Mark Sheet – Final Report – DATA7903 – Page 1 Examiner Name: Student Name: Student Number: Grade Band Thesis definition and scope (10%) Background (20%) Excellent (85-100%) Excellent, clear definition of a substantial and significant project topic, problem and/or hypothesis (including statement of purpose and relevance) and scope (including context, boundaries and assumptions). The abstract accurately yet concisely captures the project topic, methods and outcomes. 10 Extensive, relevant and logically organised review, analysis, discussion of background material, both specific research and general theory, helps the reader understand the rest of the document, and demonstrates clear mastery of the material in the topic area and ability to synthesize and abstract knowledge. 20 9 18 17 Very Good (75-84%) Very good definition of project topic, problem and/or hypothesis (including statement of purpose and relevance) and scope (including context, boundaries and assumptions). The abstract accurately captures the project topic, methods and outcomes. 8 Relevant and logically organised review, analysis, discussion of background material, both specific research and general theory, helps the reader understand the rest of the document, and demonstrates mastery of the material in the topic area and ability to synthesize and abstract knowledge. 16 15 Good (65-74%) Good definition of project topic, problem and/or hypothesis (including statement of purpose) and scope (including assumptions). The abstract captures the project topic and outcomes 7 Good review/discussion of background material, with both specific research and general theory, and shows good understanding of the material in the topic area and ability to synthesize and abstract knowledge. 14 13 Satisfactory (50-64%) Satisfactory definition of project topic, problem and/or hypothesis and scope. The abstract satisfactorily captures the project topic and outcomes 6 Acceptable coverage of background material, with both specific research and general theory, and shows basic understanding of the material in the topic area. 12 5 11 10 Poor (25-49%) Poor or incomplete definition of project topic and scope. The abstract is not clear about the project topic and its outcomes 4 A limited coverage of background material, which perhaps does not cover both specific research and general theory. Flaws in the basic understanding of the material in the topic area are evident. 9 3 7 5 Very Poor (0-24%) Project topic and scope are very unclear. The abstract does not summarise the project topic and its outcomes. External work heavily used without academic merit. 2 An extremely limited coverage of background material. A lack of understanding of the material in the topic area is clear. External work heavily used without academic merit. 4 1 2 0 0 Comments: Mark Sheet – Final Report – DATA7903 – Page 2 Student Name: Student Number: Supervisor/Examiner: Grade Band Approach and execution (45%) Conclusion (15%) Excellent (85-100%) A clearly set out plan with goals and methods systematically follows from the background research. The approach highlights your creativity and innovation and includes an evaluation of alternative approaches. The execution indicates a substantial work effort, and shows the application of knowledge gained from background research. The project results are complete and comprehensively presented and analysed. 45 The analysis of the work conducted highlights your comprehension and shows insight into the significance of the results. The report has a critical review of your performance against the stated plan. The report concludes with a clear concise summary of the outcomes – in context of specified project definitions and literature – and brings recommendations for continuation and improvement of the work. 15 42 14 39 13 Very Good (75-84%) A clearly set out plan with goals and methods systematically follows from the background research. The approach shows innovation and includes an evaluation of alternative approaches. The actual execution of work shows the application of knowledge gained from background research and indicates a very good effort. The project results are complete and comprehensively presented and analysed. 38 The analysis of the work conducted shows comprehension and some insight into the significance of the results. The report has a critical review of your performance against the stated plan.
The report concludes with a clear summary of the outcomes – in context of specified project definitions and literature – and brings recommendations for continuation and improvement of the work. 12 36 34 Good (65-74%) A plan of work follows from the background research. The approach is systematic and includes some consideration of alternative approaches. The execution of work shows the application of knowledge gained from background research and a good effort. The project results are mostly complete, well presented and analysed. 33 The analysis of the work conducted shows comprehension of the project but limited insight into the significance of the results. The report has a critical review of your performance. The report concludes with a summary of the outcomes and brings recommendations for continuation of the work. 11 30 10 Satisfactory (50-64%) A satisfactory plan of work is offered. The approach is reasonably systematic. The actual execution of work shows reasonable understanding via some application of prior knowledge and some background research, it also shows satisfactory effort in the project. The project results are complete in the larger part, sufficiently presented and analysed. 29 The analysis of the work conducted demonstrates some comprehension. The report has a critical review of your performance. The report concludes with a summary of outcomes. 9 26 8 23 Poor (25-49%) The plan of work offered is incomplete or unclear. The approach is not well considered, and does not logically flow from the background research presented. The actual execution of work shows flawed understanding and little application of the either background research or prior knowledge, its fails to show satisfactory effort in project. Project results poor, and/or poorly presented. 22 The analysis of the work conducted demonstrates limited comprehension. The report concludes with a poor summary of outcomes. 7 17 5 12 4 Very Poor (0-24%) The plan of work, if offered, is not sensible. The approach is haphazard, and has no logical basis. The actual execution of work shows very little understanding or application of the either background research or prior knowledge. Project results not on the level for postgraduate project work. External work heavily used without academic merit. 11 There is a very poor review of the work and no real comprehension demonstrated. The report concludes fails to explain what was achieved. 3 5 1 0 0 Final Mark: /90 Comments: Supervisor/Examiner’s Signature: Date:
Mark Sheet – Final Report – DATA7903 – Communications
Supervisor/Examiner: Mark:
/10 Student Name: Grade Band Writing and presentation (10%) Excellent (85-100%) Excellent
logical structure, physical layout and appropriate attention to detail.
The work is presented in an accurate, concise and coherent fashion.
Scientific and technical style. No spelling mistakes or grammar
errors. Appropriate referencing to a correctly formatted bibliography.
Appropriately acknowledges the work of others. 10 9 Very Good (75-84%) Very
good logical structure, physical layout and attention to detail. The
work is presented in an accurate and coherent fashion. Scientific and
technical style. No spelling mistakes or grammar errors. Appropriate referencing to a correctly formatted bibliography. Appropriately acknowledges the work of others. 8 Good (65-74%) Good
structure, physical layout. Some minor inaccuracies in presentation of
work. Neat, occasional spelling mistakes or grammar errors. Occasional
errors in referencing. Appropriately acknowledges the work of others. 7 Satisfactory (50-64%) Acceptable
structure and physical layout; Some inaccuracies or lack of detail in
presentation of work. Neat, some spelling mistakes or grammar errors.
Some errors in referencing or bibliography formatting. Appropriately acknowledges the work of others. 6 5 Poor (25-49%) Structure
and physical layout detract; many inaccuracies or considerable lack of
detail in presentation of work. Numerous spelling mistakes or grammar
errors. Several errors in referencing or bibliography formatting. Occasional failures to appropriately acknowledge the work of others. 4 3 Very Poor (0-24%) Structure
and physical layout very poor; presentation of work is inaccurate and
incomplete. Numerous spelling mistakes or grammar errors. Several errors
in referencing or bibliography formatting. Many failures to appropriately acknowledge the work of others 2 1 0 Comments: