Guidelines for assessing the quality of degree projects under Chalmers' Civilingenjör, Master of Architecture & Master of Science Programmes

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Guidelines for assessing the quality of degree projects under Chalmers' Civilingenjör, Master of Architecture & Master of Science Programmes"

Brendan French
8 years ago
Views:

1 Guidelines for assessing the quality of degree projects under Chalmers' Civilingenjör, Master of Architecture & Master of Science Programmes

2 Issue Description of criteria for assessing the quality of degree projects under the Civilingenjör and Master of Architecture and Master of Science Programmes at Chalmers University of Technology. Background Over the past few years, Chalmers has produced and implemented common instructions for degree projects (C 2008/111). Amongst other things, the instructions describe the aim, intended learning outcomes and examination of degree projects. The instructions do not address the criteria for assessing the quality of degree projects, but there is a need for this. This is true in part for internal reasons to direct student feedback and decisions when there is a risk of a degree project not reaching the level of pass, and in part for external reasons when the quality of the degree projects forms a basis for assessment in the upcoming national system for evaluating the quality of university study programmes. In that system, universities whose students produce low-quality degree projects run the risk of losing their degree-awarding powers. On the other hand, universities whose students produce highquality degree projects may be allocated more resources from the government. The Swedish National Agency for Higher Education will rate study programmes on a threetier scale: inadequate quality, high quality, very high quality. This scale will also be used in these guidelines. Aim The guidelines aim specifically to serve as guidance when the quality of a degree project is low and a mark of pass can be called into question. The guidelines can also offer support when providing feedback to the student on his or her performance. Structure The guidelines are based on the intended learning outcomes for the master's degree project, the master's degree in engineering, architecture and science as formulated in Chalmers' local System of Qualifications (Reg. no. C2007/723). The criteria for inadequate quality/high quality have been formulated for all of the intended learning outcomes. The criteria for very high quality has only been formulated for certain intended learning outcomes that have been assessed as having a distinctive character significant specialisation within the main field of study, specialised knowledge of methods, problem formulation, ability to create and evaluate new solutions, written report and independence.

Amongst other things, the instructions describe the aim, intended learning outcomes and examination of degree projects.

3 Inadequate quality of one or more intended learning outcomes may lead to a failing mark for the entire degree project. The examiner is responsible for making a balanced assessment.

4 Intended learning outcomes with guidelines for quality criteria Below is a presentation of the criteria for inadequate quality (), high quality () and very high quality (V) for each of the intended learning outcomes for degree projects. 1. Significant specialised knowledge within the main field of study/focus of the study programme including specialised insight into relevant research and development work: V Significant specialisation within the main field of study is demonstrated. The project utilises knowledge from studies on an advanced level within the main field of study. A comprehensive review of existing literature has been performed and there is reflection on the project's connection to the existing knowledge in the main field of study. The project contributes new knowledge in the main field of study and clearly presents it. The project demonstrates an ability to independently contribute to the field of study. Significant specialisation within the main field of study is demonstrated. The project utilises knowledge from studies on an advanced level within the main field of study. A comprehensive written review of existing literature has been performed and there is reflection on the project's connection to the existing knowledge in the main field of study. The project's connection to the main field of study is weak or nonexistent. Knowledge from an advanced level within the main field of study is not utilised. A literature review and reflection on the project's connection to related areas of knowledge are missing. 2. Specialised knowledge of methods within the main field of study of the study programme: V Potentially relevant engineering or scientific theories and methods have been identified. The selection of theory and method is well justified. Selected theories and methods have been applied in a correct and innovative manner. The project demonstrates an in-depth and broad knowledge of methods. Potentially relevant engineering or scientific theories and methods have been identified. The selection of theory and method is well justified. The selected methods have been applied in a correct manner. The project's selected theories and methods lack relevance. The student has not demonstrated mastery of the selected theories and methods.

