6. Week 5 Assignment
Statement: give a 10 min oral presentation of your proposed project
pitch: convince potential sponsor (your peers) to underwrite the work
must cover the same ground as C.3: title + six slides + details (“in case”)
strict time limit: earn additional 3 min for generating audience questions
presentation due next Tuesday class (3/3); slides due following Thursday (3/5)
Rubric (25 pts = 12 for 6 slides for oral presentation)
Slide Content
Target: what is the missing knowledge or capability?
Gap: show it is really missing
Project: exactly what work is needed
Refutability: how will you know the project has succeeded or failed?
Means: how would one go about applying those measurements?
Prioritized Bibliography (complete, but emphasize crucial sources)
Slide Structure
telegraphic style (bullets; minimal possible words/symbols)
outline conveys logical structure of paragraph arguments
include “hidden” notes (pacing/timing; reminder of “punch line”)
Presentation
cover the ground but talk to the audience not the slides
crowd control
stimulate questions: listeners should be (nearly) as interested and curious as you
triage them (quick, direct response; come back at end of talk; don’t know – will find out)
stay on point: the minutes belong to you (the outcome belongs to them)
DON’T OVERSTAY YOUR WELCOME !!

7. Week 3-4 Assignment Statement: write a problem formulation
combine sponsor’s ideas with literature
identify a compelling area for advancement
propose a specific research project to close gap
support all statements via citations to annotated bibliography
Rubric (20 pts for ~5 paragraphs + bibliography)
Target: what is the missing knowledge or capability?
could be entirely new – or include some of prior C.1 & C.2 writing
must cite all statements using high quality sources of authority
some old lit; likely some new; all to be presented in bibliography
Gap: show it is really missing
best to find some recent publication that states so
use annotated bibliography to establish how you searched for gap-closing successors with no success
Project: exactly what work is needed
propose concrete design or knowledge step to address the gap
strive for concise focus, detail, clarity
Refutability: how will you know the project has succeeded or failed?
must be able to assess whether the proposed work truly shrinks the gap
measurement for experimental project; analysis for applied math project
Means: how would one go about applying those measurements?
as great detail as possible: mock table with labeled rows and columns for blank entries
start planning now for any supplies, equipment, tools, etc
Annotated Bibliography: same rubric as for C.2 (likely some new entries)

8. Week 2 Assignment Literature Review Problem Statement
write a brief review using high quality sources to document project importance and your way forward
features one general review (importance & state of the art) and one focused technical paper (next step)
use cited and citing papers to corroborate and bolster your understanding
paragraph structure of review + annotated bibliography
motivation: vivid and specific description of what is needed and what impact it would have
state-of-the-art: appraisal of 2 – 3 most important recent publications
technical approach: logical next step toward targeted advance
surrounding literature:
precursors (cited) and successors (citing) of featured papers
helpful vs unhelpful results of naïve search
open problems: alternative “next steps”
annotated bibliography
Annotated Bibliography
complete citation (following some archival journal format, including live link)
evidence of quality (venue, authors, publication)
relevance (a few sentences of annotation showing you’ve “read” the paper)
what is the paper about?
what sort of contribution does it make to the literature?
how does it relate to your topic or inform your project?

9. Week 1 Assignment Source Acquisition Problem Statement
Find two high quality sources
from the relevant scientific literature
summarizing the state of the art in your general technical area
thereby exposing technology or capability gap
Use their insight to find two different motivating sources
they‘ve (almost surely) motivated the importance of the gap
you‘re to verify by finding cited (or citing) motivating publications
Suggested Problem Approach
Start with your sponsor’s suggested papers (or simply Google/Wiki/GS)
Go to GS and find some other likely high quality publications
Look up those papers in Scopus to find your review articles
use their cited and citing publications (and recursively so as needed)
to look for the most recent highly cited review-style publications
Use review articles to find high impact corroborating motivation
Your job: provide evidence that your authors, papers, and venues are high quality
impact factor of venue; publication citation count; author h-index
show intellectual resilience in the face of inevitable obstacles
The publication is very new so there are very few citing pubs – but the venue and author(s) are clearly great
The publication is very new and so are the authors – but the venue is great and the institutions are reassuring
There are too few publications in this area (give evidence by reporting some details of how you searched)