Guide to 30 Credit Final Year Project Marking Scheme

Summary
The project is assessed as a single 30 credit module with three assessment points.

1. The project proposal 20% (split between 15% for the proposal and 5% for the Mid-Point
Review)

2. The project report 60%

3. The project presenta on 20%

ti
 1. Project Proposal Marking scheme
Marked by the supervisor and course leader.

This sec on assesses the student’s performance throughout the project ini a on.

There are 5 criteria.

# Supervisor 2nd Assessor % of mark

Criteria
marks marks

1.1 Introduction Yes No 25%

1.2 Justification Yes No 25%

1.3 Success Criteria Yes No 25%

1.4 Project Plan Yes No 15%

1.5 Quality of submission Yes No 10%

The criteria are assessed as follows:

ti
ti
ti
1.1. Introduction – The student’s ability to de ine the project appropriately with
relevance to, elaboration of the idea encapsulated in title, the goals stated, the project
management techniques identi ied, the activities decomposed, data sources de ined and
technologies/techniques and or algorithms identi ied.

f
f
f
f
 Classi ca on Indica ve Performance Mark Range

1st A professional approach which may be represented by:

- A clear and de ni ve elabora on

- Clear, relevant and a ainable goals

- Professional management techniques iden ed

- Appropriate data sources de ned

Appropriate technologies/techniques and or algorithms de ned 70% - 100%

2.1 Good approach though areas of de ciency which may include:

- Good elabora on with minor degree of further clari ca on needed

- Well de ned goals though there may be some issue in achieving them

- Suitable management techniques iden ed but not fully cohesive

- Major data sources de ned but not comprehensive

Appropriate technologies/techniques and or algorithms evident but not comprehensive 60% -

69%

2.2 Acceptable approach though areas of de ciency which may include:

- Elabora on lacks clarity

- Goals are a ainable but not all relevant or signi cant omissions

- Evidence of management techniques but insu cient control for a larger scale
individual piece of work

- Some relevance to the data source but insu cient sources iden ed for project to be
successful without modi ca on

Some relevant technologies/techniques and or algorithms but not su cient to underpin

success of the project 50% - 59%

3rd Passable approach with areas of de ciency such as:

- Elabora on is not compelling, raising more ques ons than it addresses

- Some goals are a ainable but not all relevant or signi cant omissions

- Limited evidence of an appropriate managed approach beyond the bare minimum

required (e.g. logbook)

- Very limited data sources iden ed and not capable of delivering a successful project
without modi ca on

Some relevant technologies/techniques and or algorithms but project will be signi cantly
fi
ti
ti
fi
ti
tt
ti
fi
fi
tt
ti
ti
tt
fi
ti
fi
ti
fi
ti
ti
fi
ti
fi
ti
ffi
fi
fi
fi
ffi
fi
ti
fi
fi
fi
ti
fi
ti
fi
ffi
fi
 1.2. Justi ication – what will be the bene its of the project, the relevance to the discipline,
what are the key concepts and relevant existing work or examples/foundations.
f
f
 Classi ca on Indica ve Performance Mark Range

1st A professional approach which may be represented by:

- Clear bene ts iden ed that o er genuine innova on in the discipline

- Wholly maps to the discipline

- Key concepts are innova ve

Exis ng work/founda ons well de ned and wholly relevant 70% - 100%

2.1 Good approach though areas of de ciency which may include:

- Relevant bene ts iden ed with some degree of innova on

- Good mapping to discipline with very minor issues

- Key concepts well explained o ering some degree of innova on

Good examples of exis ng work/founda ons though not wholly relevant 60% - 69%

2.2 Acceptable approach though areas of de ciency which may include:

- Bene ts iden ed with some relevance to discipline

- Acceptable mapping but issues evident

- Key concepts explained by there are issues with make the ques onable

A degree of exis ng work/founda ons evident but not compelling 50% - 59%

3rd Passable approach with areas of de ciency such as:

- Bene ts iden ed but weak relevance to discipline

- Mapping present but ques onable

- Key concepts present but weak or ques onable

Exis ng work/founda ons are not really relevant 40% - 49%

Fail Unacceptable approach with areas of de ciency ac vity such as:

- No real bene t evident

- Mapping not evident or unclear

- Key concepts lack any credibility

Exis ng work/founda on not present or irrelevant 0% - 39%

ti
ti
ti
fi
fi
fi
ti
fi
fi
ti
ti
fi
fi
fi
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ff
ff
ti
fi
ti
ti
fi
fi
fi
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
 1.3. Success Criteria – how will the student measure the success of the project?

