undergraduate course outline · 2019-05-30 · mine 4951, 4952, 4953: mining research projects a, b...

Faculty of Engineering

School of Minerals and Energy Resources Engineering

Undergraduate Course Outline

MINE4951, 4952 and 4953

Research Thesis A, B and C

Professor Paul Hagan

Haleh Rasekh

Term 2, 2019

MINE 4951, 4952 and 4953: Mining Research Project I, II and III

CONTENTS

1. INFORMATION ABOUT THE COURSE ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Overview of Honours research project ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Course Description ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2. Course Completion ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2 1.3. Assumed Knowledge ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2

2. AIMS, LEARNING OUTCOMES AND GRADUATE ATTRIBUTES .............................................................................................. 4 2.1 Course Aims............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Learning Outcomes ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4 2.3 BE (Hons) Program Learning Outcomes ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4 2.4 Graduate Attributes ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

3. COURSE RESOURCES ........................................................................................................................................................................... 5 3.1 Reference Materials ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Other Resources ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 3.3 Online Resources .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5

4. COURSE CONTENT AND LEARNING ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................. 6 4.1 Learning Activities Summary ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 6

5. COURSE ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................................................................... 9 5.1 Assessment Summary .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 5.2 Assessment Requirements .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 11 5.3 Penalties for a Non-Compliant Submission ............................................................................................................................................................ 12 5.4 Assessment Process ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 5.5 Assignment Attachments ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 12

6. ASSESSMENT CRITERIA ............................................................................................................................................................. 14 6.1 A01: Research Project Proposal .................................................................................................................................................................................. 15 6.2 A02: Annotated Bibliography ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 6.3 A03: Project Progress Report ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 6.4 A04: Consultation with Supervisor ............................................................................................................................................................................ 21 6.5 A05: Seminar presentation ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 26 6.6 A06: Examiners Copy of Thesis ................................................................................................................................................................................... 28 6.7 A07: Conference Paper .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 32 6.8 A08: Quality of Consultation with Supervisor ....................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

7. STUDYING AN UG COURSE IN MINING ENGINEERING AT UNSW ................................................................................. 34 7.1 How We Contact You ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 34 7.2 How You Can Contact Us .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 34 7.3 Computing Resources and Internet Access Requirements ............................................................................................................................... 34 7.4 Accessing Course Materials Through Moodle ........................................................................................................................................................ 34 7.5 Assignment Submissions .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 34 7.6 Late Submission of an Assignment .............................................................................................................................................................................. 35 7.7 Special Consideration ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 35 7.8 Unsatisfactory and/ or Non-completion of course .............................................................................................................................................. 35 7.9 Course Results ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 35 7.10 Students Needing Additional Support ....................................................................................................................................................................... 36 7.11 Academic Honesty and Plagiarism ............................................................................................................................................................................... 36 7.12 Report Writing Guide for Mining Engineers ........................................................................................................................................................... 36 7.13 Continual Course Improvement .................................................................................................................................................................................... 36

Document Management: Filename: CourseOutline_UG_MINE4951/4952/4953_T2_2019 Date last update: 7 May 2019 Changes made by: Haleh Rasekh Revision number: V1.1

MINE 4951, 4952, 4953: Mining Research Projects A, B and C 1 | P a g e

1. INFORMATION ABOUT THE COURSE

Course Code: MINE4951 MINE4952 MINE4953

Term: T1, T2, T3, Level: UG Units/Credits 4 UOC

Course Name: Mining Research Project A, B and C

Course Convenor: Professor Paul Hagan (T1 and T3)

Contact Details: School of Minerals & Energy Resources Engineering Old Main Building, Rm 160

EMAIL: [email protected]

Phone: +61 2 9385 5998

Contact times: As per scheduled time for course

Course Convenor: Dr. Haleh Rasekh (T2)

Contact Details: School of Minerals & Energy Resources Engineering Old Main Building, Rm 159E

EMAIL: [email protected]

Phone: +61 2 9385 7128

Contact times: As per scheduled time for course

1.1. Overview of Honours research project

Completion of a research project is a requirement for the award of an Honours degree. The research project in engineering programs at UNSW is undertaken over three courses these respectively being Research Project A, Research Project B and Research Project C undertaken over consecutive academic terms in the final year of study in the engineering program. Progression onto each successive course is contingent on completion of the previous course. In general terms, the objective of each of the courses is as follows.

• Research Project A: This covers the scoping, planning, and completing preparations for the project.

