Examples of Assessment Criteria (Engineering)

Conduct Experiment

Participated most actively in the conduct of the experiment.
Able to set up the experiment independently, and carry out the tests properly, with little or no assistance.

Participated actively in the conduct of the experiment.
Able to set up the experiment and carry out the tests properly, with some assistance.

Participated less actively in the conduct of the experiment.
Able to set up the experiment and carry out the tests properly, with moderate level of assistance.

Participated little in the conduct of the experiment.
Unable to set up the experiment and carry out the tests. Need assistance throughout the experiment.

    1-4

Analyse and Interpret Data

Able to explain and analyse all the experimental results obtained beyond what is expected.

Able to explain and analyse all the experimental results obtained, with some help.

Able to explain and analyse some experimental results obtained, with some help.

Unable to explain results obtained. Copy results from other team members.

Synthesize Valid Conclusion

Can arrive at all major conclusions independently.

Can arrive at almost all major conclusions with some help.

Can arrive at some major conclusions after some help.

Unable to arrive at any conclusions.

A+ to A-

(a) Comprehensive collection of relevant data, (b) complete documentation of experimental set-up and conditions, (c) ability to obtain high quality and reproducible data, and to resolve difficulties that may arise during the experiments, (d) clearly illustrated and annotated graphs, tables, charts and photographs (e.g., with correct scientific units, axis labels, legends), and (e) excellent understanding of the rationale, goals and conclusions of the experiments.

B+ to B-

(a) Collection of relevant data, (b) proper reporting of experimental set-up and conditions, (c) ability to obtain good quality data, (d) clear illustration of results with graphs and tables, and (e) good description of the objectives and conclusions of the experiments.

C+ to C

(a) Incomplete data collection, (b) negligence to report experimental set-up and conditions in full, (c) experiments are not conducted with great care, resulting in lower  quality data, (d) graphs and tables are included to present the data, but are either incomplete or lack relevant descriptors, and (e) objectives or conclusions of the experiments are unclear.

D+ to D

(a) Data collected are incomplete or faulty in part, (b) experimental set-up and conditions are not reported, (c) experiments are conducted carelessly, resulting in untrustworthy data, (d) reporting of experiments lacks graphs, tables and charts, and (e) objectives of the experiments are poorly understood and the conclusions are erroneous.

F

(a) Data collected are largely faulty, (b) improper or wrong experimental set-up, (c) experiments are conducted carelessly, (d) graphical illustrations, charts and tables are wrong, incomplete, lack descriptors, poorly prepared or absent, and (e) objectives or conclusions of the experiments are absent or incorrect.

A+ to A-

(a) Detailed and accurate description of experimental procedures, (b) precise  presentation and understanding of relevant theoretical basis, (c) correct, accurate and complete data analysis, (d) critical discussion of assumptions, errors and inaccuracy, (e) in-depth interpretation of results and analysis, and (f) drawing of important conclusions and discussion of relevance to applications.

B+ to B-

(a) Methodical description of experimental procedures, (b) proper presentation of the underlying theories, (c) correct and complete data analysis, (d) relevant discussion of experimental errors and inaccuracy, (e) careful interpretation of results, and (f) drawing of relevant conclusions.

C+ to C

(a) Experimental procedures are described, but lack clarity or details, (b) the theoretical basis of the experiments is merely reproduced and is not fully understood, (c) the data analysis is presented, but is either incomplete or part of it is erroneous, (d) cursory discussion of experimental errors, (e) results are mostly interpreted correctly but may contain some errors, and (f) conclusions are drawn, but lack emphasis or miss the most important ones.

D+ to D

(a) Experimental procedures are not reported, (b) the theory presented is irrelevant or incorrectly applied, (c) largely incorrect data analysis, (d) possible experimental errors are not discussed, (e) inaccurate or faulty interpretation of results, and (f) conclusions drawn are unimportant or not relevant to the objectives.

F

(a) Experimental procedures are wrong, unsafe, or not reported, (b) the relevant theory is not included or understood, (c) the data analysis is clearly erroneous, (d) experimental errors are not reported or the student lacks awareness of them, (e) results are not interpreted, or interpreted wrongly, and (f) no conclusions, or erroneous/irrelevant conclusions are drawn.

