Write My Assignment FREE

Marking final reports for 41030

Students are required to submit the final report on UTSOnline Turnitin and email a filled in “Capstone Self-Assessment Form” directly to the supervisor.

How to mark the final report

Step 1 – Student identifies performance indicators

Student identifies 11 out of 21 indicators from the Engineers Australia Stage 1 Competency Standards. They choose 3 out of the 5 indicators for knowledge base, 5 out of the 11 Indicators for Engineering Application Ability and 3 out of the 5 indicators for Professional and Personal Attributes. (Refer Table 1)

Step 2 – Student self-evaluates against indicators

Student fills in page 2 of the “Capstone Self-Assessment Form” (Table 5) by using a scale of 0 to 5 (Table 2) to evaluate the applicability of each of these indicators in their project while explaining briefly how they think they have delivered/demonstrated the indicator they have chosen.

An example of a filled in self-assessment form is available as Appendix A.

Step 3 – Supervisor evaluates student against indicators identified

Supervisor assesses the indicators identified by the student in the “Capstone Self-Assessment Form” (Table 5) by using a scale of 0 to 5 (Table 2), giving a mark out of 55. (Max 5 marks for each of the 11 indicators = 55).

Step 4 – Supervisor makes an overall evaluation of the project

Supervisor makes an overall evaluation of the project in the “Capstone Final Report Assessment Form” (Table 3 below). The table lists evaluation criteria which considers the overall (holistic) aspects of the project rather than specific components assessed by the indicators.

Step 5 – Supervisor gives a final mark

Next the supervisor uses Table 4 to recommend a final mark/grade on UTSOnline

Table 1: Indicators adopted from
Engineers Australia Australian Engineering Stage 1 Competency Standards.

	PE1	KNOWLEDGE BASE	Chosen Criteria
Choose 3 indicators from PE1	PE1.1	Demonstrated use of sound knowledge of the engineering discipline at a phenomenological level, mathematics, natural and/or physical sciences for systematic investigation, interpretation analysis and solution of complex problems of engineering practice	[ ]
PE1.2	Advanced knowledge in a technical area in the student’s engineering discipline to a level that requires conceptual understanding of mathematics, numerical analysis, statistics, and computer and information sciences related to investigation, analysis, interpretation, assessment characterisation, prediction, evaluation, modelling, decision making, measurement, evaluation, and knowledge management techniques pertinent to the engineering discipline.	[ ]
PE1.3	Demonstrated in depth understanding and ability to develop mathematical and/or physical models to use for analysis and design	[ ]
PE1.4	Demonstrated ability to identify and critically appraise current developments, advanced technologies, emerging issues and interdisciplinary linkages, and to interpret and apply selected research literature to inform engineering applications in student’s engineering discipline.	[ ]
PE1.5	Demonstrated knowledge of materials and resources relevant to a student’s discipline and the ability to select the most appropriate materials and techniques to meet a particular objective.	[ ]

	PE2	ENGINEERING APPLICATION ABILITY	Chosen Criteria
Choose 5 indicators from PE2	PE2.1	Demonstrated ability to identify the nature of a technical problem, make appropriate simplifying assumptions, achieve a solution, and quantify the significance of the assumptions to the reliability of the solution	[ ]
PE2.2	Demonstrated ability to investigate a situation or the behaviour of a system and ascertain the relevant causes and effects	[ ]
PE2.3	Demonstrated ability to address issues and problems that have no obvious solution, involving uncertainty, imprecise information, conflicting factors and require originality in analysis	[ ]
PE2.4	Demonstrated appreciation of the interactions between technical systems, safety sustainability and the social, cultural, environmental, economic and political context in which they operate, and the relationships between these factors.	[ ]
PE2.5	Demonstrated ability comprehend, analyse and quantify the nature of risk, both of a technical kind and in relation to clients, users, the community and the environment and devise strategies for managing this risk	[ ]
PE2.6	Demonstrated ability to utilise a systems-engineering or equivalent disciplined, holistic approach to incorporate all considerations	[ ]
PE2.7	Demonstrated ability to partition a problem, process or system into manageable elements, for purposes of analysis or design; and of re-combining these to form the whole, with the integrity and performance of the overall system as the paramount consideration	[ ]
PE2.8	Demonstrated ability to conceptualise and define possible alternative engineering approaches and evaluate their advantages and disadvantages in terms of functionality, cost, sustainability and all other factors to deliver an optimal approach and defend the selection.	[ ]
PE2.9	Understanding of the need to incorporate cost considerations throughout the design and execution of a project and to manage within realistic constraints of time and budget.	[ ]
PE2.10	Demonstrated ability to consider the commercial, financial, and marketing aspects of an engineering project	[ ]
PE2.11	Demonstrated proficiency in employing technical knowledge, design methodology, and appropriate tools and resources to design components, systems or processes to meet specified performance criteria	[ ]

