Chemical Engineering Industrial Projects

Assessment Criteria
If you have any questions about the assessment criteria please get in touch with Jennifer Skilling (j.skilling@ed.ac.uk).

0-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100

General Completely Unsatisfactory. Satisfactory. Good. Aims Very good. Excellent. Outstanding. No student could
unsatisfactory. Aims not met. Progress towards mostly met. Reasonably Ambitious aims reasonably be expected to achieve
Almost nothing No evidence of meeting most ambitious aims met fully or much more or present it better with
to show for any any real progress. aims. Little met fully or less reasonably the time and resources available.
work that has Nothing evidence of ambitious aims ambitious aims
been put in. worthwhile independent exceeded. exceeded. A truly Often faultless.
produced, thought or much Required both professional The work is well
although initiative. ability and piece of beyond that
evidence of some application to scholarship, often expected at the
work, and some complete. with an absence appropriate level
progress towards of errors. As 70- of study.
some aims. 79, but shows
significant
personal insight,
creativity,
originality and
extra depth and
academic
maturity.
University of Edinburgh Chemical Engineering Industrial Project Assessment Criteria
0-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100
Project Planning + Management 10 %
Project No real attempt Little effective Contact Fairly regular Regular contact Highly effective planning. Maintained regular contact with
Planning + at planning. planning. maintained with contact with supervisor. the supervisor, but needed very little guidance (except in
Management Complete failure Contact with supervisor, but maintained with Needed some overcoming unusually difficult problems), worked very
of the student to supervisor generally not supervisor. Clear advice, but hard, almost totally self- motivating and self-managing.
make use of the sporadic. Despite worked as hard guidance from planned Meetings with the supervisor very productive and
supervisors best efforts of as required. the supervisor effectively, and involved a two-way exchange of ideas.
advice. supervisor to Student has necessary for demonstrated
encourage planned, but progress to be ability to manage
student, amount needed very clear made. own work.
of work guidance from
insufficient. supervisor, and
Supervisor has has taken
given very clear advantage of
guidance but most, but not all,
student has failed of this guidance.
to follow it.
Technical Content
Context of project and previous work 20 %
Background Little or no A few sources Several sources An attempt at Competent Comprehensive A very systematic and comprehensive
information evidence of any used but to little of information systematic survey of survey of survey of all potential sources of
and literature research into effect. used but no information appropriate academic useful background information, such
academic Appropriate systematic gathering sources of literature and as academic literature, in-house
literature, literature information competently background other sources of reports, communication with people
company citations missing gathering or summarised with information background within the company and beyond,
information or or trivial. attempt to bring relevance to the contributing to information, as manuals and other sources. The
other sources of information project clearly the students appropriate, with student is able to present this
background together in an explained. Little understanding of effective critical information in a unified manner,
information to accessible evidence of the project. Some analysis. setting the project in context with
inform the overview. independent evidence of Evidence that the other work in the field.
project. analysis. critical analysis student
of the material. understands the
context of the
project and has
an appreciation
of the wider field
of work.

2
University of Edinburgh Chemical Engineering Industrial Project Assessment Criteria
0-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100
Design and execution of project work (applies to both experimental and computational projects) 20 %
Design Little or no No evidence that Design carried Logical design Clear Clear Very clear understanding of the
requirements evidence of any the design process out in a way process followed, understanding of understanding of design process shown. Proceeded in a
analysis, design is understood. that makes but design the design the design logical manner, considering all
specification, whatsoever. sense, but decisions not process shown. process shown. options and fully justifying all
consideration process has justified. Proceeded in a Proceeded in a decisions. Design shows considerable
of possible serious flaws. logical manner logical manner flair and innovation.
designs, and justified and justified all
detailed most decisions. decisions. Design
design, shows flair and
verification innovation.
that specs
met, etc.
Experimental Little or no Some research Some Effective design Work properly As 60-69, plus: As 70-79 plus: work very well
work experimental or executed. No appropriate of research work. planned, carried research designed, and ingenuity demonstrated
including computational valid data. design and Some success out carefully and replicated and in this design. Every reasonable step
experimental work carried out. execution of with experiments fully errors estimated. has been taken to verify the results,
design, experimental or or computational documented. Appropriate and a thorough error analysis has
procedure, computational work, but Data reliable or comparison made been completed. Results may be
recording, work, but with reliability unreliability with other results publishable.
and very poor uncertain and discussed (experimental,
presentation results. little attempt to adequately. New theoretical or
of account for errors. techniques computational).
results/data, Problems, that applied.
error could have been Problems
analysis, data solved, not overcome by
analysis. overcome. Work developing
documented. equipment or
method. Work
thoroughly
documented