Classi ca on Indica ve Performance Mark Range

1st A professional approach which may be represented by: 70% - 100%
- Excellent set of criteria wholly relevant
- Quality metrics which will clearly show the value of the work
2.1 Good approach though areas of de ciency which may include: 60% - 69%
- Good set of criteria with clear relevance
- Metrics will help to show value of project
2.2 Acceptable approach though areas of de ciency which may include: 50% - 59%
- Criteria are realis c but not comprehensive
- Metrics may not necessarily be compelling
3rd Passable approach with areas of de ciency such as: 40% - 49%
- Criteria incomplete but have some relevance
- Metrics will not be compelling but have some relevance
Fail Unacceptable approach with areas of de ciency ac vity such as: 0% - 39%
- No valid criteria or unrealis c
- Metrics lacking or irrelevant
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
fi
fi
fi
ti
 1.4. Project Plan – the decomposition of project activities into relevant main sections
and visualisation of milestones, relationships and value as a management and
communication tool.

Classi ca on Indica ve Performance Mark Range

1st A professional approach which may be represented by: 70% - 100%
- Professional plan with all key ac vi es represented
- Excellent use of an appropriate planning tool
- Key features such as rela onships, milestones, baseline evident
2.1 Good approach though areas of de ciency which may include: 60% - 69%
- Good plan with signi cant ac vi es represented
- Appropriate planning tool used well
- Some addi onal features evident.
2.2 Acceptable approach though areas of de ciency which may include: 50% - 59%
- Plan shows the main areas of ac vity with a degree of realism
- An appropriate tool has been used to a basic level
- Minor addi onal features evident
3rd Passable approach with areas of de ciency such as: 40% - 49%
- Plan is present but limited as a communica on tool
- Graphically produced though not necessarily from a planning
applica on
- Addi onal features not strongly evident
Fail Unacceptable approach with areas of de ciency ac vity such as: 0% - 39%
- Unrealis c plan with very li le decomposi on
- No suitable graphical representa on
- No relevant addi onal features

1.5. Quality of Submission – the standard of the proposal as an academic piece of work
produced at an appropriate level

Classi ca on Indica ve Performance Mark Range

1st A professional approach which may be represented by: 70% - 100%
- Professional submission with appropriate referencing,
organisa on
- Exemplary use of appropriate technical, academic and
professional language throughout.
2.1 Good approach though areas of de ciency which may include: 60% - 69%
- Good submission with appropriate referencing, organisa on
with minor issues
- Good use of appropriate technical, academic and professional
language throughout.
2.2 Acceptable approach though areas of de ciency which may include: 50% - 59%
- Submission is to an acceptable with referencing evident though
not consistent, organisa on is sa sfactory but not wholly
e ec ve
- Some appropriate technical, academic and professional
language.
ff
ti
ti
fi
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
tt
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
 3rd Passable approach with areas of de ciency such as: 40% - 49%
- Submission meets bare minimum in terms of quality
- Li le use of appropriate technical, academic and professional
language throughout.
Fail Unacceptable approach with areas of de ciency ac vity such as: 0% - 39%
- Poor quality with li le professionalism evident in terms of
language, referencing or organisa on.

2. Mid-Point Review
Marked by the second assessor.

This sec on assesses the student’s performance throughout the rst semester of project work.

There are 3 criteria.

# Supervisor 2nd Assessor % of mark

Criteria
marks Marks

2.1 Draft Research Chapter No Yes 50%

2.2 Project Plan No Yes 25%

2.3 Interview No Yes 25%

The criteria are assessed as follows:

tt
ti
tt
ti
fi
fi
ti
fi
 2.1. Draft Research Chapter – Quality, depth and thoroughness of the student’s research
activity in the irst semester as evidenced through the draft chapter.

Classi ca on Indica ve Performance Mark Range

1st A professional approach which may be represented by:

- Research is well conducted, covers key areas of the topic. domain, technology and
discipline.

- Dra is well organised with appropriate structure and language

Referencing is correct throughout. 70% - 100%

2.1 Good approach though areas of de ciency which may include:

- Some minor areas or research need more development or have been omi ed.

- Dra is not wholly organised with appropriate structure and language

Minor referencing issues. 60% - 69%

2.2 Acceptable approach though areas of de ciency which may include:

- Overall research needs more development as topics have been omi ed though the
core has been completed.

