Mark Sheet: Infrastructure Development Planning

Criteria

Group: 1
Comments

Marks
Available
(%)

Presentation of pitch:
(1) Appreciation of Project:
Was there an understanding Yes, in the time allowed the project was outlined but spoke quickly and read from notes
of the whole project, as well
as the particular topic/theme
that form the focus of the
group?
(2) Quality of case:
Were problems & challenges Challenges were outlined but not fully quantified and it was not made clear what was being
correctly identified?
proposed. However, technical issues were covered well, just needed more details of general
Was sufficient information
context.
given to argue the case?
Were
technical
issues
explained in simple terms?
Was this achieved within 3
minutes?
(3) Mitigation:
Were
solutions
well
developed?
Was there
demonstrable
acceptance that some issues
cannot be resolved?
Was the balance of benefit v
Env Impact considered?

In addition to comments above mitigation aspects were covered reasonable well but needed to
much more with project specific actions.
Overall, demonstrated a reasonable good understanding of the issues and problem, but lacked
some details in parts more specific to the project

B-

Question & Answers:

Did the whole team
participate?
Did the team show a depth of
understanding of their
topic/theme and did the team
answer the questions posed?
Were they able to defend
decisions robustly, in a nonaggressive or defensive way?
Did individual demonstrate
they were willing to listen to
arguments and compromise
when necessary?
Did they show understanding
and respect at all times?
Presentation & Visual Aids:
Was the presentation
effective in explaining the key
issues in plain English?
Was the information in a clear
and concise user friendly
format, accessible to the nonspecialist?
Were suitable visual aids
used both in presentation and
in support of project?
Did the visual aids used
supplement and compliment
the main pitch made by the
team?

One person gave very good answers to start with, but two members were not so good.
Avoid sweeping statements make sure you answer the questions. Gave good answers to a
number of issues, e.g. ecological aspects, but did not answer the risk on future questions well at all.

B+

Responses demonstrated reasonably good level of understanding. Overall, these were at a

reasonably good level (at M Level), but was missing some details on a few number of key things. .

Good visuals but very rushed in speaking trying to get too much in the time given message was
lost slightly. Saying that the map etc, was very good good use of a visual.
Need to broaden this out coverage to include wider issues and impact but was very good on
construction aspects.
A-

Overall B+

As an aid to scoring please refer to the following general guidance:

A = Excellent to Exceptional (detailed and comprehensive)
B = Good (reasonable depth to understanding, with a sound grasp of key underlying principles)
C = Adequate (adequate understanding; a reasonable grasp of most of the underlying principles)
D = Incomplete (incomplete understanding; incomplete grasp of underlying principles
E = Limited (limited understanding; limited grasp of underlying principles)
F = Poor to very poor (little of no grasp and understanding of underlying principles)

N.B. The generic grade descriptors should also be used and these are available on Canvas.