Quality & usage of sources – Global Homework Experts

Student Name : I.D. Number : Project Moderator : Background review
(10%)
No attempt to provide
any background.
Some / very superficial
background summary.
Very limited and
inappropriate literature
review or cut-and-paste
with no value added.
Applications of the project
are not mentioned or poorly
explained.
Limited literature review of
immediate project area
and superficial overview of
relevant research and
applications.
Extensive literature
review of the field and
excellent awareness of
research/industrial
applications and
relevance.
+ Identifies most recent
advances in the area
that are related to the
project.
Knowledge and understanding
(30%)
Literature review of only
immediate project
background (narrow
focus) but appropriate in
the main. There are some
elements of research or
industrial aspects of the
project.
Good literature review of
the immediate project
background with some
good examples of
research or industrial
applications.
Good literature review of
the project area, with
good awareness of
applications and
relevance.
Assessment Breath of understanding
of methods related to
the subject of
investigation
(10%)
No information about
methodologies provided
at all.
Methodologies /
techniques stated. No
evidence of
understanding.
Very limited demonstration
of the theoretical
/experimental appreciation
of the methodology
Basic, but limited,
demonstration of the
theoretical /experimental
understanding of
methodology
Very good
understanding of
theoretical/experimental
appreciation relating to
fundamental principles;
appreciation of some
advanced principles.
+ Identifies current
works in the field and is
highly insightful of state
of the art in relation to
the project work.
Appropriate
demonstration of
understanding of
theoretical / experimental
methodologies relating to
fundamental principles.
Good demonstration of the
understanding of
theoretical/ experimental
methodology relating to
fundamental principles
and how they are applied
to the project (in some
parts)
Consistently good
demonstration of
understanding of
theoretical/ experimental
methodology relating to
fundamental principles
and how they are applied
to the project.
Assessment Quality & usage of
sources
(10%)
No references used Lack of suitable references
in the text, suitable
references from poor
sources (i.e. Wikipedia).
References are overall not
used correctly to support
report content. E.g.
inappropriate quoting of
references.
No evidence of suitable references in the text;
overuse of Wikipedia and internet sites.
Suitable references are used in the text; The range of
references is balanced showing variety of sources (as
appropriate for the project – books/journals/web/data
sheets); Majority of references are from reputable
sources. References are used correctly to support
report content, as appropriate for an engineering
context.
A comprehensive range of references are included in the text
(books/journals/conf papers/web/data sheets) as appropriate for the project;
All references are from reputable sources.
References are consistently correctly used to support report content, as
appropriate for an engineering context.
Assessment Suitability of the
application of method(s)
and extent of the
consideration of errors
and validation of
method(s)
(10%)
There is no evidence
that outlined
methodology has been
applied (complete
absence of results,
measurements, testing
of the circuit to
establish the
accuracy/validity of the
work)
Very limited attempt to
tackle the problem. No
/ irrelevant results
presented.
Very limited attempt to
tackle the problem (only
few results to validate
proposed work or
methodology, largely
obtained in an inappropriate
or inconsistent manner).
Limited attempt to tackle
the problem (there is
evidence that results are
used to validate the
work/methodology but
largely unfinished)
Methodical and highly
competent application
to analyse/validate the
used methodologies
and techniques.
Excellent evidence of
practical parameters
and typical errors.
+ extensive techniques
applied beyond initial
objectives and
consistent tested and
validated in a practical
context.
Technical achievement
(20%)
Basic attempt to apply
suitable methods to the
problem. Parameters are
largely arbitrary.
Good application of
suitable methods.
Evidence of steps to
validate methods used.
Awareness of realistic
parameters and typical
errors.
Competent application of
appropriate methods and
techniques. Steps taken to
validate accuracy of work
done. Good knowledge of
realistic parameters and
errors.
Assessment Attainment of agreed
objectives
(10%)
No attempt to
address any
objective.
Partial completion of
some objectives.
Partial completion of
some objectives.
Partial completion of
most objectives.
Completion of some
objectives.
Completion of most
objectives.
All objectives completed. All objectives fully met to a very high standard; Assessment Extent of the
justification of the
method(s) / design.
E.g. related to theory /
literature / standard
practices / performance
requirements
(5%)
Absence of
justifications.
Method(s) / design(s) are
superficially justified. E.g.
stated but not elaborated
upon.
Method(s) / design justification mostly absent. Method(s) / design(s) are mostly justified. Method(s) / design(s) are consistently and well justified. (Zero) Very Poor
(Hard Fail)
Poor
(Fail)
Less than adequate
(Soft Fail)
Adequate
(MSc pass)
Good
(Merit)
Very Good
(Distinction)
Excellent
(Distinction)
Outstanding
(Distinction)
MSc Project – Thesis – Assessment Rubric (Assessed by project moderator) (Zero) Very Poor
(Hard Fail)
Poor
(Hard Fail)
Less than adequate
(Soft Fail)
Adequate
(MSc pass)
Good
(Merit)
Very Good
(Distinction)
Excellent
(Distinction)
Outstanding
(Distinction)