- Dra is not well organised requiring minor structural and language adjustment.

Referencing needs to be reviewed. 50% - 59%

3rd Passable approach with areas of de ciency such as:

- Core research is evident but lacks thoroughness with more ques ons unanswered
than answered.

- Dra is disorganised but contains appropriate content and/or contains incorrect use
of language

Referencing is incomplete or not correctly applied consistently. 40% - 49%

Fail Unacceptable approach with areas of de ciency ac vity such as:

- Research has very li le relevance or value

- Dra is lacking any academic value

Refencing is wholly inadequate. 0% - 39%

ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
fi
ti
f
tt
ti
fi
fi
fi
fi
ti
ti
tt
tt
2.2. Project Plan – Use of the plan as a project management support tool.
 Classi ca on Indica ve Performance Mark Range

1st A professional approach which may be represented by:

- Clear, e ec ve and appropriate use of plan as a tool to manage the project

- Ac vi es well organised and structured

- Clear evidence plan is being used and revised in line with project ac vi es

Overall, an e ec ve at communica on document 70% - 100%

2.1 Good approach though areas of de ciency which may include:

- Evidence that the plan is being used but project is not 100% e ec vely managed

- Overall, ac vi es well organised and structured but there is some incongruity.

- Majority of ac vi es are being managed in line with the plan.

Overall, e ec ve but not compelling at communica ng the state of the project. 60% - 69%

2.2 Acceptable approach though areas of de ciency which may include:

- Management of the majority of project ac vi es apparent but there is some

uncontrolled slippage and evidence of a lack of remedial planning

- Ac vi es show organisa on but not e ec ve and possibly impeding progress to a

minor degree.

- Not compelling evidence plan is being used and revised in line with project ac vi es

Overall, limited value as a communica on document 50% - 59%

3rd Passable approach with areas of de ciency such as:

- Project is showing signs of major slippage without adequate recovery plan but
student is being proac ve

- Poorly organised but clear evidence the student is trying to manage be er as project
progresses

- Plan is not really being used other than spasmodically.

Overall, li le bene t is being derived from the plan 40% - 49%

Fail Unacceptable approach with areas of de ciency ac vity such as:

- No real evidence of planning

- Chao c organisa on

- Project is slipping badly with no real evidence of control

Overall, no e ec ve planning 0% - 39%

ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ff
ti
tt
ff
ti
ti
ff
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
fi
fi
ti
fi
fi
ti
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
tt
ti
ti
2.3. Interview – Students conduct during the mid-point in terms of their enthusiasm,
commitment and professionalism. Evidence of development of subject matter expertise.
 Classi ca on Indica ve Performance Mark Range

1st A professional approach which may be represented by:

- Clear enthusiasm for the project, commitment is self-evident.

- Student can talk competently and engagingly about the project domain, technology
and discipline.

- Student is aware of state of the project and clearly in control even if slippage evident

Student engages in the dialog of the mid-point with respect to ideas from the assessor and
how to develop the project in the second semester. 70% - 100%

2.1 Good approach though areas of de ciency which may include:

- Enthusiasm for the project, commitment is self-evident but some minor sugges on
that there may be mo va onal issues.

- Student can talk competently and engagingly about the project domain, technology
and discipline but not with compelling exper se sugges ve of being research
informed.

- Student is not fully aware or accep ng of state of the project

Student shows slight resistance to assessor sugges ons maybe a li le too defensive of work
completed. 60% - 69%

2.2 Acceptable approach though areas of de ciency which may include:

- Student is competent in talking about the project but lacks enthusiasm and clear signs
mo va on may be an issue.

- Student shows good knowledge of their research but is insu ciently scien c or
research informed.

- Some evidence the student is allowing the project to su er by overly focusing on a

speci c area r allowing themselves to be distracted.

There is a sense that the student is not wholly engaging in the process. 50% - 59%

3rd Passable approach with areas of de ciency such as:

- Very li le enthusiasm or mo va on evident.

- Student shows li le development of subject ma er exper se beyond basic level.

- Student does not appear to be aware of problems within the project that could
impact upon success

Student is not enthusias c in dialog with the assessor. 40% - 49%

Fail Unacceptable approach with areas of de ciency ac vity such as:

ti
fi
fi
tt
ti
ti
tt
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
fi
ti
tt
fi
fi
ti
ti
ff
ti
ti
ffi
tt
ti
fi
ti
 3. Project Report Marking scheme
Marked by the supervisor and second assessor.

