Each student will give a presentation lasting for 15 minutes, with a further 5 minutes for questions. The presentation should cover the overall topic and aims of the project, the general scientific background, previous work relevant to the project, and a brief outline of how the project is planned to progress over the coming months. It should be pitched at a level comprehensible to the other MPhys project students, who will be expected to attend all the talks in the session in which their own presentation is scheduled.
Each presentation will be marked by two assessors nominated by the MPhys Projects Co-ordinator. Normally, one of these assessors MPhys will be from the same project-group as the supervisor, and neither assessor will be involved in supervising the project in question.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 timetable for presentations is not finalised until a relatively late stage so presentations should not assume that the audience has already seen another related presentation.
The overall mark for this assessment (out of maximum 100) relates to the following four areas each of which is marked out of 25 using the scale below:
|21–25||Exceptional. At the standard expected for a polished, high quality conference review talk, perhaps with one or two minor deficiencies.|
|18–20||Excellent. Could reach the standard above if several minor deficiencies were attended to.|
|17||Very good. Generally very good level of knowledge or ability, with no more than one significant deficiency.|
|15–16||Focal level. Generally good level of knowledge or ability, with only one or two significant deficiencies.|
|13–14||No major flaws, but a number of significant deficiencies. Showing acceptable levels of basic knowledge or ability.|
|10–12||Threshold level. Only one or two major flaws. Lacking effectiveness in some aspects.|
|5–9||A number of major flaws. Evidence of a lack of basic knowledge or ability.|
|0–4||Nothing approaching an acceptable performance.|