Assessment
Assessment weighting and mark allocation across all assessments will be approximately:
- 30% team process;
- 30% team outcome;
- 40% individual contribution
In the following tables, (t) denotes a team mark, (i) an individualised mark.
Project Proposal (Pass / Fail)
| Fail | Pass |
|---|---|
| Unrealistic scope, objectives very unclear or wholly derivative or lacking research foundation | Clear and achievable scope with roles and process clearly deliniated. Existing related work referenced. Shared goals / vision. Project management process both realistic and well understood / researched |
Final Portfolio
| Criterion | Poor/Fail (<50) | Good (50-59) | Very Good / Merit (60-69) | Excellent / Distinction (70+) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Quality and extent of individual contribution (i) | Very limited, absent or sub-standard contribution. Highly derivative (e.g. copied with little or no adaptation from a web source) | Solid contribution, though perhaps not very extensive or not adding significant value or insight | Good quality contribution showing some originality. Advances project in more than one way. | Excellent quality and quantity of contribution showing originality of approach, depth of research and clearly adding value to the team product on several dimensions |
| 2. Team product (t) | No clearly useful output / disregard to project scope | Objectives partially addressed with some aspects incomplete. Documented but with limitations to extent and usefulness. | Objectives largely well-addressed and a well presented and functioning output. Well documented and largely reproducible | A complete and very well designed solution that effectively addressed the project objectives. Full documentation and a fully reproducible process |
| 3. Team process (t) | Chaotic and unstructured team dynamic, with very little or no evidence of process. | Limited evidence of team management process or structured methodology | Generally solid team and project management. Well informed choice and application of methods, tools and principles. | A high standard of team work evident, together with excellent project planning, management and control. Deep and critical commitment to methodology. |
Viva
| Criterion | Poor/Fail (<50) | Good (50-59) | Very Good / Merit (60-69) | Excellent / Distinction (70+) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Team performance (t) | Poor communication and understanding of the project area | Shortcomings in team performance and depth of knowledge, though some strong features | Good team synergy and generally good knowledge of the project demonstrated | Outstanding team integration and synergy apparent. A deep and rich understanding of the project area apparent. |