This sec on assesses the student’s project e ort as evidenced by the project report.

There are 4 criteria.

# Supervisor 2nd Assessor % of mark

Criteria
Marks Marks

3.1 Problem Definition Yes Yes 30%

3.2 Solution Yes Yes 30%

3.3 Evaluation Yes Yes 20%

3.4 Quality of submission Yes Yes 20%

The criteria are assessed as follows:

ti
ff
3.1. Problem De inition - this section assesses the student’s performance throughout the
research conducted for the project. The depth of research, quality of primary and
secondary research activities and the validity of the analysis in de ining and justifying,
quantitatively and or qualitatively, the nature of the problem.

This criterion has two evaluation elements:

# Supervisor's 2nd Assessor's % of mark

Assessment Point
Marks Marks

3.1. The student’s performance in the primary Yes Yes 50%

1 and secondary research activities of the
project (i.e. thoroughness, depth, quality of
references, application of methods and
techniques applied).

3.1. The strength and validity of conclusions Yes Yes 50%

2 drawn from the investigation and the
implications of the investigation upon the
project.

Assessment as follows:
f
f
 3.1.1 The student’s performance in the primary and secondary research activities of the
project (i.e. thoroughness, depth, quality of references, application of methods and
techniques applied).

Classi ca on Indica ve Performance Mark Range

1st A professional approach which may be represented by: 70% - 100%
- Exemplary inves ga on into the problem domain using
relevant and appropriate methodologies, methods, tools and
techniques.
- Exemplary inves ga on into student’s discipline and
applica on of iden ed skills, principles and theory relevant to
the project using relevant and appropriate methodologies,
methods, tools and techniques.
- Exemplary inves ga on into the technologies and/or technical
principles required to address the problem domain using
relevant and appropriate methodologies, methods, tools and
techniques.
- Thorough and appropriate use of relevant sources, both
contemporary and seminal displaying a broad understanding of
the relevant concepts.
- Exemplary ethical conduct throughout the inves ga on with
provenance established on all content; diligence evident in the
collec on of data, and due observance of ownership, privacy,
con den ality, honesty and trustworthiness considera ons.
2.1 Good approach though areas of de ciency which may include: 60% - 69%
- Good inves ga on into the problem domain using relevant and
appropriate methodologies, methods, tools and techniques
though minor inadequacies evident leading to a degree of
incomple on.
- Exemplary inves ga on into student’s discipline and
applica on of iden ed skills, principles and theory relevant to
the project using relevant and appropriate methodologies,
methods, tools and techniques though minor inadequacies
evident leading to a degree of incomple on.
- Good inves ga on into the technologies and/or technical
principles required to address the problem domain using
relevant and appropriate methodologies, methods, tools and
techniques though minor inadequacies evident leading to a
degree of incomple on.
- Good and appropriate use of relevant sources, both
contemporary and seminal displaying good understanding of
the relevant concepts though not comprehensive or biased
toward contemporary sources.
- Good ethical conduct throughout the inves ga on with clear
a empt at provenance of content; diligence evident in the
collec on of data, and due observance of ownership, privacy,
con den ality, honesty and trustworthiness considera ons but
not comprehensive.
tt
fi
fi
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
fi
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
 2.2 Acceptable approach though areas of de ciency which may include: 50% - 59%
- Inves ga on into the problem domain is acceptable with
signi cant use of relevant and appropriate methodologies,
methods, tools and techniques though inadequacies evident
leading to a signi cant degree of incomple on.
- Inves ga on into student’s discipline and applica on of
iden ed skills, principles and theory relevant to the project
using relevant and appropriate methodologies, methods, tools
and techniques evident though incomplete or inconsistent
leading to a degree of incomple on.
- Inves ga on into the technologies and/or technical principles
required to address the problem domain using relevant and
appropriate methodologies, methods, tools and techniques
evident though incomplete or inconsistent leading to a degree
of incomple on.
- Adequate use of relevant sources, both contemporary and
seminal displaying acceptable understanding of the relevant
concepts though not comprehensive and/or consistently
appropriate and/or biased toward contemporary sources.
- Acceptable ethical conduct throughout the inves ga on with
nominal a empt at provenance of content; diligence in the
collec on of data, and observance of ownership, privacy,
con den ality, honesty and trustworthiness considera ons but
not signi cant.
3rd Passable approach with areas of de ciency such as: 40% - 49%
- Inves ga on into the problem domain lacks use of relevant and
appropriate methodologies, methods, tools and techniques
leading to a substan al degree of incomple on.
- Inves ga on into student’s discipline and applica on of
iden ed skills, principles and theory relevant to the project
using relevant and appropriate methodologies, methods, tools
and techniques lacking leading to a substan al degree of
incomple on.
- Inves ga on into the technologies and/or technical principles
required to address the problem domain using relevant and
appropriate methodologies, methods, tools and techniques
lacking leading to a substan al degree of incomple on.
- Weak use of relevant sources, both contemporary and seminal
displaying a limited understanding of the relevant concepts.
- Ethical conduct is evident though nominal with li le evidence
of a emp ng provenance of content; diligence in the collec on
of data, and observance of ownership, privacy, con den ality,
honesty and trustworthiness considera ons.
fi
tt
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
fi
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
tt
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
tt
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
 Fail Unacceptable approach with areas of de ciency ac vity such as: 0% - 39%
- Inves ga on into the problem domain is poor, li le evidence of
relevant and appropriate methodologies, methods, tools and
techniques leading to a poor degree of comple on..
- Li le evidence of inves ga on into student’s discipline and
applica on of iden ed skills, principles and theory relevant to
the project using relevant and appropriate methodologies,
methods, tools and techniques leading to a poor degree of
comple on.
- Li le evidence of inves ga on into the technologies and/or
technical principles required to address the problem domain
using relevant and appropriate methodologies, methods, tools
and techniques lacking leading to a poor degree of comple on..
- Li le or no a empt at using relevant sources or appropriately
using sources with inadequate understanding of the relevant
concepts.
- Ethical conduct is ques onable with unconvincing evidence of
a emp ng provenance of content; diligence in the collec on of
data, and observance of ownership, privacy, con den ality,
honesty and trustworthiness considera ons.
tt
tt
tt
tt
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
tt
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
tt
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
 3.1.2 The strength and validity of conclusions drawn from the investigation and the
implications of the investigation upon the project.

