7ME500 Advanced Mechanical Design and Manufacturing Engineering CW1 Report Assessment Brief | UoD

Criteria

Level

Very Poor (Fail)

Unsatisfactory (Marginal Fail)

Good/Satisfactory (Pass)

Very Good (Merit)

Excellent (Distinction)

Below 3G%

40-4G%

50-5G%

60-6G%

70-100%

Structure and Presentation:

Layout, language, references and formatting (10 %).

Inadequate structure with no

sense of logical argument. Many errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. No visual aids (e.g. images, figures or diagrams) are

used. Discussion of concepts

used and supporting arguments are very difficult to follow.

One or more of the following applies. Weak or indistinct structure to communicate and

formulate argument. Many errors in spelling, grammar and

punctuation. No visual aids (e.g. images, figures or diagrams) are used to support discussions.

Difficult to read through and comprehend.

Appropriate structure, fair synthesis but a mechanical

presentation. Few minor errors in spelling, grammar and

punctuation. Visual aids (e.g. images, figures or diagrams) are used to support discussions.

Easy to read through and comprehend.

Coherent structure, enough

synthesis of sources to enable interpretation. Very few notable errors in spelling, grammar and

punctuation. Visual aids (images, figures or diagrams) are effectively used to support discussions. Very easy to read through and comprehend.

Highly coherent structure with excellent synthesis of sources. No notable errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Visual aids (e.g. images, figures or

diagrams) are very effectively used to support discussions well. Very easy to read through and comprehend.

Evidence of Research:

Depth of understanding of theory including evidence of wider reading and relevance of sources (20 %).

Inadequate research both in detail and coverage of issues.

Poor level of knowledge including inaccurate or erroneous

information. Poor evidence of

wider reading with no references.

Poor quality of research with more depth required. Not all aspects of the task have been

researched and an adequate level of understanding has not been

demonstrated. Very limited

evidence of wider reading and incomplete referencing.

Some good research has been conducted to demonstrate a clear understanding of key

theories and principles.

Appropriate sources for

information have been referenced but there are areas which need to be approached with more rigor.

On the whole, some

comprehensive research has been conducted. But in some areas more detail is needed to fully support the findings. The report

demonstrates a very good understanding of the related

theories and provides referenced evidence of wider reading around the subject.

Excellent, detailed and

comprehensive research has been undertaken. The report

demonstrates a thorough

understanding of complex issues and there are numerous

references to information which support the rationale.

Development and Implementation: Use of appropriate theories,

techniques and methodology to validate the final work (30 %).

Does not demonstrate

understanding of the issues and information/data used may be irrelevant. Theories, principles and tools have not been applied correctly. There is a lack of any

There is limited evidence of consideration of the appropriate methods. Limited basic theories and techniques has been

followed but there needs to be much greater depth to this in

Use of the theories, principles

and core processes has enabled some sensible application of the accepted methodology but more understanding of limitations and

An appropriate approach to the task has been used. An accepted methodology is followed along with an understanding of how the specifics for this case impact on the output. Some areas could be

An almost faultless application of the theories, principles and

methodology. Very clear

awareness of the specifics of this case and how the model must be adapted to suit each scenario.

methodical approach and little structure to the output.

order to generate a reliable output.

assumptions would improve your output.

improved by more careful understanding of the methodology.

Analysis, Evaluation and Interpretation:

Result appraisal, resolution, comparison, justification and elaboration (30 %).

There is little or no attempt at analysis and evaluation. Little in the way of an analysis and

evaluation of the results has been presented.

The report is largely descriptive. Limited separate analysis and evaluation of the results have been presented.

Generally, the analysis and evaluation of the project is

satisfactory. Attempts have been made to show how issues are related but more work could be done to provide clearer links.

A very well justified analysis and evaluation based on sound

knowledge and analysis. Complex issues have been interpreted.

Some very minor flaws or incorrect judgments have been made

A well-balanced and in-depth analysis and evaluation of the findings is presented and fully justified.

Summary and Conclusions:

Synthesis of achievements and

identification of improvements and/or future work (10 %).

No conclusions have been drawn or are very weak and uncorroborated.

Recommendations for future work are either irrelevant or unsubstantiated.

Conclusions drawn from the work are very limited and show no

added value from the work carried out. Some conclusions may be incorrect or flawed. No effort has been made to relate

issues and present a cohesive set of recommendations

Some useful conclusions have been drawn which are sensible

and supported by the information presented and the analysis is of reasonable depth.

Very good conclusions have been drawn which are located in and logically drawn from the

information presented. Clear reasoning on why

recommendations have been made.

Conclusions are drawn from excellent and incisive analysis. The recommendations made are clear and appropriate.