Solent University
Coursework Assessment Brief
Assessment Details
| Unit Title: | Integrated project |
| Unit Code: | ADP704 |
| Unit Leader: | Dr Monkiz Khasreen |
| Level of Study: | Seven |
| Assessment Title: | Countryside Centre Technical Design |
| Assessment Number: | One |
| Assessment Type: | Project |
| Restrictions on Time/Length : | NA |
| Consequence of not meeting time/word count limit: | NA |
| Individual/Group: | Group |
| Assessment Weighting: | 75% |
| Issue Date: | 23rd Jan 2030 |
| Hand In Date: | 24 Apr 2020 |
| Planned Feedback Date: | Within 4 weeks of the Hand-in Date |
| Mode of Submission: | On-line |
| Number of copies to be submitted: | One |
| Anonymously Marked: | This assessment will be exempt from anonymous marking as it falls within an exempt category under the University’s Anonymous Marking Policy. |
Brief
This is brief is only for civil engineering students.
Clients are looking for a civil engineering team to critically evaluate a set of designs for a civil engineering project and make recommendations for the construction materials and technologies used. You have been allocated to a group to explore and report on the full range of issues for ONE project of your choice.
Assessment Task
Working in design teams, you will be expected to work together closely in order to assess the full range of construction technology and materials issues relating to your project.
It is imperative that you contribute actively and fully to the work of your group and, as a group, work consistently throughout the year. This may seem challenging, but you will receive adequate support throughout the year.
Each group is now required to analyse, critique and redesign the project to a fully detailed stage. Teams are free to agree how to split the work. However, individual roles must be assigned within the first week of the commencement of the project and confirmed with the tutor. In developing the work, due consideration must be given to functionality, buildability, performance, innovation, intelligence and sustainability of the project.
Teams are expected to coordinate and present the work to the best possible standard. Therefore, group members must liaise with each other regarding the best way to present the outcome. Strong team ethics will inevitably result in high quality output.
The detailed design should make reference to current legislation, up-to-date building products, and manufacturers’ literature and should show analysis-based design decisions. These analyses may include but not limited to: Fabric analysis, LCA of materials and component combinations, LCA of the whole project, LCC analysis, waste, water analysis, etc.
FINAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
For the final submission, students are expected to produce the following:
- Original design drawings
- Environmental Strategy.
- Modified design drawings.
- A project portfolio that details all the environmental analyses used to come up with the final design decisions as mentioned above and agreed with the tutor.
Submission Requirements:
For this assessment, each group is required to prepare a full project portfolio including the drawings, documents and analyses required to complete the atsk. You will be asked to present your work and answer some questions related to it in a similar fashion to what happens within a real project development process.
Feedback and Formative Assessment:
Formative feedback will be provided weekly during seminar sessions. Regular attendance is therefore vital. You are strongly advised to use the diary in order to keep written record of verbal feedback.
In addition, there will be opportunities to take part in mock presentations and receive structured feedback at specific stages.
Assessment criteria
Marking Band A1, A2:
The work produced is exceptional in all aspects, substantially exceeding expectations for this level and meeting the intended learning requirements in an exemplary and professional manner. Environmental strategy is comprehensive and robust, based on extensive research and critical evaluation of innovative technologies, alternative materials and renewable energies. Design proposal provides in-depth solution to the brief and its context. Work is clearly communicated and exhibits professionalism, originality and creativity. Findings clearly and logically argued, consistently based on research and facts. Outstanding attitude to team work with each member of the team fulfilling their role in a professional and proactive manner.
Marking Band A3, A4:
The work exceeds expectations for this level and meets the intended learning requirements in an exemplary and professional manner. Environmental strategy is comprehensive, based on systematic research from a wide range of sources, and critical evaluation of innovative technologies, alternative materials and renewable energies. Preliminary design proposal responds well to the context and provides a convincing solution to the brief. Work is clearly communicated showing originality and creativity in several aspects. Findings clearly and logically argued, consistently based on research and facts. Excellent attitude to team work with each member of the team fulfilling their role effectively.
Marking Band B1, B3, B3:
The work exceeds expectations for this level and meets the intended learning requirements in an exemplary and professional manner. Environmental strategy is comprehensive, based on systematic research from a wide range of sources, and critical evaluation of innovative technologies, alternative materials and renewable energies. Preliminary design scheme offers convincing solution to the brief and its contest. Work is logically argued and clearly communicated showing originality in a number of aspects. The final outcome evidences a high level of team work; with each member of the team playing an active role.
Marking Band C1, C2, C3:
The work produced meets all of the intended learning outcomes and exceeds the threshold expectations for this level in some of them. Some elements of the environmental strategy are based on satisfactory research from a range of sources, limited critical evaluation of innovative technologies, alternative materials and renewable energies. Preliminary design demonstrates basic competency in forming a solution to the brief and its. Work is largely well presented and satisfactorily argued. The final outcome evidences adequate level of team work; with each member of the team good level of participation.