	PE3	PROFESSIONAL AND PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES	Chosen Criteria
Choose 3 indicators from PE3	PE3.1	Demonstrated effectiveness in discussion and negotiation and in presenting arguments clearly and concisely in both oral and written communication (including clear diagrams and engineering sketches or drawings)	[ ]
PE3.2	Demonstrated ability to locate, catalogue and use relevant information , including proficiency in accessing , systematically searching, analysing and evaluating relevant publications	[ ]
PE3.3	Demonstrated ability to apply creative approaches to identify and develop alternative concepts and procedures and identify opportunities for improvement.	[ ]
PE3.4	Demonstrated intellectual rigour and an ability to recognise limits to one’s knowledge and seek advice, or undertake research, to supplement it	[ ]
PE3.5	Demonstrated awareness of legislation, statutory requirements standards and codes of practice relevant to your project	[ ]

Table 2: Descriptors for assessing indicators –
based on descriptions for UTS grades of H, D, C, P, Z

Indicator Score	Descriptors for UTS grades
5	Work of outstanding quality as for 4, but superior – at a standard worthy of publication
4	Work is of superior quality, including a capacity to demonstrate a competency/indicator at a level well above what is expected from late stage UG coursework; demonstrates learning at a superior level
3	Work is of good quality demonstration of a competency / indicator at a level higher than what is expected from late stage UG coursework AND presents a clear rationale / critique / discussion for the appropriateness / validity of the technique or tool or methodology used / applied
2	Work is satisfactory demonstration of a competency / indicator at a level equivalent to what is expected from a late stage UG coursework. Note, in capstone projects – we should have expectations that students are delivering at a level greater than 2 out of 5!
1	Work is less than satisfactory demonstration not sufficient to demonstrate competency / indicator at level expected from late stage UG coursework material, or perhaps satisfactory demonstration of only early stage foundation level engineering science material
0	This Indicator is not applicable to or not demonstrated in the capstone

Table 3: Overall Project Evaluation Criteria

	Evaluation question	Supervisor evaluation
Content	Does the candidate clearly identify a question to be answered or problem to be solved?	0 1 2 3 4 5
	Does the candidate present the results of the project in a succinct and cogent form, with suitable illustration where appropriate?	0 1 2 3 4 5
	Does the candidate demonstrate significant engineering judgement at a level that would be reasonably expected from a recent engineering graduate?	0 1 2 3 4 5
	Is the content sufficiently substantial and broad ranging to allow coverage of the chosen assessment indicators?	0 1 2 3 4 5
	Does the report contain sufficient material suitable for publication? H (5): Peer Reviewed Conference Paper D (4): Editor Reviewed Conference Paper (IEEE standard) C (3): Engineering Paper / Seminar for graduate audience P (2): Engineering application note (Provide graduate engineers to help them to learn about / gain an appreciation of subject material.	0 1 2 3 4 5
Knowledge / Ability	Does the candidate exhibit sufficient knowledge of the research topic and familiarity with the discipline it embraces for a final report at this level?	0 1 2 3 4 5
	Does the candidate demonstrate a capacity for clear thinking?	0 1 2 3 4 5
	Does the candidate demonstrate significant techniques of analysis and/or evaluation as outlined in the chosen assessment indicators?	0 1 2 3 4 5
	Has the candidate demonstrated an understanding of project management techniques and applied them effectively in their capstone project.	0 1 2 3 4 5
	Has the candidate demonstrated an ability to manage their own time and processes effectively, prioritising competing demands to achieve the required goals and objectives	0 1 2 3 4 5
Communication	Does the work represent a well-planned approach to the subject matter?	0 1 2 3 4 5
	Is the report structured appropriately?	0 1 2 3 4 5
	Does the candidate appropriately orient the reader to the ground to be covered and the arguments made?	0 1 2 3 4 5
	Is the presentation of the report, in matters of grammar, spelling, punctuation and general appearance, adequate?	0 1 2 3 4 5

Table 4: Combining assessment and evaluation criteria to recommend a mark/grade.

