Anda di halaman 1dari 10

Version.

20181226

EG3301R: Deliverables and Assessment Rubrics


Submission deadlines
Semester A Wk 6 Wk 12 Wk 13 Wk 13
(Jan to Apr) Design Portfolio Design Portfolio Interim Video Interim
Template A Template B Presentation Report

Semester B Wk 6 Wk 13 Wk 13 Wk 13
(Aug to Nov) Design Portfolio Final Video Final Prototypes
Template C Presentation Report Demonstration

Page 1 of 10
Version.20181226

Design Portfolio: Part A

This part of the assessment examines student's understanding of the project background and goals.

It focuses on 2 areas:
~Value Proposition
~Design Statement

Students will be assessed as a group based on their design portfolio

Value Proposition
Indicative Band Guidelines
Extremely Poor to Very Poor § Little or no analysis was carried out to understand the problem.
§ The value proposition is illogical or unclear.
Very Poor to Acceptable § Some analysis was carried out to understand the problem.
§ The value proposition is unclear.
§ The feasibility of the approach to create value lacks support from credible sources of information.
Acceptable to Very Good § Adequate analysis of the problem using appropriate tools/techniques.
§ The value proposition is logical and clear.

§ The feasibility of the approach to create value is generally supported by credible sources of information.

Very Good to Exceptional § A thorough and comprehensive analysis of the problem was carried out using a variety of appropriate
tools/techniques.
§ The value proposition is logical and clear.
§ The feasibility of the approach to create value is supported extensively by credible, accurate and up-to-
date sources of information.

Design Statement
Indicative Band Guidelines
Extremely Poor to Very Poor
§ The design statement is not present or inconsistent with the value proposition

Very Poor to Acceptable


§ The design statement is present but lacks consistency with the value proposition.

Acceptable to Very Good


§ The design statement is consistent with the value proposition, but verbose.

Very Good to Exceptional


§ The design statement is clear, concise, and consistent with the value proposition

Page 2 of 10
Version.20181226

Design Portfolio: Part B

This part of the assessment examines whether the conceptual solutions developed can address the value proposition identified.

It focuses on 4 areas:
~Design Specification
~Function Analysis
~Concept Generation
~Concept Selection

Students will be assessed as a group based on their design portfolio

Design Specification
Indicative Band Guidelines
Extremely Poor to Very Poor
§ Scope/targets/parameters/constraints/requirements are missing.

Very Poor to Acceptable § Scope/targets/parameters/constraints/requirements are listed but may be incomplete and/or lack
specificity.
§ The design specifications may not be objective and quantifiable.
§ It is unclear whether the design specifications will lead to tangible and viable solution(s) to the problem
of interest.
Acceptable to Very Good § Critical scope/targets/parameters/constraints/requirements are clearly listed but some important details
may be missing.
§ The design specifications are generally objective and quantifiable.
§ The design specifications would be likely to lead to tangible and viable solution(s) to the problem of
interest.
Very Good to Exceptional § All scope/targets/parameters/constraints/requirements are clearly listed, formatted, prioritized and
detailed.
§ The design specifications are consistently objective and quantifiable.
§ The design specifications would with certainty lead to tangible and viable solution(s) to the problem of
interest.

Function analysis
Indicative Band Guidelines
Extremely Poor to Very Poor
§ No or little effort is made to identify the required functions of the design solution.

Very Poor to Acceptable § Some functions of the design solution are identified, but some critical functions are clearly missing.

§ Relationships between functions are unclear.

Acceptable to Very Good § Critical functions are identified in a systematic manner.

§ Relationships between most critical functions are defined but could be discussed in greater detail.

Very Good to Exceptional § An exhaustive list of critical functions is systematically and logically identified.
§ Relationships between all critical functions (e.g. product/process architecture) are clearly defined and
discussed in detail.

Concept generation
Indicative Band Guidelines
Extremely Poor to Very Poor
§ No or little effort is made to generate alternative design solutions.

Very Poor to Acceptable § Some solutions are generated but it is unclear how they can address the required functions.

§ Generation of alternative design solutions does not appear to be systematic or logical.

Acceptable to Very Good § Various solution principles are generated to address the critical functions.
§ Multiple design solutions are generated in a systematic manner, but they may not be clearly distinct
and/or supported by sound engineering, scientific and other principles.
Very Good to Exceptional § A comprehensive range of solution principles are generated to address all critical functions.
Page 3in of
§ Multiple design solutions are generated 10
a systematic and logical manner.
§ The design solutions are clearly distinct and well supported by sound engineering, scientific and other
principles.