Classi ca on Indica ve Performance Mark Range

1st A professional approach which may be represented by: 70% - 100%
- Research is professionally presented, organised and fully and
appropriately referenced.
- Research is comprehensive, well-structured with clear evidence
of con nuity.
- Exemplary analysis of the inves ga on with sound conclusions.
- Clear evidence that research has informed the project.
2.1 Good approach though areas of de ciency which may include: 60% - 69%
- Research is well presented, organised and appropriately
referenced though there may be minor omissions.
- Research is virtually comprehensive though there may be
minor omissions, well-structured with clear evidence of
con nuity.
- Good analysis of the inves ga on with good conclusions
though there may be some subjec vity or error evident.
- Strong evidence that research has informed the project though
not comprehensive.
2.2 Acceptable approach though areas of de ciency which may include: 50% - 59%
- Research is acceptably presented though there may be
inappropriate visual summaries and/or minor uncited content
such as tables or gures.
- Research is adequate though there may be omissions which
diminish value, semi-structured with insu cient evidence of
con nuity.
- Analysis of the inves ga on is adequate with some relevant
conclusions evident though there may be dispropor onate
subjec vity or error evident.
- Evidence that research has informed the project though not
compelling.
3rd Passable approach with areas of de ciency such as: 40% - 49%
- Research is presented though lacking clarity to aid
dissemina on li le use of appropriate visual summaries and/or
containing minor uncited content such as tables or gures.
- Research is nominal though with signi cant omissions
substan ally diminishing the value, li le structure or evidence
of con nuity.
- Analysis of the inves ga on is weak with li le relevance in the
conclusions and dispropor onate subjec vity or error evident.
- Some evidence that research has informed the project but to a
lesser degree.
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
tt
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
fi
tt
fi
ti
fi
ffi
tt
fi
ti
 Fail Unacceptable approach with areas of de ciency ac vity such as: 0% - 39%
- Research is poorly presented, lacks clarity, li le or no use of
appropriate visual summaries and/or consistently contains
minor uncited content such as tables or gures.
- Research is present to a lesser extent though with substan al
omissions yielding virtually no value.
- Li le or invalid analysis of the inves ga on.
- Unconvincing or lacking evidence that research has informed
the project.
tt
ti
ti
fi
fi
tt
ti
ti
 3.2. Solution - this section assesses the student’s artefact including the process of
production (appropriateness of the requirements, analysis, design,
implementation and testing; methods, tools and techniques applied) as well as
the actual inal solution (quality and suitability of the solution; the technical and
or theoretical content, technology and or techniques utilised and speci ically the
extent to which the solution addresses the problem domain).

