An overview of the assessment items are described below.
Thesis A is marked out of 10 and contributes 10% towards the final mark for Thesis Part B.
Note: The final Thesis Report is often called simply "The Thesis"
The mark for Thesis Part B is determined by taking an average of the marks awarded by the supervisor and the assessor for the demo and report components. It is worth 90% of the final mark (Part A is worth 10%).
In marking each deliverable, we define a small set of assessment criteria for each assessment item. CSE provides a Web-based system for entering assessment results.
The system will present a list of assessment items and marking criteria for them. Markers award a grade , not a mark, for each criterion , and supply a comment to justify the grade . The final mark is computed by the system by mapping each grade to a mark and computing a weighted-sum of the individual criterion marks. The process of assessing reports is intended to be analogous to the process of reviewing an academic piece of work such as papers or poasters in journals/conferences, and we believe the method improves the simplicity, consistency and reliability of assessment.
The grades are based on the standard university grading scheme : High Distinction (HD), Distinction (DN), Credit (CR), Pass (PS) and Fail (FL). Within each grade, we define levels as follows:
When you use the marking system, first decide on a grade, then a level within the grade . The system will map the results to marks and automatically compute a weighted sum.
Thesis A seminar is assessed on the following two criteria. For longer description of each grade, please refer to this page .
|Technical Quality of the Talk (50%)||Structure and Delivery of the Talk (50%)|
|FL||Insufficient Background, No aims/plan||No structure. Poorly prepared or delivered presentation|
|PS||Adequate with some details||generally appropriate materials. Questions not handled well|
|CR||Good level of details. Clear plan||Good structure and appropriate materials. Q/A handled well.|
|DN||Logical/organised details and analysis, clear and feasible plan||Well structured and effective materials. Q/A handled well. Good interaction with audience|
|HD||Extensive and logically linked details and analysis, clear/feasible plan and solid methodology||Excellent structure and well designed materials. Confident and professional delivery. Presentation aides effortlessly integrated with the delivery|
Thesis A report is assessed on the following three criteria. For longer description of each grade, please refer to this page .
|Review of Other Work/Literature Review (50%)||Articulating a research question, plan and thesis outline (40%)||Document presentation (10%)|
|FL||Deficient||Broad context missing||Impedes document reading|
|PS||Adequate||Broad context present, no specific plan||Poor formatting/structure|
|CR||Solid||Broad context and specific, logical plan||Poor judgement with respect to layout, possible padding|
|DN||Solid and linked||Broad context, logical plan and plan fits the review narrative||Minor issues with presentation, but overall high quality.|
|HD||Of peer-reviewed paper quality||Broad context, specific, robust/feasible logical plan that fits the review narrative well.||Professional, concise and readable|
Thesis B Demo is assessed on the following two criteria. For longer description of each grade, please refer to this page .
|Technical Quality and Completeness of the work (80%)||Structure and Delivery of the Presentation (20%)|
|FL||Lack of understanding of the technical work required. No/little outcome reported||No structure. Poorly prepared or delivered presentation|
|PS||Close to complete, reasonable effort, some level of engineering practice/research methodology employed||generally appropriate materials. Questions not handled well|
|CR||Mostly complete and functional work demonstrated (some scope for improvement). Satisfactory effort, a good level of engineering practice/research methodology employed||Good structure and appropriate materials. Q/A handled well.|
|DN||Complete work (requiring minor refinements), significant effort invested, solid technical quality, showing a good level of engineering practice/research methodology employed||Well structured and effective materials. Q/A handled well. Good interaction with audience|
|HD||Complete and fully functional or correct piece of work. Effort invested is Impressive. Of highest quality, demonstrating the best engineering practice, solid research methodology||Excellent structure and well designed materials. Confident and professional delivery. Presentation aides effortlessly integrated with the delivery|
Thesis B Report is assessed on the following four criteria. For longer description of each grade, please refer to this page .
|Lit review/Background and putting the results in context (20%)||Execution of the research project, quality of analysis, discussion of results (50%)||Conclusions, and value added (20%)||Document presentation (10%)|
|FL||Fail to articulate aims of the thesis in the research context||Clearly deficient||No clear value||Impedes document reading|
|PS||Motivations/aims for research not as clear||"Thin" results, lacking intellectual engagement||No interesting results||Poor formatting and document structure|
|CR||Background clear, results not contexualised||Several components to the research work, not coherently linked||Minimal value||Poor judgement with respect to layout, possible padding|
|DN||Background and aims are clear, context is incomplete||Solid, coherent work, linking all the research components together into a consistent story||Will have wider impact when future work is done||Minor issues, but overall high quality|
|HD||Background to research and significance of the conclusions researched are clear||Solid, coherent and consistent story, plus thoughtful and original perspective or theory.||Will have wider impact now||Professional, concise and readable|
Resource created Monday 23 May 2016, 11:30:35 AM, last modified Tuesday 04 October 2016, 11:28:52 AM.