Concept selection
and/or supported by sound engineering, scientific and other principles.
Very Good to Exceptional § A comprehensive range of solution principles are generated to address all critical functions.
§ Multiple design solutions are generated in a systematic and logical manner.
Version.20181226 § The design solutions are clearly distinct and well supported by sound engineering, scientific and other
principles.

Concept selection
Indicative Band Guidelines
Extremely Poor to Very Poor § No or little effort is made to evaluate alternative design solutions, and/or selection of design solution(s)
is performed without proper evaluation.
Very Poor to Acceptable § Possible design solutions are evaluated in a superficial manner.

§ Selection of design solution(s) is unclear/unjustified.

Acceptable to Very Good § Possible design solutions are evaluated systematically using appropriate means.
§ Selection of design solution(s) may not be well-justified as it is unclear how the design specifications can
be met.
Very Good to Exceptional § Possible design solutions are evaluated systematically and comprehensively using appropriate means,
resulting in selection of well-justified design solution(s).

§ The design solution(s) selected clearly suggest that the design specifications can be met and effectively
address the problem.

Page 4 of 10
Version.20181226

Design Portfolio: Part C

This part of the assessment examines how the conceptual solution selected were further developed towards a finished design.
It focuses on 2 areas:
~Detail Design
~Prototyping

Students will be assessed as a group based on their design portfolio

Detail Design
Indicative Band Guidelines
Extremely Poor to Very Poor
§ No or little design details are determined.

Very Poor to Acceptable


§ Some details/parameters are determined, but some critical details/parameters are unclear and/or
obviously missing.

Acceptable to Very Good § Critical details/parameters are clearly determined.

§ Some details may be lacking sound references to engineering, scientific and other principles.

Very Good to Exceptional § An exhaustive list of critical details/parameters are clearly determined.
§ Details are well supported by sound argument and extensive references to engineering, scientific and
other principles.
§ Documentation of the design solution is clear, detailed, complete and extensive.

Prototyping
Indicative Band Guidelines
Extremely Poor to Very Poor
§ No or little prototyping

Very Poor to Acceptable


§ Intended purposes of prototypes made are unclear.

Acceptable to Very Good


§ Prototypes are made but details are lacking and/or unsuitable for their intended purposes.

Very Good to Exceptional § Intended purposes of prototypes are clearly communicated, and prototypes are made with enough
details realistically possible for their intended purposes.

§ Testing is conducted using methods/techniques/approaches that are appropriate for its intended
purposes.

Page 5 of 10
Version.20181226

Interim

This part of the assessment examines the progress you have made in your project over this semester.
It focuses on 3 technical areas:
~Project Clarification
~Concept Design
~Prototyping

Students will be assessed as a group based on their technical achievements presented in the interim report and presentation.

Technical Achievement (Group)


Project Clarification
Indicative Band Guidelines
Extremely Poor to Very Poor § The problem description is too general and lacks focus.
§ Design statement and design specification are not identified.
Very Poor to Acceptable § The problem description demonstrates a nominal understanding of the problem and lacks support from
credible sources of information.
§ The value proposition is stated but is illogical or unclear.
§ The design statement and design specifications are given but stated in a manner that is somewhat
unclear and/or inconsistent with the value proposition.
Acceptable to Very Good § The problem description demonstrates an adequate understanding of the problem, generally supported
by some credible sources of information.
§ The value proposition is logical and clear.
§ Design statement and design specifications are clearly identified but may not be fully consistent with the
value proposition.
Very Good to Exceptional § The problem description demonstrates a thorough and comprehensive understanding of the problem,
supported extensively by credible, accurate and up-to-date sources of information.
§ The value proposition is logical and clear.
§ Design statement and design specifications are clearly and objectively identified, and consistent with the
value proposition.

Conceptual Design
Indicative Band Guidelines
Extremely Poor to Very Poor § No or little effort is made to generate alternative design solutions, and/or selection of design solution(s)
is performed without evaluation.
Very Poor to Acceptable § Some design solutions are generated but evaluation of design solutions may be superficial.

§ Selection of design solution(s) is unclear/unjustified.

Acceptable to Very Good § Multiple design solutions are generated and evaluated in a systematic manner.
§ Selection of design solution(s) could be better justified as it may not be clear whether the problem can be
addressed effectively.
Very Good to Exceptional § Multiple and distinct design solutions are generated and evaluated in a systematic, comprehensive and
logical manner.
§ Selection of design solution(s) are well supported by sound engineering, scientific and other principles,
and clearly suggest that the problem can be addressed effectively.

