Grading Policy
Each technical report shall be graded using the following three categories of evaluation, and the relative weighting of each category depends on the specific report being considered;
• Technical aspects …including analysis
• Presentational aspects
• Creative engineering aspects...innovation, design principles and methods
10 points First Progress Report : comprehensive problem definition. Use the format described in Chapter 7 of CED to consider at least 26 design parameters, to quantify these parameters and to determine their relative importance . Points-distribution for grading: technical aspects ~ 5 points / presentational aspects ~ 5 points / creative engineering aspects ~ 0 points.
15 points Second Progress Report : conceptual designs, their evaluation by decision matrices and the selection of the best concept through appropriate analysis. Use the methodologies presented in Chapters 8 & 9 for creativity and Ch10 CED for the evaluation of the concepts. Points-distribution for grading: technical aspects ~ 1 point / presentational aspects ~ 7 points / creative engineering aspects ~ 7 points.
25 points Final Report : a comprehensive document detailing all aspects of the project. This report will include the First Progress Report and the Second Progress Report in the early sections. It will build upon these elements to formally stipulate the product realization process. Points-distribution for grading: technical aspects ~ 12 points / presentational aspects ~ 12 points / creative engineering aspects ~ 1 point.
10 points Attend the designated ME481 Sessions at the Student Design Conference in the Union Building to evaluate the presentations of the other ME481 teams. Final oral presentation and poster presentation.
10 points Attend lectures delivered by guest speakers from industry and commerce.
5 points Complete a written examination based upon these lectures.
25 points Professorial evaluation of the performance of each team member.
The assignment of points for each technical report and the three evaluative categories are presented below.
First Report Second Report Final Report
Technical Aspects 5 1 12
Presentational Aspects 5 7 12
Creative Engineering Aspects 0 7 1
Grading the Technical Aspects of Design Reports
Grade 4.0 The technical aspects of the project are defined accurately and in detail.
• In the report, engineering principles / analysis / experiments / calculations are applied appropriately with details that go beyond those taught in the prerequisite classes, through research and inquiry into the technical problem at hand.
• Clearly there is extensive knowledge of the subject area and the engineering context along with a perceptive and focused use of the relevant material.
• Widespread evidence of independent sourcing and original thought.
• Shows an insight and depth of understanding, including an awareness of the complexities and subtleties.
• A very high standard of critical analysis.
Grade 3.0 The technical definition of the problem is generally correct, but imprecise or not fully substantiated.
• Engineering principles are applied at or below the level taught in the prerequisite classes.
• Opportunities to apply engineering principles to the problem have been missed.
• Little or no evidence of independent sourcing or original thought.
• Shows some understanding of arguments, contribution and context.
• Analysis contains errors and omissions.
Grade 2.0 The technical definition of the problem is poor.
• Relevant engineering principles are applied incorrectly or only qualitatively.
• Irrelevant approaches may have been used.
• No evidence of independent sourcing or original thought.
Grade 1.0 There is little or no technical definition of the problem; only flimsy qualitative statements.
• Little or no attempt has been made to apply relevant engineering principles, as taught in prerequisite courses, to the problem.
Grading the Presentational Aspects of Design Reports and Oral Presentations
Grade 4.0 Excellent organization, concise, well-written, clearly illustrated and professional in appearance.
• Clearly structured presentation
• Shows logical development of arguments
• Properly referenced data and examples
Grade 3.0 Professional in appearance
• Lacking in fluency, clarity, or organization
• Contains significant opportunities for improvement in more than one of the above categories.
• Arguments are not fully developed, and data and examples are not fully referenced.
Grade 2.0 Difficult to comprehend,
• Lacks flow of thinking
• Contains numerous opportunities for improvement in organization, clarity, illustrations, etc..
• Consistently poor word selection, syntaxical errors, punctuation etc..
• Descriptive presentation based on confused arguments.
• Poor use of examples and data.
• Limited and patchy knowledge and appreciation of the engineering context.
