This document outlines the marking criteria and weightings for assessing an undergraduate civil engineering dissertation. It evaluates the aim and objectives, research context, proposed methodology, references and bibliography, project plan, and ethics form. For each section, poor to excellent performance is scored using a rating scale. The final mark is a percentage based on the scores across all sections.
This document outlines the marking criteria and weightings for assessing an undergraduate civil engineering dissertation. It evaluates the aim and objectives, research context, proposed methodology, references and bibliography, project plan, and ethics form. For each section, poor to excellent performance is scored using a rating scale. The final mark is a percentage based on the scores across all sections.
This document outlines the marking criteria and weightings for assessing an undergraduate civil engineering dissertation. It evaluates the aim and objectives, research context, proposed methodology, references and bibliography, project plan, and ethics form. For each section, poor to excellent performance is scored using a rating scale. The final mark is a percentage based on the scores across all sections.
Aims and Objectives Score: Weighting: 15% Mark % Feedback
1. Aim definition, succinctness and relevance to a civil engineering discipline Poor Adequate Reasonable Very good Excellent 2. Appropriateness and relevance of objectives to theory Poor Adequate Reasonable Very good Excellent 3. Specificity and atainability of the objectives within the scope of an undergraduate dissertation Poor Adequate Reasonable Very good Excellent Research Context: 45% Mark % 4. Evidence of background reading Poor Adequate Reasonable Very good Excellent 5. Definition of research area and understanding of relevant literature Poor Adequate Reasonable Very good Excellent 6. Justification of the project need Poor Adequate Reasonable Very good Excellent Proposed Methodology: 20% Mark % 7. Relevance to the objectives Poor Adequate Reasonable Very good Excellent 8. Definition of methods selected Poor Adequate Reasonable Very good Excellent 9. Appreciation of necessary data required and data collection methods Poor Adequate Reasonable Very good Excellent References and Bibliography: 10% Mark % 10. Quality of literature sources used and referencing style Poor Adequate Reasonable Very good Excellent 11. Range and quantity of literature sources used Poor Adequate Reasonable Very good Excellent Project Plan: 5% Mark % 12. Appreciation of effort required for the completion of individual tasks Poor Adequate Reasonable Very good Excellent Ethics Form : 5% Mark % 13. An ethics form has been submitted Yes No Complete but not signed Final Mark %