ENG4701 Project Proposal Marking Rubric - 40%
Facet 80-89 (90+ only if exceptional – e.g.immediately publishable) 70-79 60-69 50-59 0-49 (0 if element is missing)
Introduction
(/10)
The introduction enables the reader to
understand the purpose and the significance
of the project, clearly and logically.
The introduction enables the reader to
understand the purpose and the significance
of the project, but they are left with some
questions in their mind.
The introduction enables the reader to
understand the purpose and the significance
of the project, but they are left with some
obvious unanswered questions in their mind.
The introduction enables the reader to
understand the purpose and the significance
of the project, but there is some confusion
and there are numerous obvious answered
questions in their mind.
Introduction is insufficient, missing, or does
not describe the purpose and significance of
the project.
Aims & Objectives
(/5)
Aims are highly appropriate and aligned to
the topic.
Aims are appropriate and aligned to the
topic.
Aims are mostly appropriate and aligned to
the topic.
Aims are somewhat appropriate but have
poor alignment with the topic.
Inappropriate aims presented, and/or lacks
alignment with the topic.
Objectives are clear, appropriate, Specific,
Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and
Time-bound (SMART).
Objectives are clear, appropriate, Specific,
Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and
Time-bound (SMART).Only minor
improvements to be made.
Objectives are moderately clear, appropriate,
Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic
and Time-bound (SMART).
Objectives are identified and somewhat
appropriate.
Objectives are not clear or appropriate.
Literature
Review/State of the
Field
(/25)
Technical challenges are clearly identified,
systematically organized and explained in
context and justified.
Technical challenges are clearly identified,
explained in context and justified.
Technical challenges are clearly identified and
explained in context.
Technical challenges are identified and
explained.
Key technical challenges are lacking or
vaguely specified.
Existing techniques/solutions are critically
reviewed, compared/analysed and
systematically organised and presented.
Existing techniques/solutions are reviewed
and critically compared, but lack systematic
organisation and presentation.
Existing techniques/solutions are identified,
reviewed and critically compared.
Existing techniques/solutions are identified
and presented, but there is no review or
comparison of them.
Existing techniques/solutions are not clearly
identified, reviewed, or compared.
Consults a very large number (>10, or an
exhaustive number, depending on field) of
appropriate sources to problem solve and
justify the approach used systematically and
comprehensively.
Consults numerous (8 to 10) appropriate
sources to problem solve and justify the
approach used systematically and
comprehensively.
Consults numerous (4-7) appropriate sources
and compare existing solutions to and justify
the approach used.
Consults some (1-3) appropriate sources to
problem solve and justify the approach used.
References are inappropriate/irrelevant to
the problem, or are missing.
Methodology &
Methods
(/25)
(Use for Research
Projects)
Appropriate choice of research methodology,
clearly and convincingly justified by literature
review and insightful analysis of the problem.
Appropriate choice of research methodology,
justified by literature review and insightful
analysis of the problem.
Appropriate choice of research methodology,
justified by analysis of the problem.
Appropriate choice of research methodology,
with weak justifications.
Inappropriate choice of research
methodology
Appropriate selection of research methods
that strongly support the chosen
methodology and will clearly generate
intended data.
Appropriate selection of research methods
that support the chosen methodology and
will most likely generate intended data.
Appropriate selection of research methods
that support the chosen methodology but
may not fully generate the intended data.
Appropriate selection of research methods
that support the chosen methodology but it
is unclear if it will generate the intended
data.
Inappropriate selection of research methods
Facet 80-89 (90+ only if exceptional – e.g.immediately publishable) 70-79 60-69 50-59 0-49 (0 if element is missing)
Requirements,
Design Specifications
& Approach
(/25)
(Use for Consulting /
Industry Projects)
Functional, Non-Functional and Stretch
project requirements are identified and
clearly stated with evidence of consultation,
review and approval by the stakeholders.
Requirements are realistic and highly likely to
be realised.
Functional and Non-Functional project
requirements are identified and stated with
evidence of consultation, review and
approval by the stakeholders. Requirements
are realistic and likely to be realised.
Functional and Non-Functional project
requirements are identified and stated.
Requirements are realistic and likely to be
realised.
Functional project requirements are
identified and clearly stated and appropriate.
Project requirements are unclearly stated
and inappropriate.
A preliminary Design Specification proposes
elegant and detailed solutions demonstrating
significant initiative and evidence of original
thought in the resolution of the project goals.
A preliminary Design Specification proposes
realistic and detailed solutions demonstrating
significant initiative and evidence of original
thought in the resolution of the project goals.
A preliminary Design Specification proposes
possibly workable solutions demonstrating
evidence of original thought in the resolution
of the project goals.
A preliminary Design Specification proposes
questionable solutions that are likely, but not
convincingly, able to achieve the project
goals.
Preliminary designs lack justification, are
unrealistic and unlikely to achieve the project
goals.
Scope & Project Plan
Timeline
(/5)
Timeline is realistic with sufficient details and
stages
Timeline is sufficiently detailed but may not
be realistic.
Timeline is somewhat questionable, and lacks
some details and stages.
Timeline lacks detail, making it difficult to
assess progress and/or likelihood of
completion
Timeline is highly unrealistic, with very low
chances to produce planned work.
Quality of Reporting
(/20)
Report is completely free of distracting
spelling, punctuation, and grammatical
errors.
Report is almost completely free of
distracting spelling, punctuation, and
grammatical errors (<1 per page).
Report is mostly free of distracting spelling,
punctuation, and grammatical errors (<2 per
page).
Report contains occasional instances of
distracting spelling, punctuation, and
grammatical errors (<4 per page)
Spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors
create distraction, making reading difficult;
fragments, comma splices, run-ons evident.
Errors are frequent (>6 per page)
Writing shows exceptional attention to logic,
reasoning of points and appropriate use of
technical language.
Writing shows high degree of attention to
logic, reasoning of points and appropriate
use of technical language.
Writing shows some attention to logic,
reasoning of points and appropriate use of
technical language.
Writing is mostly incoherent and logical
organization
Writing is completely incoherent and lacks
logical organisation.
Yes/No questions (/10)
Does the report fully adhere to the given template? Yes/No
Has the student consistently used a standard referencing format for the reference list? Yes/No
Has the student clearly identified risks and outlined preventive measures for the Risk Management Plan? Yes/No
Has the student been using the Project Journal effectively? Yes/No
An appropriate Risk Assessment has been completed in SARAH and is attached as an Appendix Yes/No (Hurdle Requirement)