12/01/2022 © University of Sydney Page 1 of 4
STUDENT ASSESSMENT GUIDE
ENGG5812: Project Delivery Approaches

Assessment 4 – Evaluative Report
Due: Friday of Week 12 – may be submitted any time from Week 9.
Weight: 40%
Feedback: Rubric and some written feedback. This is a formative (final) assessment.
Length: 3000 word maximum. As the report is likely to contain screenshots, tables, checklists etc, a word length is merely to be treated as an
indication of an upper limit. A strong report may be well under this.
NOTES:
• Marks and feedback are not released until the official Grades are published by USYD.
• Turnitin will be utilized for this assignment but the similarity report will not be accessible until marks are finalised.
• If any academic integrity issues are raised, marks are withheld until USYD concludes any investigation. This may extend into the
following semester.

Task Overview:
Evaluate each of the Showcase category entries for your workshop and provide a written report presenting your evaluation, nomination for
category winners and recommendations each of your finalists could make to improve their deliverable.




12/01/2022 © University of Sydney Page 2 of 4
Report Structure
Executive Summary
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
Very briefly introduce the evaluation report, purpose and structure.
1.1. Summary table of nominated winners for each category
2. Approach to evaluation
Describe your process for how you have undertaken your evaluation – your method
The evaluation must include the use of theory – how well have teams drawn upon literature to help them design their deliverable
3. Evaluation framework & tools
If you develop something that is too big for 1 page then place it in an Appendix and refer to it here.
4. Evaluation of Categories
4.1. Category 1 – Name the Category
4.1.1. Evaluation of the deliverable (possibly compare all the entries for the category or a shortlist if there were more than 3)
4.1.2. Evaluation of the theoretical justification (possibly compare all the entries for the category or a shortlist if there were more than 3)
4.1.3. Nominated category winner
4.1.4. Recommendations for further enhancements (this is just for your nominated category winner)
NOTE: You may make use of screenshots or diagrams etc from the Team Canvas pages. Ensure you always include a caption that clearly shows
whose work you are using to demonstrate your point. If you do this then we will not treat this similarity as academic dishonesty – acknowledge the
source and you will be fine.
Repeat the above pattern for each award category.
5. Evaluation of self learning (Conclusion)
Reflect on how this assignment has supported your own learning of the unit topics
References
Don’t forget to cite and reference your assignment. Draw on expert knowledge to undertake your evaluation.
12/01/2022 © University of Sydney Page 3 of 4
RUBRIC
Section (WOW Factor)
Evaluation
10 marks
Outstanding level of
understanding, integration
and critical analysis of the
major points and confidence
in material presented.
May demonstrate a logically
reasoned, valid and unique
perspective
Evaluation fully appropriate
to purpose. Strong evidence
of insight informed by the
unit themes.
Excellent level of
understanding, integration
and critical analysis
Good Logic
Evaluations mostly
appropriate to purpose.
Evidence of good insight
informed by the unit
themes.
Mostly accurate and
moderate coverage
of the topic
Some logic
Evaluations generally
appropriate but not well
understood or developed
Little evidence of relevant
insight informed by the unit
themes. Lack of logic
Some inaccuracy or
superficial
Evaluations generally
limited, high inaccuracy
or frequently superficial
No appropriate evaluations
and/or no content beyond
simple recount of fact or
basic knowledge
No grasp of information
presented
Poor accuracy of
information or inconsistent
with topic
Evaluation tools /
Content / Theory
10 marks
Design choices are,
professional. sophisticated
and demonstrate strong
sense of understanding of
theory and practice.
Design choices are very
good with sound sense of
understanding of theory and
practice.
Most design choices are
logical, but may not all offer
practical or actionable
insight.
Some sense of
understanding or
replication of theory in
practice.
Some inclusions may not
align well.
May be limited sense of
understanding of theory
and practice.
Very limited sense of
understanding of theory
and practice.
None, or almost none of the
stated inclusions are
provided.
Recommendations

5 marks
Exceptional insight
Clearly and logically aligns
with the information
provided and the supporting
analysis
Strong insight. Mostly clear
and logically aligns with the
information derided from
within the analysis.
Good insight. Generally clear
and logically aligns with the
information derided from
within the analysis. May be
limited due to the level of
analysis.
Some indication of insight.
May not clearly or logically
align with the information
derided from within the
evaluation.
Some limited indication of
insight. May minimally align
with the information derided
from within the evaluation.
None provided.
May not be logical
Writing standards
and presentation
5 marks
Fully consistent
citations and
references. Australian
spelling used
consistently.
Very professional &
visual elements are
valuable and well
utilised.
Almost always accurate
use of academic
literature. Australian
spelling used almost
consistently.
Mostly professional &
visual elements are
valuable and mostly
well utilised.
Mostly correctly
formatted citations and
referencing.
Australian spelling
mostly used.
Some visual elements
are valuable and
generally well utilised
within the document.
Some use of citation
and refencing but many
errors. Australian
spelling poorly used.
May lack strong visual
appeal. Visual elements
may not readily
contribute value to the
document.
Infrequent or
inaccurate use of
citation and
referencing.
Australian spelling
poorly used.
May lack strong visual
appeal. Visual elements may
distract or confuse the
reader.
Poor adherence to
academic standards for
citation and
referencing. US spelling
common.

Inconsistent format and
general presentation
Similarity and
paraphrasing
10 marks
Own words and no use of
direct quotes
No concerning
similarity in the body of
the assignment.
Own words and no use of
direct quotes.
And / or
Minimal concerning
similarity in the body of
the assignment.
Own words and no use of
direct quotes.
Some concerning
similarity of 5 or more
words in a row or used
work samples not
cited.
Some use of direct quotes.
Multiple instances of
similarity of 5 or more
words in a row and/or
used work samples not
cited.
High direct quoting or
high similarity
Excessive direct
quoting and/or
similarity
12/01/2022 © University of Sydney Page 4 of 4