Chosen assessment indicators requirement		Overall evaluation criteria requirements	Final Mark/Grade
A total of: 3 × 5’s in PE1 Knowledge Base, and 5 × 5’s in PE2 Engineering Ability, and 3 × 5’s in PE3 Professional Attributes	AND	Work demonstrating outstanding quality in ALL Evaluation Questions (i.e.: 5’s in all questions in Table 3)	High Distinction [85, 90, 100]
At least: 1 × 5’s in PE1 Knowledge Base, and 1 × 5’s in PE2 Engineering Ability, and 1 × 5’s in PE3 Professional Attributes, and the remaining indicators should be 4’s	AND	Work demonstrating superior quality in ALL Evaluation Questions (i.e.: 4’s or 5’s in all questions in Table 3)	Distinction [75, 80]
4’s in at least 7 of the 11 chosen indicators	AND	work demonstrating good quality showing more than satisfactory achievement in ALL evaluation criteria (i.e.: 4’s in at least 8 of the 14 questions in Table 3)	Credit [65,70]
At least 3’s in ALL chosen indicators	AND	work demonstrating satisfactory achievement in ALL evaluation criteria (i.e.: at least 3’s in all questions in Table 3)	Pass [50, 55, 60]
2’s in any of the chosen indicators	OR	work demonstrating unsatisfactory achievement in ONE or more of the evaluation criteria (i.e. 2’s in any of the questions in Table 3)	Fail [less than 50]

Table 5: Assessment Template

Assessment Template
Indicator	In undertaking your project, identify how or where or when you have delivered/demonstrated this (choice) indicator	self-assessment (out of 5) based on descriptors in table 2	supervisor assessment (out of 5) based on descriptors in table 2
PE1._		0 1 2 3 4 5	0 1 2 3 4 5
PE1. _		0 1 2 3 4 5	0 1 2 3 4 5
PE1. _		0 1 2 3 4 5	0 1 2 3 4 5
PE2. _		0 1 2 3 4 5	0 1 2 3 4 5
PE2. _		0 1 2 3 4 5	0 1 2 3 4 5
PE2. _		0 1 2 3 4 5	0 1 2 3 4 5
PE2. _		0 1 2 3 4 5	0 1 2 3 4 5
PE2. _		0 1 2 3 4 5	0 1 2 3 4 5
PE3. _		0 1 2 3 4 5	0 1 2 3 4 5
PE3. _		0 1 2 3 4 5	0 1 2 3 4 5
PE3. _		0 1 2 3 4 5	0 1 2 3 4 5
	total (out of 55)

Appendix A

Capstone Self-Assessment Form-Example

	Assessment Template
Indicator	In undertaking your project, identify how or where or when you have delivered/demonstrated this (choice) indicator	self assessment (out of 5) based on descriptors in table 2	supervisor and assessors assessment (out of 5) based on descriptors in table 2
PE1.1	Demonstrated use of sound knowledge of the engineering discipline at a phenomenological level, mathematics, natural and/or physical sciences for systematic investigation, interpretation analysis and solution of complex problems of engineering practice. Extended knowledge of environmental engineering and natural sciences was required throughout the entire report, including the investigations, interpretation analysis and solution proposition. The project addressed four complex problems (Chapter 2, Section 2.1), which were solved by the engineering solution of small-scale crop residue gasifiers.	0 1 2 3 4 5	0 1 2 3 4 5
PE1.4	Demonstrated ability to identify and critically appraise current developments, advanced technologies, emerging issues and interdisciplinary linkages, and to interpret and apply selected research literature to inform engineering applications in student’s engineering discipline. Gasification was praised as the most advanced biomass cookstove technology in the clean and improved cookstove sector (Chapter 2) which was then validated as both efficient and clean (Chapter 4). Interdisciplinary linkages between environmental engineering, mechanical engineering, social engineering and agricultural engineering was required to execute the project. A thorough literature review was carried out at the start of the project (Chapter 2) to inform the investigations and conclusions.	0 1 2 3 4 5	0 1 2 3 4 5
PE1.5	Demonstrated knowledge of materials and resources relevant to a student’s discipline and the ability to select the most appropriate materials and techniques to meet a particular objective. The Lotus Fire Gasifier was the gasifier of choice (Chapter 2, Section 3.1). Crop residues, specifically rice husk, was selected as the biomass fuel (Chapter 3, Section 3.2). These innovative yet practical choices allowed small-scale crop residue gasification to be investigated in field and laboratory environments, and analysis to be carried out regarding its ability to meet the four previously identified issues (Chapter 1, Section 2.1).	0 1 2 3 4 5	0 1 2 3 4 5
PE2.3	Demonstrated ability to address issues and problems that have no obvious solution, involving uncertainty, imprecise information, conflicting factors and require originality in analysis.	0 1 2 3 4 5	0 1 2 3 4 5