• Research Project B: The primary aim of the course is to finalise the research plan and to progress the experimental/investigative aspects that may involve for example a laboratory or field-based study with preliminary analysis of results.

• Research Project C: Thesis C finalises any remaining experimental work and to present the findings of the research. The key deliverable is the Thesis or written report on the research project.

1.2 Course Description

The research project runs over consecutive three terms with the principal objective of managing a major research project. This is an individual student project, not a group project. The course is intended to develop the capability and requisite skills of an engineer to build the foundation of knowledge related to a particular industry-related problem. This foundation provides a basis on which to design a solution that is robust and safe, cost effective and appropriate to the end-user. The research project provides an opportunity for the student to bring together engineering principles learned over their previous years of study and apply these principles to innovatively solve problems such as the development of a specific design, process and/or the investigation of a hypothesis. Thesis projects must be complex, open-ended problems that allow room for student creativity, and the acquisition, analysis and interpretation of results. There must be multiple possible solutions or


conclusions at the outset and sufficient complexity to require a degree of project planning from the student. The thesis requires the student to formulate problems in engineering terms, manage an engineering project and find solutions by applying engineering methods. Students also develop their ability to work in a research and development environment. It is essential that this foundation reflects not only established thinking and practices but equally important, it should account for divergent and newly developing views as well as any limitations or weaknesses that underpin current understanding. The quality of the engineering solution is therefore a function of the quality and timing to complete this investigation; an investigation that forms part of a process known as research.

1.2. Course Completion

Each of the three courses, that is Research Project A, Research Project B and Research Project C have separate assessment components. On successful completion of Research Project A, the student will be awarded a grade result of enrolment continuing (or EC) that will allow progression onto the subsequent course Research Project B. Similarly, following successful completion of Research Thesis B, the student will be awarded a grade result of EC that will allow progression onto the subsequent course Research Project C. On completion of Research Project C, a composite mark will be calculated based on the assessment tasks of all three courses and the same mark will then be applied to all three courses. Course completion requires:

• submission of all assessment items; failure to submit one or more assessment items will result in the award of an Unsatisfactory Failure (UF) grade for the Course.

• In the case of Research Project A, submission of Project Objectives Agreement (POA). The student must make an appointment with the Project Supervisor towards the end of the term to discuss the outcomes and any changes required to the Project Objectives as defined in the Research Literature Review. Following this discussion and once the student has demonstrated the changes have been satisfactorily made to the POA, the student must arrange to have the POA form signed-off by both the student’s Project Supervisor. The final course results will be withheld and a grade of Results Withheld (or WD) will be set and remain in place until the completed form is submitted. If by the start of Term 2, the discussion and/or necessary changes have not been made and the completed form provided to the Course Convenor then the course grade will be altered to Unsatisfactory Failure (UF). This will require the student to re-enroll in the course in the following term.

• In the case of Research Project B, submission of Project Plan Agreement (PPA). The student must make an appointment with the Project Supervisor early in Week 5 to discuss details of the final research plan. Following this discussion and once the student has demonstrated any required changes have been satisfactorily made to the PPA, the student must arrange to have the PPA form signed-off by both the student’s Project Supervisor and Laboratory Manager and submit to the Course Authority.

1.3. Assumed Knowledge

This course assumes that a student:

• is currently enrolled in the Mining Engineering single degree program or a Mining Engineering double degree program at UNSW; and

• has satisfactorily completed all the courses in Stages 1 to 3 of the Mining Engineering single


degree program or equivalent in the Mining Engineering double degree program and is in the final Stage/Year of the program; and

• has successfully completed MINE3430 Mining Systems; and

• has a sound knowledge of mining terms and systems and has had previous exposure to mining operations through industry employment and/or field trips.


2. AIMS, LEARNING OUTCOMES AND GRADUATE ATTRIBUTES

2.1 Course Aims

The course provides the opportunity for the student to undertake a research project on a mining, minerals engineering or other topic approved by the Course Convenor. Candidates are required to submit a dissertation or thesis, conference paper and make a presentation. The work may take the form of an engineering analysis, experimental investigation, theoretical study or design project.

2.2 Learning Outcomes

At the conclusion of this course, a student should be able to: 1. Develop a design or a process or investigate a hypothesis following industry and professional

engineering standards. (refer to elements 7, 8, 9, 10 of BE (Hons) Program below) 2. Critically reflect on a specialist body of knowledge related to their thesis topic. (3) 3. Apply scientific and engineering methods to solve an engineering problem. (7) 4. Analyse data objectively using quantitative and mathematical methods. (2, 7, 8) 5. Demonstrate oral and written communication in professional and lay domains. (12) 6. Complete a risk assessment associated with a project. (6, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11)

2.3 BE (Hons) Program Learning Outcomes

1. Comprehensive, theory-based understanding of the underpinning natural and physical sciences and the engineering fundamentals applicable to the engineering discipline.