Criteria

Standards

Fail standard
(30-40%)

Pass standard
(50-70 %)

High standard
(80-100 %)

Motivation & problem statement
(LO 1,2)

Lack of understanding and/or presentation of motivation and problem statement of the paper.

Reasonable understanding and presentation of motivation and problem statement of the paper.

Excellent understanding and presentation of motivation and problem statement of the paper.

Technical approach & evaluation
(LO 1,2)

Technical approach and/or evaluation results not presented or based on insufficient understanding.

Sufficient understanding of technical approach and key outcomes of evaluation. Good presentation of these understandings.

Excellent understanding of technical approach, evaluation outcomes, and their limitations. Systematic presentation of these understandings.

Critical analysis & relation to course
(LO 1,2,4)

Analysis missing and/or relation to course contents not explained.

Sufficient analysis presented, including clear understanding of shortcomings. Relation to some course contents clearly identified.

Detailed analysis presented, including potential directions for improvement. Relation to all course contents clearly identified.

Criteria

Standards

Fail Standard

Pass Standard

High Standard

Method of
Approach
(LO 1 – 4)

Using methods that are irrelevant or do not apply to the given problem.
Applying theorems whose conditions are not satisfied.

Able to identify relevant methods that help solve the problem but unable to arrive at the complete/ final solution.

Applying methods and theorems that are both relevant and efficiently to solve the entire problem.

Validity of
Reasoning
(LO 2 – 4)

The student’s reasoning is logically invalid.

The student’s reasoning is logically valid

The student’s reasoning is logically valid and effective.

Clarity of
Argument
(LO 2 – 4)

The student’s argument is poorly explained or not explained at all.

The student’s argument is clear, but may contain some gaps.

The student’s argument is clear, precise, with no or insignificant gaps.

A+ to A-

Excellent work which is clearly outstanding and is characterized by:
1. The candidate has extremely good insight into the contexts in which Sketch Rendering and Model-Making operates.
2. The candidate is able to produce a drawing/model that is ergonomically at an outstanding level.
3. The candidate is able to produce a drawing/model that is aesthetically at an outstanding level.
4. The candidate exhibits excellent understanding of perspective and lighting.
5. The candidate is able to produce a model that is of outstanding workmanship.
6. The candidate has excellent and outstanding communication skills in presenting/explaining his/her work.
7. The candidate demonstrates extremely good critical reflection and application of the knowledge gained from this course in actual industrial setting.
8. The candidate is able to apply relevant sketch and model-making guidelines as well as other methods relating to sketch rendering and model-making at an outstanding level.

B+ to B-

Very good work that is characterized by:
1. The candidate has very good insight into the contexts in which Sketch Rendering and Model-Making operates.
2. The candidate is able to produce a drawing/model that is ergonomically at a very good level.
3. The candidate is able to produce a drawing/model that is aesthetically at a very good level.
4. The candidate exhibits very good level of understanding of perspective and lighting.
5. The candidate is able to produce a model that is of very good workmanship.
6. The candidate has very good communication skills in presenting/explaining his/her work.
7. The candidate demonstrates very good critical reflection and application of the knowledge gained from this course in actual industrial setting.
8. The candidate is able to apply relevant sketch and model-making guidelines as well as other methods relating to sketch rendering and model-making at a very good level.

C+ to C

Good work that is characterized by:
1. The candidate has good insight into the contexts in which Sketch Rendering and Model-Making operates.
2. The candidate is able to produce a drawing/model that is ergonomically at a good level.
3. The candidate is able to produce a drawing/model that is aesthetically at a good level.
4. The candidate exhibits good level of understanding of perspective and lighting.
5. The candidate is able to produce a model that is of good workmanship.
6. The candidate has good communication skills in presenting/explaining his/her work.
7. The candidate demonstrates good critical reflection and application of the knowledge gained from this course in actual industrial setting.
8. The candidate is able to apply relevant sketch and model-making guidelines as well as other methods relating to sketch rendering and model-making at a good level.

