Each student will have their report read by two assessors and answer questions in a viva voce examination normally lasting 20 minutes. Reports are normally expected to broadly comply with the guidelines written by WLB and SJM. In accordance with the published Marking Strategy, each assessor should complete an individual pro-forma, on which comments are to be made and marks recorded. These, along with a further pro-forma of 'agreed marks' are to be returned to the Module Lead. All marks are subject to consistency checks and, if necessary moderation. The marks for this assessment contribute to the overall module mark in proportion to the weighting indicated in the module descriptor.
The overall mark for this assessment (out of 100) is obtained as follows:
Marks (maximum 50) are given for the coverage, content, presentation of the report. The expected components in the report include: introduction, aims, background; theory; design, planning; description of project work; discussion of results; conclusions; suggestions for future work; and references and bibliography. Material that has already been assessed (e.g. from the introductory report) should not be reproduced in its entirety in the final report, although a brief summary of such material may be included if appropriate.
|Mark Range||Assessors look for: completeness of all expected components; logical coherence and structure of material; high-quality and scientific and literary accuracy of the text and figures; consistent and thorough referencing; skilled use of diagrams to enhance the clarity of the text and provide evidence for the conclusions.|
|43–50||A report that is difficult to fault. This work is of publishable quality, with only very minor amendments, and would be likely to receive that judgement if submitted to a high-quality peer-reviewed journal.|
|35–42||Outcome at excellent level. No significant deficiencies, but a number of minor errors. Clear text and diagrams with a well defined focus, reflecting a very good knowledge of material and very good competence in its critical assessment.|
|30–34||Outcome at focal level. Only one or two significant deficiencies. Expected components present, with good content, structure and presentation.|
|25–29||No major flaws, but a number of significant deficiencies. Expected components present in an acceptable form.|
|20–24||Outcome at threshold level. Only one or two major flaws. Expected components present in a recognisable form.|
|10–19||A number of major flaws. Lacking in overall structure. Evidence of a lack of basic knowledge and critical ability.|
|0–9||Nothing approaching an acceptable report.|
Marks (maximimum 25) are given to reflect the student's attainment, as demonstrated by the scientific quality of aspects of the project over which the student has some ownership.
|(b) TECHNICAL AND SCIENTIFIC ATTAINMENT|
|Mark Range||Assessors look for evidence in the report of: advanced practical / technical skills; finesse; consistency checks and validation of results; independent input to the project; innovative creative approach; self-detection and self-correction of errors; identification and follow-up of interesting results; independent use of the literature; refinement / optimisation / adaptation of existing methods; a well-judged and strategic approach.|
|21–25||A command of all relevant aspects that is difficult to fault. The project makes a novel contribution to its research field and is at the level expected of work reported in a high-quality peer-reviewed journal.|
|18–20||Outcome at excellent level. A command of most relevant aspects that is difficult to fault. Some minor deficiencies. The report will be a useful technical reference for others working in the field.|
|15–17||Outcome at focal level. A command of most relevant aspects in some depth. The student has the ability to produce experiments (or software, etc.) that work well.|
|13–14||An adequate command of most relevant aspects. The student has the ability to produce experiments (or software, etc.) that work adequately.|
|10–12||Outcome at threshold level. A command of most relevant aspects at a relatively superficial level. The student has the ability to produce experiments (or software, etc.) that work to some extent.|
|5–9||Little evidence of technical ability or relevant skills. Experiments (or software, etc.) unlikely to work.|
|0–4||No evidence of technical ability or relevant skills.|
Marks (maximum 25) are given to reflect the student's understanding of material presented in the dissertation and of related topics.
|(c) VIVA PERFORMANCE|
|Mark Range||Assessors look for: ability to address questions in a concise, clear and technically accurate manner; detailed knowledge of the work undertaken and its rationale; a knowledge of key literature; ability to interpret and drawn conclusions from work undertaken, etc.|
|21–25||A thorough understanding of all aspects that allows questions to be answered accurately and fluently and the discussion to be extended with confidence into difficult or unfamiliar areas.|
|18–20||Outcome at excellent level. A thorough understanding of most aspects, with some ability to extend the discussion into difficult or unfamiliar areas.|
|15–17||Outcome at focal level. An understanding of most aspects in some depth, with the ability to extend the discussion so as to make relevant links (e.g. between theory and experiment).|
|13–14||An adequate understanding of most aspects, with some ability extend the discussion so as to make relevant links.|
|10–12||Outcome at threshold level. A relatively superficial understanding of most aspects, with the ability to make relatively simple links.|
|5–9||Little understanding shown. Unable to make relevant links.|
|0–4||No understanding demonstrated.|