This criterion has one evaluation element:

# Supervisor's 2nd Assessor's % of mark

Assessment Point
Marks Marks

3.2. The student’s performance in developing Yes Yes 100%

1 their solution. Considering the following
aspects:

• Evidence and extent of the practical skills

applied and appropriate tools utilised with
relevance to their award.

• Evidence of the analytical and problem

solving skills applied appropriate to the
level of study.

• The degree of innovation and level of

creativity evident in the approach and the
demonstrated solution.

• Evidence of understanding the wider

context of their work in relation to current
industry practice and/or research.

• Evidence of rigour, validation and

verification throughout the process adopted
by the student in developing their solution
appropriate to their award.

The criterion is assessed as follows:

f
f
 3.2.1 The student’s performance in developing their solution.

Classi ca on Indica ve Performance Mark Range

1st A professional approach which may be represented by: 70% - 100%
- Exemplary with clear evidence of u lising technologies and
skills at the forefront of the student's discipline.
- Excep onal problem solving and analy cal skills evident by the
degree of challenge overcome or complexity achieved.
- Extremely crea ve and innova ve approach.
- Student clearly aware of current industry/research trends and
has embraced them in the development of their solu on.
- Exemplary use of appropriate rigour with valida on and
veri ca on comprehensive through all stages of the process.
2.1 Good approach though areas of de ciency which may include: 60% - 69%
- Strong skills evident current technologies and skills have been
applied though not consistently.
- Problem solving and analy cal skills clearly evident though
challenge not fully met with key areas not fully func onal or
ine ec vely realised.
- Clear evidence of crea ve and innova ve approach though not
wholly e ec ve in realising the solu on.
- Student displayed awareness of current industry/research
trends and there has been an a empt to include them in their
solu on.
- Clear evidence of rigour with valida on and veri ca on present
through the majority of the process.
2.2 Acceptable approach though areas of de ciency which may include: 50% - 59%
- Skill is evident with current technologies included though not
fully exploited.
- Problem solving and analy cal skills evident though some
design and/or implementa on decisions of ques onable
bene t leading to a reduc on in func onality or e ec veness
of the solu on.
- Crea vity and/or innova on present but not wholly to the
bene t of the solu on.
- Student displayed awareness of current industry/research
trends with evidence that there has been an a empt to include
them in their solu on though not necessarily e ec vely.
- Evidence of rigour with valida on and veri ca on present
though not consistently applied throughout the process leading
to a de ciencies and/or inconsistencies in the solu on.
ff
fi
ti
ti
fi
fi
fi
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
tt
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
fi
ti
tt
ff
ti
fi
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
 3rd Passable approach with areas of de ciency such as: 40% - 49%
- Evidence of skill though technologies are not exploited
e ec vely or not wholly suited to discipline.
- Ine ec ve problem solving and/or analy cal skills have
compromised the solu on though there remains the kernel of a
func onal or e ec ve solu on.
- Limited evidence of crea vity and/or innova on resul ng in the
e ec veness of the solu on being par ally impeded.
- Limited awareness of current industry/research trends evident
with an a empt to include them in their solu on though not
necessarily successfully.
- Evidence of rigour with valida on and veri ca on present
though limited leading to signi cant de ciencies and/or
inconsistencies in the solu on.
Fail Unacceptable approach with areas of de ciency ac vity such as: 0% - 39%
- In adequate skill evident, technologies are not exploited or not
func oning.
- Clear evidence that problem solving and/or analysis has
compromised the project leading to a de cient solu on that
fails to meet minimum requirements.
- Solu on lacks any visible signs of crea vity and/or innova on.
- Li le awareness of current industry/research trends and/or no
a empt to include them in their solu on.
- Li le or no evidence of rigour with valida on and veri ca on
present leading to a de cient and/or inconsistent solu on.
tt
ff
ff
tt
tt
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
tt
ff
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
fi
ti
ti
ti
fi
fi
ti
fi
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
3.3. Evaluation - this section assesses the quality of the student’s overall
evaluation.