D+ to D

Work that is acceptable as it satisfies the minimum criteria and is characterized by:
1. The candidate has minimum insight into the contexts in which Sketch Rendering and Model-Making operates.
2. The candidate is able to produce a drawing/model that is acceptable at a basic level.
3. The candidate is able to produce a drawing/model that is aesthetically at a basic level.
4. The candidate exhibits basic understanding of perspective and lighting.
5. The candidate is able to produce a model that is of acceptable workmanship.
6. The candidate has basic communication skills in presenting/explaining his/her work.
7. The candidate demonstrates little critical reflection and application of the knowledge gained from this course in actual industrial setting.
8. The candidate is able to apply relevant sketch and model-making guidelines as well as other methods relating to sketch rendering and model-making at a basic level.

F

Work that does not meet the minimum criteria and is characterized by:
1. The candidate has very poor insight into the contexts in which Sketch Rendering and Model-Making operates.
2. The candidate is not able to produce a drawing/model that is ergonomically at an acceptable level.
3. The candidate is not able to produce a drawing/model that is aesthetically at an acceptable level.
4. The candidate does not exhibit basic understanding of perspective and lighting.
5. The candidate is not able to produce a model that is of acceptable workmanship.
6. The candidate has poor communication skills in presenting/explaining his/her work.
7. The candidate demonstrates no critical reflection and application of the knowledge gained from this course in actual industrial setting.
8. The candidate is not able to apply relevant sketch and model making guidelines as well as fabrication theories and methods relating to sketch rendering and model making at an acceptable level.

Excellent
(75-100 marks)

Excellent work which is clearly outstanding and characterized by :
(a) highly creative, practical, and cost effective design solution concepts
(b) deep understanding of problem, skillful application of engineering knowledge, and thorough analysis of problem/solution
(c) excellent build quality, performance, and aesthetics of prototype
(d) strict observance of lab/workshop rules and safety, and excellent project/time management
(e) excellent communication via presentation and poster

Good
(60-74 marks)

Good work characterized by :
(a) creative, practical, and cost effective design solution concepts
(b) proficient understanding of problem, application of engineering knowledge, and analysis of problem/solution
(c) high build quality, performance, and aesthetics of prototype
(d) good observance of lab/workshop rules and safety, and good project/time management
(e) good communication via presentation and poster

Satisfactory
(40-59 marks)

Satisfactory work characterized by :
(a) somewhat creative, practical, and cost effective design solution concepts
(b) some understanding of problem, application of engineering knowledge, and analysis of problem/solution
(c) moderate build quality, performance, and aesthetics of prototype
(d) satisfactory observance of lab/workshop rules and safety, and acceptable project/time management
(e) satisfactory communication via presentation and poster

Poor
(0-39 marks)

Work that does not meet minimum criteria and characterized by :
(a) lack of creativity, practicality, or cost effectiveness in design solution concepts
(b) lack of understanding of problem, application of engineering knowledge, or analysis of problem/solution
(c) poor build quality, performance, or aesthetics of prototype
(d) unsatisfactory observance of lab/workshop rules and safety, or poor project/time management
(e) poor communication via presentation or poster

A+ (Exceptional)
A (Excellent)

Important contributions to class discussion; asks insightful questions; precisely answers questions; participates in a meaningful and constructive manner including enabling other students to contribute but does not dominate; demonstrates thoughtful ideas and opinions in a convincing manner.  

A- (Very good) B+ (Good)

Meaningful contributions to class discussion; ask interesting questions; accurately answer the questions; capacity to articulate and present points of view clearly; participates in a meaningful and constructive manner; evidence of having read and assimilated the class material; Capable to demonstrate ideas and opinions in a convincing manner.  

B (Average)
B- (Satisfactory)
C+ (Marginally satisfactory)

Some contributions to class discussion; ask some questions; some capacity to articulate and present points of view; some evidence of constructive engagement during discussion; Capable to demonstrate ideas and opinions.  