Marking Band D1, D2, D3:
The work produced meets most of the intended learning outcomes and with limited depth; meets all of the intended learning outcomes but rarely exceeds the threshold expectations. Environmental strategy is based on limited research, superficial evaluation of innovative technologies, alternative materials and renewable energies. Preliminary design demonstrates basic competency and offers limited response to the brief and its context. Presentation of work is adequate in most contexts, with some mistakes; final outcome evidences a limited level of team work.
Marking Band F1:
The work produced fails to meet all of the intended learning outcomes and is marginally inadequate for this level. Environmental strategy incomprehensive and exhibits limited accuracy in depth and breadth with some inaccuracies/omissions. Findings of environmental strategy are not fully supported by research, very little evaluation of innovative technologies, alternative materials and renewable energies. Preliminary design demonstrates limited attempt to the brief with parts of the solution being unsuitable for the context. Work is poorly presented with some mistakes; final outcome evidences an underdeveloped level of team work.
Marking Band F2 and F3:
The work produced fails to meet all of the intended learning outcomes and is inadequate for this level. Work is significantly limited in breadth and depth and inaccurate.
No attempt to formulate an environmental strategy, with the work being largely inadequate for the nature of the brief. No evidence of research being carried out to support the environmental strategy, no evaluation of innovative technologies, alternative materials and renewable energies. Preliminary design doesn’t attempt to solve the brief and is unsuitable for the context. Quality of work is inadequate in terms of content and quality with no evidence of team work.
Learning Outcomes
On successful completion of the unit, students should be able to:
Knowledge and Understanding
K1 Systematically research the applications n of complex concepts and approaches to sustainable to technical design.
K2 Formulate and justify solutions to address unfamiliar challenges in sustainable building design, and deal with the complications that can be caused by the use of different systems, technologies, and components.
Cognitive Skills
C1 Critically evaluate different building components, their functionality, and appropriateness for a pre-selected sustainability strategy.
C2 Justify systems, technologies, and components, and reflect on their appropriateness for the building under study.
Practical and Professional Skills
P1 Display expertise in the use of software to solve specific built environment problems.
P2 Create effective architectural presentation using a wide range of practical and creative skills.
Transferable and Key Skills
T1 Communicate information, ideas and data effectively in a range of media and contexts.
Late Submissions
Students are reminded that:
- If this assessment is submitted late i.e. within 5 working days of the submission deadline, the mark will be capped at 40% if a pass mark is achieved;
- If this assessment is submitted later than 5 working days after the submission deadline, the work will be regarded as a non-submission and will be awarded a zero;
- If this assessment is being submitted as a referred piece of work (second or third attempt) then it must be submitted by the deadline date; any Refer assessment submitted late will be regarded as a non-submission and will be awarded a zero.
Extenuating Circumstances
The University’s Extenuating Circumstances procedure is in place if there are genuine circumstances that may prevent a student submitting an assessment. If students are not ‘fit to study’, they can either request an extension to the submission deadline of 5 working days or they can request to submit the assessment at the next opportunity (Defer). In both instances students must submit an EC application with relevant evidence. If accepted by the EC Panel there will be no academic penalty for late submission or non-submission dependent on what is requested. Students are reminded that EC covers only short term issues (20 working days) and that if they experience longer term matters that impact on learning then they must contact a Student Achievement Officer for advice.
A summary of guidance notes for students is given below:
Academic Misconduct
Any submission must be students’ own work and, where facts or ideas have been used from other sources, these sources must be appropriately referenced. The University’s Academic Handbook includes the definitions of all practices that will be deemed to constitute academic misconduct. Students should check this link before submitting their work.
Procedures relating to student academic misconduct are given below:
Ethics Policy
The work being carried out by students must be in compliance with the Ethics Policy. Where there is an ethical issue, as specified within the Ethics Policy, then students will need an ethics release or an ethical approval prior to the start of the project.
The Ethics Policy is contained within Section 2S of the Academic Handbook:
Grade marking
The University uses a letter grade scale for the marking of assessments. Unless students have been specifically informed otherwise their marked assignment will be awarded a letter grade. More detailed information on grade marking and the grade scale can be found on the portal and in the Student Handbook.
Policy: http://portal.solent.ac.uk/documents/academic-services/academic-handbook/section-2/2o-assessment-policy.pdf
Guidance for online submission through Solent Online Learning (SOL)
Solent University
Coursework Assessment Brief
Assessment Details
| Unit Title: | Integrated Project |
| Unit Code: | ADP704 |
| Unit Leader: | Dr Monkiz Khasreen |
| Level of Study: | Seven |
| Assessment Title: | Countryside Centre |
| Assessment Number: | Two |
| Assessment Type: | Presentation |
| Restrictions on Time/Length : | 30 mins |
| Consequence of not meeting time/word count limit: | It is essential that assignments keep within the time/word count limit stated above. Any work beyond the maximum time/word length permitted will be disregarded and not accounted for in the final grade. |
| Individual/Group: | Group |
| Assessment Weighting: | 25% |
| Issue Date: | 23rd Jan 2020 |
| Hand In Date: | 22 Apr 2020 |
| Planned Feedback Date: | Within four weeks of submission |
| Mode of Submission: | on-line plus oral presentation on 22 April 2020 |
| Number of copies to be submitted: | One |
| Anonymously Marked: | This assessment will be exempt from anonymous marking as it falls within an exempt category under the University’s Anonymous Marking Policy. |
Assessment Task
In a total of 30 minute presentation, teams are expected to discuss and justify key findings and outcomes of this task using evidence-based approach. The group can choose the most appropriate presentation media, for example PowerPoint, Prezi, poster display, video presentation, etc. However, and regardless of the method used, you should aspire to produce your work to the highest possible professional standard in terms of quality and clarity.