Significant specialised knowledge within the main field of study/focus of the study programme including specialised insight into relevant research and development work: V Significant specialisation

5 3. Ability to contribute to research and development work: The contribution to research or development work is clearly presented. The project's character makes it difficult to connect the project to research and development work. 4. Ability to identify, formulate and manage complex problems in a critical, independent and creative manner from an overall perspective: V The project has a clear and delimited problem or formulation of objectives. The problem/formulation of objectives has been studied in an adequate, critical and reflective manner. There is a clear connection between the problem/formulation of objectives, results, discussion and conclusions. The project's conclusions are well supported and correct. The project has a clear and delimited formulation of the problem. The problem has been studied in an adequate manner. There is a clear connection between the problem, results and conclusions. The project's conclusions are well supported and correct. The project does not have a clear problem or formulation of objectives or this is lacking altogether. Irrelevant method(s) used. The project does not present an answer to the problem or a result that is related to the objective. Conclusions are incorrect. 5. Ability to plan and use adequate methods to implement advanced tasks within given frameworks, as well as evaluate these efforts: A realistic plan for the project was formulated. The set times that were communicated and established have been adhered to when performing the project. Necessary modifications for implementation have been documented and communicated. The project has not adhered to the communicated and set times, and it has not been possible to present documentation of factors that are relevant to deviations.

Ability to identify, formulate and manage complex problems in a critical, independent and creative manner from an overall perspective: V The project has a clear and delimited problem or formulation

6 6. Ability to create, analyse and critically evaluate different technical/architectural solutions V The project produces new solutions that are analysed and evaluated in a critical manner. Alternative solutions have been produced and treated in a relevant and exhaustive manner. The project produces solutions that are analysed and evaluated in a critical manner. The student has not documented or presented that indicated above in a clear manner. 7. Ability to integrate knowledge in a critical and systematic manner: V The project innovatively integrates knowledge and methods from several subjects. Relevant knowledge and methods have been obtained and applied. Areas that are relevant to the project are not addressed or are not used. Selected and obtained knowledge is not presented in a clear manner and is not justified. 8. Verbally and in writing, ability to clearly describe and discuss his or her conclusions in English, including the knowledge and arguments that form the basis of the conclusions: V A very well-written report. Totality, structure and layout achieve a very high level of quality. The project treats the selected area using relevant and correct language. Totality, structure and layout achieve a good level of quality. The project does not make adequate use of language, which makes it difficult to understand and to provide an assessment using the report as the basis. More detailed information is available in the guide to assessing candidates' written reports: "Bedömning av skriftlig presentation HISS".

The student has not documented or presented that indicated above in a clear manner. 7.

7 9. Within the framework of the specific degree project, ability to identify which problems need to be addressed to observe sustainable development: Presents and justifies selected methods and discusses the results based on a life cycle perspective with a focus on sustainable development. Does not observe this aspect even though the examiner assesses it to be significant for the relevant degree project. This intended learning outcome may not be relevant for some degree projects. The examiner makes this assessment. 10. Awareness of ethical aspects related to research and development work: Presents potential ethical consequences of the performed project. Does not observe this aspect even though the examiner assesses it to be significant for the relevant degree project. This intended learning outcome may not be relevant for some degree projects. The examiner makes this assessment. 11. After completing the degree project, the student shall have demonstrated the knowledge and ability required to work independently as a holder of a Civilingenjör, Master of Architecture or Master of Science degree: V Has performed the degree project in an independent manner without the necessity of extraordinary support measures or adaptations or in any other way that required excessive resources to perform the project. Performed the project with a reasonable amount of support. Great need for support. The support measures have been too extensive to assume that the student would be able to work independently after receiving the degree.

Does not observe this aspect even though the examiner assesses it to be significant for the relevant degree project. This intended learning outcome may not be relevant for some degree projects.

How To Be A Successful Scientist

How To Be A Successful Scientist 1 Faculty of Engineering, LTH General syllabus for third-cycle studies in Construction and Architecture TEABAF01 The syllabus was approved by the Board of the Faculty of Engineering/LTH 24 September 2007