Prototyping
Indicative Band Guidelines
Extremely Poor to Very Poor
§ No or little prototyping

Very Poor to Acceptable


§ Intended purposes of prototypes made are unclear.

Acceptable to Very Good


§ Prototypes are made but details are lacking and/or unsuitable for their intended purposes.

Very Good to Exceptional § Intended purposes of prototypes are clearly communicated, and prototypes are made with enough
Page 6 of 10
details realistically possible for their intended purposes.
Version.20181226

Final

This part of the assessment examines the progress you have made in your project over this semester.
It focuses on 2 areas:
~Project Impact
~Individual technical work

Students will be assessed as a group based on their technical achievements presented in presentation.

Each student will be further assessed as an individual based on their individual report, documenting his/her contribution for the semester.
Each report should start will a common 2-page group project summary.

Technical Achievement (Group)


Project Impact
Indicative Band Guidelines
Extremely Poor to Very Poor § The problem description is too general and lacks focus.
§ Design statement and design specification are not identified.
§ Prototypes were poorly made and unsuitable for intended purposes.
Very Poor to Acceptable § The problem description demonstrates a nominal understanding of the problem and lacks support from
credible sources of information.
§ The value proposition is stated but is illogical or unclear.
§ The design statement and design specifications are given but stated in a manner that is somewhat
unclear and/or inconsistent with the value proposition.
§ Well-finshed prototypes were made, but unsuitable for intended purposes.
Acceptable to Very Good § The problem description demonstrates an adequate understanding of the problem, generally supported
by some credible sources of information.
§ The value proposition is logical and clear.
§ Design statement and design specifications are clearly identified but may not be fully consistent with the
value proposition.
§ The solution is demonstrated by appropriate and well-finished prototypes.
Very Good to Exceptional § The problem description demonstrates a thorough and comprehensive understanding of the problem,
supported extensively by credible, accurate and up-to-date sources of information.
§ The value proposition is logical and clear.
§ Design statement and design specifications are clearly and objectively identified, and consistent with the
value proposition.

§ The solution is demonstrated by appropriate and well-finished prototypes, and were tested using suitable
methods.

Technical Achievement (Individual)


Individual technical work
Indicative Band Guidelines
Extremely Poor to Very Poor
§ No or little/simple work produced.

Very Poor to Acceptable § The work done has addressed some of the intended objectives.

§ No or little awareness of shortcomings of work done.

Acceptable to Very Good § The work done has addressed most of the intended objectives.
§ Major shortcomings of work done are identified but proposals to resolve these shortcomings may not be
clear or viable.
Very Good to Exceptional § The work done has effectively met all the intended objectives and addresses the project value
proposition.
§ Major shortcomings are clearly identified, with sound proposals to resolve them.
§ Considerable contribution in the field of work.

Page 7 of 10
Version.20181226

The assessment rubrics for Interim and Final report writing is as follows:

Report Writing
Mechanics
Indicative Band Guidelines
Extremely Poor to Very Poor § Poor command of language that impedes understanding and results in ambiguity in many parts of the
report.
Very Poor to Acceptable § Grammar, vocabulary and sentence structures are inappropriate in many places.
§ Contains many inconsistencies and errors that are distracting but generally they do not impede
understanding.
Acceptable to Very Good § Appropriate use of grammar, vocabulary and sentence structures.
§ Formatting is visually appealing.
§ Contains minor inconsistencies and errors but they not distracting.
Very Good to Exceptional § Excellent and precise use of grammar, vocabulary and sentence structures.
§ Exemplary formatting that is visually appealing and consistent.
§ Virtually error-free and of publication standard.

Structure/Organization
Indicative Band Guidelines
Extremely Poor to Very Poor
§ Incomplete report submitted; little or no evidence of organization.

Very Poor to Acceptable § Unclear report with evidently missing key elements.
§ Transition/sequence of ideas is abrupt and/or work done tends to be presented in chronological rather
than logical sequence.
Acceptable to Very Good § Clear and comprehensive report but can be more concise; all main points are covered and supported
with appropriate details.
§ Sections/chapters are generally well-linked; effective transition/sequence of ideas but logical flow can be
improved.
Very Good to Exceptional § Exemplary writing that is clear, concise, comprehensive and complete: all main points are covered and
strongly supported with accurate and appropriate details.