C (Bordering unsatisfactory)
C- (Unsatisfactory)

Minimal contributions to class discussion; ask very little questions; can answer a few questions; limited capacity to articulate and present points of view; limited evidence of constructive engagement during discussion.

D, F (Deeply unsatisfactory)

Very minimal or no contributions to class discussion; no questions; could not answer questions; no evidence of an individual viewpoint; failure to read the assigned reading; unexplained or unjustified absences from class activities.

Illogical sequence and irrelevant content, making it difficult for audience to understand content; poor slide design

Adequate contents and acceptable layout; transition between team members’ presentation fairly abrupt; average slide design

Logical sequence and relevant content; enhances delivery of technical content; good transition between team members’ presentation; substantial effort in slide design

Succinct presentation with relevant content; leads audience towards scientific and technical insight; excellent linkage between team members’ presentation; refreshing slide design

Oral Presentation Timing
(10%)

Grossly under or overestimated allocated presentation time

Kept to allocated presentation time

Kept to allocated presentation time; reasonable emphasis on each team member’s project activities

Kept to allocated presentation time and distributed time for each section perfectly, with emphasis on each team member’s activities

Poster Content and Design
(30%) – LO 5, 7, 8, 9 10

Poor poster layout without much graphics; unable to comprehend the project from poster content

Graphics mainly extracted directly from report without much thought in design; too much or too little words in poster

Well-designed poster with visually captivating graphics; summarizes the key parts of the project

A creative and innovative poster design; captures the project highlights succinctly

Demonstration of Prototype and Research Outcome
(20%) – LO 5, 7, 8, 9, 10

No prototype or research outcome to demonstrate

A working prototype that partially meets the objectives of the project

A working prototype that conceptualizes the results from the report; meets the objectives of the project

A working prototype that fully integrates the 3 tasks which demonstrates the multi-disciplinary of the project; outcome exceeds the objectives of the project

Introductory Statement
(LO 6)

Clear, concise, engaging; Describes, connects the URECA experience and purpose.

Clear, but not engaging; Attempts to connect to literature.

Unclear; Does not connect to literature.

Missing

Uniqueness of the experience
(LO 6)

Clear, concise, and relevant.

Clear but not concise; Might contain trivial or unimportant information; lacks specifics.

Unclear; Contains trivial or unimportant information.

Missing

Overall perception of the research experience
(LO 6)

Connected to the purpose of the research and experience gained.

Unclear or not connected to purpose of research experience.

Not mentioned but implied; Or not appropriate as perception of research experience.

Missing

What would you do different as a result of URECA experience
(LO 6)

Clear, unique and specific to the experience gained or accomplished.

Attempts to present specifics and unique experience.

Unclear; Or trivial or not relevant.

Missing

Assessment Criteria:

Weight

1. Creativity – Creativeness of how all the features in the video submission are put together such that it makes the report interesting and original.

25%

2. Presentation – Effectiveness in communicating contributions through the use of features available in a video presentation

3. Teamwork – Demonstration of effective teamwork in the way the team has carried out their project and in the process of creating the video report.

4. Content - Quality of team’s effort and implementation highlighted in the video report. The content that is expected in your video is listed below.

Video Contents to be Featured:

1. Team members – Introduce the team members and the project responsibilities assigned to each of the members.
2. Implementations – Highlight the team’s implementation of various aspects of the project. You should take advantage of the video medium and demonstrate that your implementations are functioning correctly and robustly.
3. Special Achievements – Highlight what is special about your team’s effort and the solutions that you have implemented.

Demonstrate outstanding contributions and efforts during teamwork.

Exhibited appropriate effort in contributions during teamwork.

Made some contributions but greater effort could have been exhibited during teamwork.

Did not contribute much effort during teamwork.

Made no effort to contribute during teamwork.

Team member:

Preparation for work accomplishment: completed readings.

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Task-related collaborative behavior: task-focused, respectful of others, and cooperative.

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Team adjustment behaviors: intra-team coaching, problem solving

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Work behaviors: involved and participatory

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Communication: information shared and exchanged, engaged in process, and made verbal contributions.

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Provide constructive feedback for this team member.
(Consisting of two to three sentences):