The suggestion is to mark all the appropriate areas out of 10 (or 20) bearing in mind the class guidelines :
Class I (90-100%) High degree of commitment to the project. Clear evidence of initiative and independence and of outstanding effort. Excellent organisation, logical development, thorough critical analysis of literature and data, excellent presentation.
(80-90%) Strong intellectual input into design and implementation of project. Excellent, original, well written and structured. Critical analysis of data and command of the literature. Clear evidence of substantial work. High quality presentation.
(70-80%) Clear evidence of intellectual input and engagement with project, including substantial high quality work. Good understanding of the topic and the literature. Critical analysis of data. Well written and clearly structured.
Class II.i (60-70%) Evidence of some intellectual input. Clear evidence of substantial effort. Competent and coherent writing. Good presentation, literature knowledge and analysis of data.
Class II.ii (50-60%) Routine treatment of data, literature coverage may have gaps, writing competent, but little sign of critical thinking or intellectual input. Amount of work short of expectations.
Class III (40-50%) Shallow, narrow approach. Poor understanding and little sign of thought in selection of material or structure of report. Conclusions may be lacking or flawed. Little evidence of application. Such marks should be rare.
Some of this has to be gleaned from the supervisor’s report, although you can judge some of this from the project report.
1. Commitment, enthusiasm and interest
2. Technical ability and competence
3. Independence and initiative
How much has the student contributed to the planning and direction of the project? How did the student react to setbacks?
4. Quantity of results (taking into account the nature of the project)
5. Quality of results
How reliable, accurate and significant are the results?
6. Problem-Solving Skills
Ability to solve problems logically and efficiently, either independently or as part of a team. How critically have they thought through the results?
1. Presentation and organisation
Structure and presentation, including figures, diagrams and tables.
2. Quality and clarity
Readability, accuracy and clarity of arguments. Grammar, spelling and syntax.
3. Background and Context
The science that underpins the work. The scientific context, aims and significance of the project, including knowledge of previous work. Quality of literature survey.
Clear description of the experimental work at an appropriate level of detail.
5. Analysis and interpretation
Scientific accuracy, analysis and interpretation of results.
6. Conclusions and future work
Accuracy and logic of conclusions, plans for future work.
Understanding of the scientific context.
2. Understanding and fluency
Accuracy and clarity of arguments. Fluency of argument.
3. Conclusions and future work
Accuracy and logic of conclusions.