Product and Engineering Design Review

8 x product engineering and design review (week 2 – 12), ~3 pages per item which must contain a brief description of the product then delve into concepts such as materials selection, manufacturing methods, life cycle analysis, recyclability and overall product appeal. Focus mainly of consumer items such as iPods, coke bottles, running shoes etc. Four of the items must be made of multiple parts in which you are to deconstruct/disassemble a sample of the product.

Assessment Criteria

Approach, evidence of background reading and review of theory

HD (High Distinction) : Student follows a logical approach building on a step by step procedure having clearly thought through beforehand. Clear explanations allow for no ambiguity

DN (Distinction) - A logical approach is presented but is good in scope and makes checking straight forward. Some possible ambiguity

CR (Credit) - A logical approach is presented but is limited in scope and makes checking less straight forward. Some possible ambiguity

PP (Pass) - An attempt has been made to follow an approach but neither plan been thought through. Limited clarity only.

NN (Fail) - No attempt has been made to follow any type of approach, little to no clarity

Presentation

Faultless presentation with a good word processed document with almost no errors, section headings with page numbers, appropriate headers and footers, equations, diagrams, tables etc. English is of a scholarly style with a natural flow from one section to the next. Full Conclusions leave the reader fully satisfied of the findings. Referenced material is included

English standard is excellent – readable with limited re-reading necessary. Sections are clearly delineated. Conclusions are sound. Minimal typographical / grammar / spelling standards mistakes.

English standard is good – readable with some re-reading necessary. Sections are delineated. Conclusions are sound. Some minor typographical / grammar / spelling standards mistakes.

Understandable but lacking in clarity and finesse. No real section delineation. Professionalism is questionable

Content is not clear and there is no real logical order to placement of sections and no professionalism

Discussion

A full account is provided of the expertise developed over the duration of the project. How this knowledge could be applied else where is discussed and identification of possible gaps presented.

Discussion is sound and has depth. Good identification of transferability of knowledge / expertise gained

Discussion is sound but limited by lack of depth. No real identification of transferability of knowledge / expertise gained

Discussion is shallow and gives little insight into the students developed skills/expertise and understanding. More an extension to the conclusions which naturally follow the facts

Little or no discussion, will give cause to think that student has not understood the assignment