3
University of Edinburgh Chemical Engineering Industrial Project Assessment Criteria
0-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100
Understanding + analysis (duration of project + report) 20 %
Understanding Little or no Poor and Shows Shows Shows a firm Shows Deep and Evident mastery
and handling understanding inadequate understanding of understanding of grasp of the command of comprehensive of difficult
of key demonstrated. analysis. Little some aspects, at what has been subject and subject and understanding of material.
concepts understanding a fairly done, though current theory but current theory. the subject. Can Demonstration of
shown. Concepts superficial depth. may not have a there may be Thorough apply significant
omitted or poorly Unable to comprehensive gaps. Good understanding of understanding to original thought.
expressed. demonstrate understanding. understanding of the subject and the solution of
Cannot relate any understanding of Theory applied what has been can apply this unfamiliar and
of the work to theoretical basis but no evidence done, and can understanding to difficult
underpinning for work. for firm grasp describe the solution of problems.
theory. and depth of theoretical basis, unfamiliar
understanding of albeit with problems.
key concepts. understanding of
theory limited to
that used directly.
Critical Extremely Poor and Limited or Critical analysis Shows initiative, Shows evidence As 70 79 plus extra depth and
analysis and limited or inadequate. No lacking. with and evaluation of the ability to think of serious academic maturity.
discussion omitted. real attempt to emphasis on sources of clearly, critically thought in
critically description. evidence is evaluate ideas, to critically
evaluate the Almost no limited. bring different evaluating and
work. attempt to ideas together and integrating the
analyse results. to draw sound evidenced and
The arguments conclusions ideas. Deals
and conclusions confidently with
are weak or lack the complexities
clarity with and subtleties of
unsubstantiated the arguments.
statements.
Structure of Structure Poor structure Structure may need Structure Clear and Very clear and comprehensive structure showing logical
argumentation confusing or no and lack of improvement, e.g. reasonably clear coherent structure and ordered thought. Arguments structured in
in report, attempt to order coherence. lacks clarity or and coherent. showing logical professional way
focus on material in a Questions not lacks logical Ideas and and ordered
development of
subject systematic way. adequately arguments.
information in thought. Clear
Questions posed addressed. Questions general presented focus on subject
not addressed. addressed in in a logical way. with none or only
general, but some Subject trivial deviation.
deviation from the addressed with
core issues mainly relevant
material.

4
University of Edinburgh Chemical Engineering Industrial Project Assessment Criteria
0-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100
Presentation of report 20 %
Presentation Incoherent. Quality is low, Required The report is The layout of the The report is The report is excellent in every way.
of final report: with little or no components properly report follows coherent, follows It needs almost no corrections, and in
adherence to structure. present in structured and the guidance the guidance some cases could be of publishable
regulations, recognisable the required given strictly. It given strictly, quality.
grammar, form. Possible to components are is easy to read well structured,
spelling, see what has properly with few easy to read, and
typographical been done from presented, but grammatical or few corrections
correctness, the report. there are flaws. spelling mistakes are required. It
presentation Flawed, but has E.g.: references, and gives a clear gives a very clear
of graphs, some results, diagrams, and account of the account of the
tables, etc., some calculations project. work that has
references, explanations and show errors or been done and
clarity of description of omissions. sets this in the
exposition etc. work which context of other
indicates that, work. Correct
with some use of
additional referencing
application system. Good
something standard of
worthwhile could spelling and
be produced. grammar.

5
University of Edinburgh Chemical Engineering Industrial Project Assessment Criteria
Please note that the poster presentation will be independently assessed by a poster presentation in February.

0-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100

Poster presentation (staff + student assessment) 10 %
Appearance Overall poor Worthwhile Basically sound Generally very Excellent presentation. For visual material: a striking
presentation information with graphics good graphics; overall appearance, coherence between different parts,
giving presented though good though in poster well made, excellent choice of images, graphics and text well
appearance of inaccurate in parts lacking with pleasing integrated. Poster demonstrates initiative and creative
hurried assembly, places. Little coherence. overall look. ability.
with little effort being put
coherence in into its
story, obvious presentation.
omissions, and
inaccuracies.
Explanation No attempt to Overall standard Flaws in the Generally well Clear and Clear and As 70-79 plus: can answer questions
+ present material of presentation overall presented but coherent professional going beyond the immediate project.
presentation in systematic poor. Lack of presentation, there may be presentation with presentation.
of research way. Very poor coherence in structuring of minor flaws. some minor Fluent and
project: or no argumentation. explanations Understands flaws. Shows coherent
aims, understanding of Poor and needs to be subjects but does firm grasp of explanations.
context of the subject inadequate improved (e.g. not have a depth subject and Shows command
research, demonstrated. knowledge of the lacks clarity or of understanding background but of subject and
work done subject. Does not coherence). of the key there maybe background. Can
so far and show sufficient Superficial concepts. May some gaps. answer all
future work. understanding of understanding of not be able to questions with
the subject. the subject with give confidence.
some gaps comprehensive
though maybe answers to more
able to identify searching
some relation questions.
between work
and underpinning
theory when
questioned.

Adapted from: http://www.pble.ac.uk/guide.html, http://www.abdn.ac.uk/physics/guide/postadv.html, and College of Science and Engineering

extended marking scheme

Last updated: 2/9/2014

Jennifer Skilling