§ Sections/chapters are appropriate and well-linked; logical and effective transition/sequence of ideas.

Illustrations and References


Indicative Band Guidelines
Extremely Poor to Very Poor
§ Illustration and sources of information are almost non-existent.

Very Poor to Acceptable


§ Illustrations and sources of information are inappropriate and/or of weak relevance.

Acceptable to Very Good § Good use of illustrations to communicate key ideas/information but could be more visually appealing
and/or clearly annotated.
§ Sources of information are referenced but may contain minor inconsistencies and errors.
Very Good to Exceptional § Excellent use of illustrations to communicate key ideas/information; illustrations are consistent, visually
appealing and properly annotated.
§ Sources of information are comprehensive and referenced using appropriate and consistent styles.

Page 8 of 10
Version.20181226

The assessment rubrics for Interim and Final video presentation is as follows:

Video Presentation
Quality of Presentation Material
Indicative Band Guidelines
Extremely Poor to Very Poor § Presentation material is missing many key parts.
§ Presentation material is inconsistent, disorganized and contains many major errors.
Very Poor to Acceptable § Presentation material lacks visual appeal and contains many minor errors and inconsistencies.

§ Illustrations are ill-chosen and lack clear annotations.

Acceptable to Very Good § Presentation material is visually pleasing and well-organized but may contain minor errors and
inconsistencies.

§ Good use of illustrations to communicate key ideas/information but could be more clearly annotated.

Very Good to Exceptional § Presentation material is comprehensive, consistent, well-organized and virtually error-free.
§ Presentation material has excellent visual appeal and attracts interest from others to know more.
§ Excellent use of illustrations to communicate key ideas/information; illustrations are properly annotated
and easily understood.

Delivery and Presentation Skills


Indicative Band Guidelines
Extremely Poor to Very Poor § Presentation is barely comprehensible and awkward throughout.
§ Little evidence of practice/preparation.
Very Poor to Acceptable § Generally complete presentation but lacking clarity at times; most points are covered but may not be
supported with appropriate details.

§ Transition/sequence of ideas is sometimes abrupt and/or work done tends to be presented in


chronological rather than logical sequence.
§ Some evidence of practice/preparation, but time management and pace need to be improved.
Acceptable to Very Good § Clear and complete presentation but can be more concise; all main points are covered and supported
with appropriate details.
§ Effective transition/sequence of ideas but logical flow can be improved.
§ Good time management and pace; clear evidence of practice/preparation but can be more confident.
Very Good to Exceptional § Excellent time management and pace; confident presentation with clear evidence of
practice/preparation.

Page 9 of 10
Version.20181226

Effort and Initiative

This part of the assessment examines student's effort and intiative for the module.
Each student will be assessed as an individual based their contribution to the project.

Effort
Indicative Band Guidelines
Extremely Poor to Very Poor § Unmotivated, demonstrates minimal attempt to achieve required tasks, and frequently makes excuses
for not carrying out work.
§ Frequently skips or late for meetings.
Very Poor to Acceptable § Attempts to achieve required tasks but needs to be motivated/prompted frequently.
§ Tends to stop working when difficulties arise.
§ Punctual for meetings but not well-prepared for discussions.
Acceptable to Very Good § Generally well-motivated and demonstrates consistent attempts to achieve required tasks.
§ Attempts to continue working when difficulties arise.
§ Generally punctual and well-prepared for meetings.
Very Good to Exceptional § Highly motivated and always exerts maximal attempts to achieve required tasks.
§ Always perseveres/persistent in tackling problems encountered even when solutions may not be
immediately obvious.
§ Always punctual and well-prepared for meetings.

Initiative
Indicative Band Guidelines
Extremely Poor to Very Poor § Demonstrates no interest in exploring relevant questions for further inquiry unless instructed.
§ Persistent guidance or help from supervisors is given but not followed.
Very Poor to Acceptable
§ Demonstrates some interest in exploring relevant questions but may not act on tasks for further enquiry.

§ Persistent guidance or help from supervisors is required but sometimes not followed.
Acceptable to Very Good § Generally able to generate relevant questions and execute tasks for further inquiry.
§ Attempts to learn and overcome problems independently but often requires guidance or help from
supervisor.
Very Good to Exceptional § Constantly generates relevant questions and executes tasks for further inquiry.
§ Able to learn and overcome problems without persistent guidance or help from supervisors.
§ Takes the lead in managing the direction and execution of the project as well as organizing the efforts of
the project team.

Page 10 of 10