• Poor use of the information provided.
• Limited understanding of the arguments.
Grade 1.0 Inferior appearance and written content. The organizational level is little more than a sequential record of work done.
Grading the Creative Engineering Aspects of Design Reports
Grade 4.0 A very high standard of evaluation is clearly evident.
• Contains Gannt charts, decision matrices and other evaluative tools.
• Demonstrates the use of several methods of creative thinking
• Contains a large number of diverse conceptual designs
• Design methods and principles, guidance strategies etc are employed in an appropriate manner and with detailed and convincing justification.
Grade 3.0 There is minimal justification for the methods presented in the report.
• Gannt charts, decision matrices and other evaluative tools, methods of creativity, number and diversity of conceptual designs, design methods and principles, guidance strategies etc are included but rigor is absent.
• Thus for example a different decision matrix could equally well be justified based on the evidence provided in the report.
Grade 2.0 Design decisions are inconsistent with the relevant information associated with the project.
• Design tools have not been employed effectively; indeed the design tools are used in a generic way that could apply to almost any other project and they have not been tailored to the project.
• Little evidence of independent sourcing or original thought.
• No evidence of synthesis or evaluation.
Grade 1.0 There is no significant evidence of utilizing design tools.
Additional remarks:
• Failure to provide the page of text, the CD comprising the data formatted for the me481 page of the Design Day Brochure, the four digital images of the team with their Industrial Advisors and the digital images of the head-and-shoulders image of the Industrial Advisor seven weeks after the first class will trigger the reduction of the team's final grade by one point. Thus, for example, a grade of 3.5 will be reduced to 2.5. The motivation for this action is that delays in submission of these items, adversely affects the manufacture of plaques and the printing of the conference brochure.
• Each team shall return to their Industrial Advisor before the end of Finals Week all equipment that was borrowed from the sponsor. Failure to comply with this regulation shall trigger a 1.0 reduction in the final grade assigned to each student. Thus a grade of 3.0 shall be reduced to 2.0.
• Students shall wear professional attire when being photographed because the best image will be featured in the Design Day Brochure. Failure to comply with this regulation shall result in the final grade being reduced by 1.0 point. Thus a final class grade of 3.5 shall be reduced to 2.5.
• Teams, or individual students, arriving late for professional meetings with their Industrial Advisor shall have their final class grade reduced by 0.5. Thus a final class grade of 3.0 shall be reduced to 2.5.
The above grading scale shall only be employed when the Student Team is in “good standing” with the Industrial Advisor. If, for reasonable cause, the Industrial Advisor decides that the industrial sponsor no longer wishes to interact with the Student Team (typically because of poor professional performance) and this opinion is supported by the Academic Advisor, then under these conditions the Student Team shall receive the grade of 0.0.
A student team that does not attend the Design Day to deliver the team's oral presentation and does not submit the project poster for evaluation will be penalized. Each student shall receive a course grade of 0.0.
Background for Grading
-
Copies of reports will be submitted by each team to the Course Coordinator, Professor Thompson, as directed in the Student Deliverables section of this document. The reports will then be graded by the Faculty Advisor and by Mr C. Gunn prior to being returned to the Course Coordinator who will distribute them to the student teams. The grading policy for each report will be 50% for technical content and 50% for communication effectiveness. These reports will also be scrutinized by the Industrial Sponsor.
Reports will be graded within one week of their submission by employing the 100 point grading scale presented below.
-
This grading scale shall also be used to assign the student's final grade for the class.
| Points |
Interpretation |
Grade |
| 100 |
Nobel Prize |
4.0 |
| 95 |
Outstanding |
4.0 |
| 90 |
Excellent |
4.0 |
| 85 |
Very Good |
3.5 |
| 80 |
Good |
3.0 |
| 75 |
Mediocre |
2.5 |
| 70 |
Fair |
2.0 |
| 65 |
Poor |
1.5 |
| 60 |
Very Poor |
1.0 |
| less |
Unacceptable |
0.0 |