Students then will be required to answer questions to further clarify their design proposal and justify their solutions.
Assessment criteria
Marking Band A1, A2:
Professional conduct in a clear presentation that is perfectly pitched to the audience. Creative visual aids are used judiciously to complement the spoken element. And referenced completely. Robust arguments based on insightful evaluations and comparisons in all solutions.
Marking Band A3, A4:
Very clear presentation that is well pitched to the audience. Creative visual aids are well used to complement the spoken element. And referenced completely. Robust arguments based on meaningful evaluations and comparisons in most solutions.
Marking Band B1, B3, B3:
Clear presentation that is well pitched overall to the audience. Visual aids are selectively used to complement the spoken element. And referenced completely. Solid arguments based on robust evaluations and comparisons in key solutions.
Marking Band C1, C2, C3:
Mostly clear presentation that tries to meet the audience expectations. Visual aids are properly used to complement the spoken element. And referenced completely. Sensible arguments based on reasonable evaluations and comparisons in all solutions.
Marking Band D1, D2, D3:
Acceptable presentation skills. Some visual, oral, media used meets professional standards. And referenced mostly with some mistakes or missing references. Reasonable arguments based on simplistic evaluations and comparisons in most solutions.
Marking Band F1:
Poor presentation skills. Most visual, oral, media used do not meet professional standards. And fundamental mistakes or lack of referencing. Only some of the arguments are reasonable; the rest being based on weak evaluations and comparisons.
Marking Band F2 and F3:
Poor presentation skills. All visual, oral, media used do not meet professional standards. Poor or incorrect referencing. No reasonable arguments based on adequate evaluations and comparisons.
Learning Outcomes
On successful completion of the unit, students should be able to:
Knowledge and Understanding
K1 Systematically research the applications n of complex concepts and approaches to sustainable to technical design.
K2 Formulate and justify solutions to address unfamiliar challenges in sustainable building design, and deal with the complications that can be caused by the use of different systems, technologies, and components.
Cognitive Skills
C1 Critically evaluate different building components, their functionality, and appropriateness for a pre-selected sustainability strategy.
C2 Justify systems, technologies, and components, and reflect on their appropriateness for the building under study.
Practical and Professional Skills
P1 Display expertise in the use of software to solve specific built environment problems.
P2 Create effective architectural presentation using a wide range of practical and creative skills.
Transferable and Key Skills
T1 Communicate information, ideas and data effectively in a range of media and contexts.
Late Submissions
Students are reminded that:
- If this assessment is submitted late i.e. within 5 working days of the submission deadline, the mark will be capped at 40% if a pass mark is achieved;
- If this assessment is submitted later than 5 working days after the submission deadline, the work will be regarded as a non-submission and will be awarded a zero;
- If this assessment is being submitted as a referred piece of work (second or third attempt) then it must be submitted by the deadline date; any Refer assessment submitted late will be regarded as a non-submission and will be awarded a zero.
Extenuating Circumstances
The University’s Extenuating Circumstances procedure is in place if there are genuine circumstances that may prevent a student submitting an assessment. If students are not ‘fit to study’, they can either request an extension to the submission deadline of 5 working days or they can request to submit the assessment at the next opportunity (Defer). In both instances students must submit an EC application with relevant evidence. If accepted by the EC Panel there will be no academic penalty for late submission or non-submission dependent on what is requested. Students are reminded that EC covers only short term issues (20 working days) and that if they experience longer term matters that impact on learning then they must contact a Student Achievement Officer for advice.
A summary of guidance notes for students is given below:
Academic Misconduct
Any submission must be students’ own work and, where facts or ideas have been used from other sources, these sources must be appropriately referenced. The University’s Academic Handbook includes the definitions of all practices that will be deemed to constitute academic misconduct. Students should check this link before submitting their work.
Procedures relating to student academic misconduct are given below:
Ethics Policy
The work being carried out by students must be in compliance with the Ethics Policy. Where there is an ethical issue, as specified within the Ethics Policy, then students will need an ethics release or an ethical approval prior to the start of the project.
The Ethics Policy is contained within Section 2S of the Academic Handbook:
Grade marking
The University uses a letter grade scale for the marking of assessments. Unless students have been specifically informed otherwise their marked assignment will be awarded a letter grade. More detailed information on grade marking and the grade scale can be found on the portal and in the Student Handbook.
Policy: http://portal.solent.ac.uk/documents/academic-services/academic-handbook/section-2/2o-assessment-policy.pdf
Guidance for online submission through Solent Online Learning (SOL)