Assessment of MPhys Poster Presentations

University of Exeter	Handbook (Physics)	Questions/Comments	Department (Physics)

Assessment of MPhys Poster Presentations

Each student will individually present their poster to two assessors and answer questions. They will be expected to explain and defend the entire poster on which they have collaborated as well as displaying a detailed knowledge of their own specific contribution. 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 mark for this assessment (maximum 100) is judged according to the following criteria:

Poster Quality

Marks are given for the quality of the poster, in terms of presentation and in terms of how well it describes the work done, not for the quality of the work described (this aspect is well covered elsewhere). The mark will be broadly the same for all members of the team producing a poster, unless there is clear evidence that individual contributions have been significantly different. The mark awarded by the the assessors will relate to:

coverage (maximum 16)
(aims, background, summary of progress, future work -- students have been told that they should include these four components),

content (maximum 16)
(appropriateness of material, scientific and literary accuracy of the text and diagrams),

structure (maximum 16)
(overall coherence and sequencing of material),

presentation (maximum 16)
(overall appearance and accessibility of the text and diagrams).

Mark Range (a) Qualities of Poster

14–16 Exceptional. A poster quality that, perhaps with one or two minor corrections, would be entirely acceptable at a major conference (note that the scope of the work described does not have to be at this level).

12–13 Excellent. No significant deficiencies, but a number of minor corrections needed to produce a poster quality that would be entirely acceptable at a major conference. Clear text and diagrams with a well defined focus, reflecting a good knowledge of material and good competence in its critical assessment.

11 Very good. No more than one significant deficiency. Expected four components present, with very good content, structure and presentation.

10 Focal level. Only one or two significant deficiencies. Expected four components present, with good content, structure and presentation.

8–9 No major flaws, but a number of significant deficiencies. Expected four components present in an acceptable form.

6–7 T hreshold level. Only one or two major flaws. Expected four components present in a recognisable form.

3–5 A number of major flaws. Lacking in overall structure. Evidence of a lack of basic knowledge and critical ability.

0–2 Nothing approaching an acceptable poster.

Mark Range	(a) Qualities of Poster
14–16	Exceptional. A poster quality that, perhaps with one or two minor corrections, would be entirely acceptable at a major conference (note that the scope of the work described does not have to be at this level).
12–13	Excellent. No significant deficiencies, but a number of minor corrections needed to produce a poster quality that would be entirely acceptable at a major conference. Clear text and diagrams with a well defined focus, reflecting a good knowledge of material and good competence in its critical assessment.
11	Very good. No more than one significant deficiency. Expected four components present, with very good content, structure and presentation.
10	Focal level. Only one or two significant deficiencies. Expected four components present, with good content, structure and presentation.
8–9	No major flaws, but a number of significant deficiencies. Expected four components present in an acceptable form.
6–7	T hreshold level. Only one or two major flaws. Expected four components present in a recognisable form.
3–5	A number of major flaws. Lacking in overall structure. Evidence of a lack of basic knowledge and critical ability.
0–2	Nothing approaching an acceptable poster.

Oral Performance

Marks (maximum 36) are given to reflect the student's understanding of the project and of related topics, as displayed during discussion of the poster with the assessors. The mark awarded by the the assessors will be based on the following scale:

Mark Range (b) Quality of Discussion

31–36 Exceptional. 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.

26–30 Excellent. A thorough understanding of most aspects, with some ability to extend the discussion into difficult or unfamiliar areas.

23–25 Very good. A sound understanding of most aspects, with the ability to extend the discussion so as to make relevant links (e.g., between theory and experiment).

21–22 Focal level. A sound understanding of most aspects in some depth, with some ability extend the discussion so as to make relevant links.

18–20 An adequate understanding of most aspects, with some ability extend the discussion so as to make relevant links.

14–17 Threshold level. A relatively superficial understanding of most aspects, with the ability to make relatively simple links.

7–13 Little understanding shown. Unable to make relevant links.
0–6 Virtually no understanding demonstrated.

Mark Range	(b) Quality of Discussion
31–36	Exceptional. 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.
26–30	Excellent. A thorough understanding of most aspects, with some ability to extend the discussion into difficult or unfamiliar areas.
23–25	Very good. A sound understanding of most aspects, with the ability to extend the discussion so as to make relevant links (e.g., between theory and experiment).
21–22	Focal level. A sound understanding of most aspects in some depth, with some ability extend the discussion so as to make relevant links.
18–20	An adequate understanding of most aspects, with some ability extend the discussion so as to make relevant links.
14–17	Threshold level. A relatively superficial understanding of most aspects, with the ability to make relatively simple links.
7–13	Little understanding shown. Unable to make relevant links.
0–6	Virtually no understanding demonstrated.

University of Exeter	Handbook (Physics)	Questions/Comments	Department (Physics)