This criterion has one evaluation element:

# Supervisor's 2nd Assessor's % of

Assessment Point
Marks Marks mark

3.3. The strength, validity and clarity of the Yes Yes 50%
1 student’s approach, appraisal and reflection.

The criteria are assessed as follows:

 3.3.1. The strength, validity and clarity of the student’s approach, appraisal and
re lection.

Classi ca on Indica ve Performance Mark Range

1st A professional approach which may be represented by: 70% - 100%
- Wholly balanced and objec ve evalua on and appraisal.
- Excellent, insigh ul and incisive re ec on on the project.
- Overall appraisal of work undertaken and deliverables
produced is valid and holis c.
- Excellent and well-reasoned considera on of future work and
poten al extensions to the project.
2.1 Good approach though areas of de ciency which may include: 60% - 69%
- Good evidence of balance in the evalua on and appraisal
though some subjec vity.
- Evidence of re ec on though minor inconsistencies or
omissions.
- Appraisal of work undertaken and deliverables produced has
validity though there is a slight emphasis on some areas of the
project more than others.
- Good and for the most part well-reasoned considera on of
future work and poten al extensions to the project.
2.2 Acceptable approach though areas of de ciency which may include: 50% - 59%
- Evalua on and appraisal are acceptable though minor
subjec vity.
- Some re ec on evident but not compelling.
- There is a degree of validity in the appraisal of work undertaken
and deliverables produced but too greater emphasis on some
areas of the project at the expense of other areas.
- Considera on of future work and extension to the project
evident but ques onable or debatable reasoning.
3rd Passable approach with areas of de ciency such as: 40% - 49%
- Strong subjec vity in the majority of evalua on and appraisal
though some balance evident.
- Limited re ec on but does not consider the en re project and
associated ac vi es.
- Validity of the appraisal is ques onable and very narrow
focused on selected project areas.
- Limited or trivialised considera on of future work and
extension to the project.
Fail Unacceptable approach with areas of de ciency ac vity such as: 0% - 39%
- Total lack of balance or objec vity with unsupportable
subjec vity.
- Lack of meaningful re ec ve account.
- No valid appraisal evident or very limited focus on project
areas.
- Invalid considera on of future work and extension to the
project.
f
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fl
ti
ti
fl
ti
ti
ti
ti
fl
tf
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fl
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fl
fi
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
3.4. Quality of submission - the extent to which the project work and report
conforms to the stated criteria for an academic report in terms of style, structure,
form, quality and completeness.

This criterion has one evaluation element:

# Supervisor's 2nd Assessor's % of

Assessment Point
Marks Marks mark

3.4. The extent to which the project report Yes Yes 50%
1 conforms to the stated criteria for an
academic report in terms of style, structure,
form, quality and completeness.

The criteria are assessed as follows:

 3.4.1. The extent to which the project report conforms to the stated criteria for an
academic report in terms of style, structure, form, quality and completeness.

Classi ca on Indica ve Performance Mark Range

1st A professional approach which may be represented by: 70% - 100%
- Fully and comprehensively documented providing a complete
narra ve of the project.
- Professional quality, excellent structure, fully and correctly
referenced.
- Report is a professional, balanced and e ec ve communica on
tool.
- Exemplary use of appropriate technical, academic and
professional language throughout.
2.1 Good approach though areas of de ciency which may include: 60% - 69%
- All key sec ons present though some clari ca on needed to
complete the narra ve.
- Good quality, well-structured and referenced with only minor
inconsistencies or omissions.
- For the most part e ec ve as a communica on tool though
some minor inadequacies, imbalance for example, detract from
overall professionalism.
- Minor use of inappropriate technical, academic or professional
language.
2.2 Acceptable approach though areas of de ciency which may include: 50% - 59%
- Provides narra ve of the project but some confusion or lack of
clarity prevents absolute comprehension due to omi ed or
incomplete sec ons.
- Acceptable standard of report though there are structural
issues and/or notable referencing inconsistencies.
- Acceptably e ec ve communica on tool though with
inadequacies and/or substan al imbalance repeatedly
detrac ng from overall professionalism.
- Signi cant use of inappropriate technical, academic or
professional language though in only in limited number of
sec ons of the report.
3rd Passable approach with areas of de ciency such as: 40% - 49%
- Incomplete but su ciently comprehensive to support
understanding of the project with clari ca on
- Report lacks structure, may contain minor omissions and/or is
inconsistently referenced but clear evidence of valid a empt.
- Limited e cacy as a communica on tool consistent
inadequacies make it minimally professional or substan ally
imbalanced.
- Majority of the report contains elements of inappropriate use
of technical, academic or professional language though there is
clear evidence of an a empt to use appropriate language.
ti
fi
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ffi
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ffi
ti
ff
tt
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
fi
fi
ff
fi
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
tt
tt
ti
ti
 Fail Unacceptable approach with areas of de ciency ac vity such as: 0% - 39%
- Incomprehensible and/or substan al omissions.
- Poorly structured, maybe incomplete and/or there is an
absence of references.
- Ine ec ve and/or unprofessional document signi cantly below
the standard expected for the level of study.
- Inappropriate language used throughout with li le or no
a empt at wri ng to a suitable technical, academic or
professional standard.
tt
ff
ti
ti
ti
fi
tt
fi
ti
 4. Project Presentation Marking scheme
Marked by the supervisor and second assessor.