	There was no obvious solution to clean and improved biomass cookstoves, nor was there set test procedures to validate cookstove technology. Independent investigations were formulated by utilising my own ingenuity in problem analysis (Chapter 3, Section 3.3). The efficiency and emissions testing procedures were unique, the community engagement practices novel, and the use of AnyLogic software was new (Chapter 4).
PE2.4	Demonstrated appreciation of the interactions between technical systems, safety, sustainability and the social, cultural, environmental, economic and political context in which they operate, and the relationships between these factors. A comprehensive literature review of the problems the project aimed to tackle, and the target market, was completed to understand the relationship between cookstove technology, people, the environment and economy (Chapter 2, Section 2.1 and 2.2). The dynamic relationship between gasifiers, the natural and physical environments was implored through System Dynamics modelling (Chapter 4, Section 4.5). The gasifier was never considered an isolated product.	0 1 2 3 4 5	0 1 2 3 4 5
PE2.6	Demonstrated ability to utilise a systems-engineering or equivalent disciplined, holistic approach to incorporate all considerations. A systems-engineering approach was utilised throughout the entire project, always considering the gasifier’s holistic impact the people and environment it interacted with. The was firstly recognised in the literature review of inefficient and polluting cookstoves (Chapter 2, Section 2.1.1) and continued all the way through to the project conclusions (Chapter 5, Section 5.2 and 5.3). System Dynamics modelling (Chapter 4, Section 4.5) was carried out to implore the gasifier’s dynamic relationship in agricultural settings.	0 1 2 3 4 5	0 1 2 3 4 5
PE2.7	Demonstrated ability to partition a problem, process or system into manageable elements, for purposes of analysis or design; and of re-combining these to form the whole, with the integrity and performance of the overall system as the paramount consideration. The investigations section was structured (Chapter 3, Section 3.3) to allow for depth and breadth of solution analysis. Five separate investigations were carried out (Chapter 4) to assess different criteria. The results and discussions from each investigation were then combined in the conclusions (Chapter 5, Section 5.2 and 5.3).	0 1 2 3 4 5	0 1 2 3 4 5
PE2.8	Demonstrated ability to conceptualise and define possible alternative engineering approaches and evaluate their advantages and disadvantages in terms of functionality, cost, sustainability and all other factors to deliver an optimal approach and defend the selection. The alternative engineering approach of crop residue gasification was defended against traditional cookstoves (firewood and charcoal) and compared to modern cookstoves (LPG). Direct cookstove comparison was analysed in Lao during emissions and efficiency testing, plus community surveys (Section 4.1.2, 4.2 and 4,3).	0 1 2 3 4 5	0 1 2 3 4 5
PE3.1	Demonstrated effectiveness in discussion and negotiation and in presenting arguments clearly and concisely in both	0 1 2 3 4 5	0 1 2 3 4 5
	oral and written communication (including clear diagrams and engineering sketches or drawings). Written communication throughout the project’s written content was clear and concise. The document was logically structured. Diagrams and tables were used when appropriate and graphs were useful in supplementing emissions results (Chapter 4, Section 4.1). Photographs helped the reader to visualise the described information.
PE3.2	Demonstrated ability to locate, catalogue and use relevant information, including proficiency in accessing, systematically searching, analysing and evaluating relevant publications. A thorough literature review was completed which covered the investigation of the problems, target market and proposed solutions (Chapter 2). Literature was again used to inform the methods within the investigations (Chapter 4). All sources (academic, government, organisations) were appropriately referenced in-text and in a bibliography (page 92).	0 1 2 3 4 5	0 1 2 3 4 5
PE3.4	Demonstrated intellectual rigour and an ability to recognise limits to one’s knowledge and seek advice, or undertake research, to supplement it. A high-quality project was completed through an innovative solution proposition, pragmatic analysis of information and formulation of insightful discussions and conclusions. My limitations were recognised (Chapter 4, Section 4.6) and recommendations presented for further research (Chapter 5, Section 5.3).	0 1 2 3 4 5	0 1 2 3 4 5
	total (out of 55)	55

The post Capstone Self-Assessment Form appeared first on My Assignment Online.

Expert Help With This Assignment — On Your Terms