On the occasions specified in the module descriptor, each student will have their notebook(s) read by an assessor and will then discuss their project in a short interview, normally lasting 10 minutes. Assessors will be rotated from one assessment to the next.
Each student will have their notebook(s) evaluated by two assessors and answer questions in a viva voce examination normally lasting 20 minutes.
Marks (maximum total 100) are allocated under three categories:
judged according to the criteria tabulated below.
The mark for project work (b) is assigned by using the competencies criteria (column 2) to select a mark range (column 1) and then using the advanced skills criteria (column 3) and the benchmark examples (column 4) to award a mark within this range.
N.B. The mark for project work must not be based on the supervisor's sole evaluation. There needs to be evidence in the notebook to justify them, which the second assessor will verify. The evidence supporting unusually high marks needs to be made explicit on the marksheet/feedback form.
The mark for the oral defence (c) relates directly to performance in the viva, and marks under the other headings may be influenced by performance in the viva.
| (a) NOTEBOOK (Max 20) | |
|---|---|
| Mark Range | Assessors look for: high-quality contemporaneous record-keeping; results of investigations and their analysis recorded in appropriate detail; records that could form the basis of a professional publication and/or be used by a third party to verify or reproduce the work. |
| 17–20 | Exceptional. An exemplary standard of record keeping has been achieved, with only one or two minor inconsistencies . |
| 14–16 | Excellent. The notebook has been kept in a systematic way and represents a true and useful record of the work carried out. A professional standard of record keeping has been achieved with no significant inconsistencies or omissions but a number of minor deficiencies. |
| 13 | Very good. The notebook has been kept in a systematic way and represents a true and useful record of the work carried out. Only one or two significant deficiencies. |
| 12 | Focal. The student is developing a professional approach to keeping a notebook. No major inconsistencies or omissions, but a number of significant deficiencies. |
| 10–11 | A notebook has been kept, but there is one major inconsistency or omission. |
| 8–9 | Threshold. A notebook has been kept, but there are one or two major inconsistencies or omissions. |
| 4–7 | A notebook has been presented but has not been properly used. A number of major inconsistencies and omissions. |
| 0–3 | No evidence that a proper notebook has been kept. |
| (b) PROJECT WORK (Max 60) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Mark Range | COMPETENCIES | ADVANCED SKILLS | Bench-mark |
| Assessors look for: an appropriate volume of work and progress made (relative to the credit weighting of assessment); practical/technical competence; production of reliable results; correct interpretation results; quantitative grasp of uncertainties / approximations; attention to detail. | Assessors look for: 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. | ||
| 49–60 | Exceptional. A command of all relevant aspects that is difficult to fault. The student has been self-motivated and self managing. Little guidance has been necessary from the supervisor. Work at the rate expected from an able postgraduate student. | Almost all the listed advanced skills are clearly evident throughout. | 57 |
| Most of the listed advanced skills are evident somewhere. | 52 | ||
| 43–48 | Excellent. A command of most relevant aspects that is difficult to fault. Some minor deficiencies. Approaching the rate expected from an able postgraduate student. Reasonably ambitious aims have been exceeded. The student has generally been self-motivated and self managing. Occasional guidance from the supervisor has been necessary, and the student has taken advantage of this. | Most of the listed advanced skills are clearly evident throughout. | 47 |
| Evidence of several of the listed advanced skills listed is present. | 44 | ||
| 37–42 | Very good. The student has worked very hard. Some guidance from the supervisor has been necessary, and the student has taken advantage of this. A command of most relevant aspects in some depth. The student has the ability to produce experiments (or software, etc.) that work well. Reasonably ambitious aims have been achieved. | Most of the listed advanced skills are evident somewhere. | 41 |
| Evidence of one or two of the listed advanced skills is present. | 38 | ||
| 31–36 | Focal level. An adequate command of most relevant aspects. The student has the ability to produce experiments (or software, etc.) that work adequately. Reasonably ambitious aims have mostly been achieved. The student has worked hard. A significant amount of guidance from the supervisor has been necessary, and the student has taken advantage of this. | Evidence of several of the listed advanced skills listed is present. | 35 |
| Evidence of one or two of the listed advanced skills is present. | 32 | ||
| 25–30 | 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. At the minimum acceptable level of effort for a student at this stage. A significant amount of strong guidance from the supervisor has been necessary at times, and the student has generally taken advantage of this. Some progress has been made towards achieving reasonably ambitious aims. | Evidence of several of the listed advanced skills listed is present. | 29 |
| Evidence of one or two of the listed advanced skills is present. | 26 | ||
| 13–24 | Little evidence of effort and initiative shown, and the student has generally failed to respond to guidance from the supervisor. Little evidence of technical prowess or relevant skills. Experiments (or software, etc.) unlikely to work. Little progress made. | Evidence of several of the listed advanced skills listed is present. | 22 |
| Evidence of one or two of the listed advanced skills is present. | 15 | ||
| 0–12 | Little or no evidence of: effort / initiative, response to guidance from the supervisor, technical prowess or relevant skills, progress made. | Evidence of one or two of the listed advanced skills is present. | 10 |
| Little or no evidence of the listed advanced skills. | 5 | ||
| (c) ORAL DEFENCE (Max 20) | |
|---|---|
| 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. |
| 17–20 | 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. |
| 14–16 | Excellent. A thorough understanding of most aspects, with some ability to extend the discussion into difficult or unfamiliar areas. |
| 13 | 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). |
| 12 | Focal level. A sound understanding of most aspects in some depth, with some ability extend the discussion so as to make relevant links. |
| 10–11 | An adequate understanding of most aspects, with some ability extend the discussion so as to make relevant links. |
| 8–9 | Threshold level. A relatively superficial understanding of most aspects, with the ability to make relatively simple links. |
| 4–7 | Little understanding shown. Unable to make relevant links. |
| 0–3 | No understanding demonstrated. |