This sec on assesses the student’s performance during the presenta on.

There is one criterion for this component.

# Supervisor 2nd Assessor's % of mark

Criteria
Marks Marks

4.1 Presentation Yes Yes 100%

The criterion is assessed as follows:

ti
ti
4.1. Presentation - the student’s performance in presenting an overview of their
project work, use of appropriate visual aids, management of the presentation and
ability to communicate effectively, the project achievements.

This criterion has one evaluation element:

# Supervisor's 2nd Assessor's % of mark

Assessment Point
Marks Marks

4.1. The student’s performance during the viva Yes Yes 100%
with respect to:

• Structure and management of the

presentation

• Discussion of work conducted and

justification of activities undertaken and
decisions taken

• Effectiveness of the demonstration of the

solution

• Response to questions.

The criteria are assessed as follows:

 4.1. The performance of the student during the project presentation.

Classi ca on Indica ve Performance Mark Range

1st A professional approach which may be represented by: 70% - 100%
- Thoroughly professional management of the viva, with
excellent structure and e ec ve u lisa on of appropriate
visual aids.
- Discussion encompassed all aspects of the project with wholly
appropriate jus ca on provided throughout.
- A professional demonstra on well planned to showcase the
solu on with maximum e ec veness.
- Exemplary handing of ques ons with audience addressed
professionally, answers relevant and comprehensive and no
leading required.
2.1 Good approach though areas of de ciency which may include: 60% - 69%
- Well managed with good structure and use of appropriate
visual aids though some detrac ng content and/or
presenta on.
- Discussion covered key aspects of the project with jus ca on
provided throughout though not wholly acceptable or
appropriate.
- Good demonstra on showcasing the solu on though with
limited promp ng required to provide comprehensive
understanding of what had been achieved.
- Good handing of ques ons with audience addressed
appropriately, answers relevant though some leading required.
2.2 Acceptable approach though areas of de ciency which may include: 50% - 59%
- Reasonably managed with acceptable structure and use of
appropriate visual aids though impact diminished by content
and/or presenta on.
- Discussion covered most key aspects of the project though with
insu cient jus ca on provided throughout without
promp ng.
- Demonstra on showcased key elements of the solu on though
con nual or signi cant promp ng was required to fully reveal
the scale of achievement.
- Good a empt at handing of ques ons though leading required
to ensure relevance and audience addressed appropriately.
3rd Passable approach with areas of de ciency such as: 40% - 49%
- Management not wholly e ec ve and/or confusing structure
with use of visual aids though of limited bene t as a vehicle for
communica ng project ac vi es.
- Discussion was limited though some key aspects of the project
were presented with limited jus ca on provided though
requiring signi cant promp ng.
- Demonstra on required signi cant interven on to showcase
the strengths of the solu on.
- Signi cant leading required though ques ons were addressed.
ti
ffi
ti
fi
fi
ti
ti
tt
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
fi
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
ff
ti
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
fi
fi
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
fi
ti
 Fail Unacceptable approach with areas of de ciency ac vity such as: 0% - 39%
- Ine ec ve management and/or confusing structure provided
no real bene t as a communica on pla orm for the project.
- Student unable to discuss the project e ec vely and/or unable
to appropriately jus fy the work presented.
- Demonstra on wholly inadequate and/or nothing realis cally
to demonstrate.
- Clear inability to eld ques ons e ec vely even with leading.
ff
ti
ti
fi
fi
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti
tf
ff
fi
ti
ti
ti