2. Conceptual understanding of the mathematics, numerical analysis, statistics, and computer and information sciences which underpin the engineering discipline.

3. In-depth understanding of specialist bodies of knowledge within the engineering discipline. 4. Discernment of knowledge development and research directions within the engineering discipline. 5. Knowledge of engineering design practice and contextual factors impacting the engineering

discipline. 6. Understanding of the scope, principles, norms, accountabilities and bounds of sustainable

engineering practice in the specific discipline. 7. Application of established engineering methods to complex engineering problem-solving. 8. Fluent application of engineering techniques, tools and resources. 9. Application of systematic engineering synthesis and design processes. 10. Application of systematic approaches to the conduct and management of engineering projects. 11. Ethical conduct and professional accountability. 12. Effective oral and written communication in professional and lay domains. 13. Creative, innovative and pro-active demeanour. 14. Professional use and management of information. 15. Orderly management of self and professional conduct. 16. Effective team membership and team leadership.

2.4 Graduate Attributes

This course will contribute to the development of the following Graduate Attributes: 1. appropriate technical knowledge 2. having advanced problem solving, analysis and synthesis skills with the ability to

tolerate ambiguity 3. ability for engineering design and creativity 4. awareness of opportunities to add value through engineering and the need for

continuous improvement 5. being able to work and communicate effectively across discipline boundaries 6. having HSEC consciousness 7. being active life-long learners.


3. COURSE RESOURCES

3.1 Reference Materials

• Mining Research Project Course Learning Guide

• MEA Report Writing Guide for Engineers. P Hagan and P Mort (Mining Education Australia (MEA)). (Latest edition available for download from the School website or a hardcopy version is available from the UNSW Bookshop)

• Guide to Authors. (Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne) (Available for download from the AusIMM website)

3.2 Other Resources

• Student Resource Book: Mining Research Project

• EndNote, software package available to UNSW students

• ELISE, the on-line study skills tutorial and ELISE Plus. Both tutorials will be useful to students when preparing the Annotated Bibliography and Project Progress Report assignment submissions. The latter in particular includes a tutorial on EndNote and Refworks. The tutorials can be accessed at www.subjectguides.library.unsw.edu.au/elise

• The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Project Management. G Campbell and S Baker (Alpha: New York)…or its equivalent.

• Style Manual for Authors, Editors and Printers, 2002. 6th edition (John Wiley & Sons)

• The Research Project – How to Write It, 2000. R Berry, 4th edition (Routledge: London)

• How to Write a Better Thesis, 2002. D Evans and P Gruba (Melbourne University Press: Melbourne)

• The Learning Centre. A number of resources are available at the UNSW Learning Centre website to assist students in preparing the various assessment tasks including:

• Guide for Writing Thesis Proposals, available at www.student.unsw.edu.au/thesis-proposals

• Honours Thesis Writing for Engineering and Science Students, available at www.student.unsw.edu.au/honours-thesis-writing-engineering-and-science-students

3.3 Online Resources

Selected readings and other supporting materials (e.g. Course Outline, Course Learning Guide, style templates for course assessment items) are available on Moodle.

Videos are often provided to students as a web stream within the Moodle learning management system. Videos are not available for download by students, unless approved by the Course Convenor and either the Undergraduate or Postgraduate Coursework Director. Special consideration can be provided for students to access videos off-line (e.g. working remotely). Please contact the Course Convenor for more information. Note that UNSW reserves the right to deliver videos as a web stream rather than off-line, and cannot provide videos that are copyright from other providers.

http://subjectguides.library.unsw.edu.au/elise

https://student.unsw.edu.au/thesis-proposals

https://student.unsw.edu.au/honours-thesis-writing-engineering-and-science-students


4. COURSE CONTENT AND LEARNING ACTIVITIES

4.1 Learning Activities Summary

TABLE 1: Learning Activities Summary- Research Project A.

Research Project A

UNSW Week

Project Milestone Content / Activities

Before start of Term

• Consider different options for research project during period of Industry Experience

• Discuss with academics the suitability of the topic as a thesis project including formulating research objectives.

1 Course briefing – objectives, expectations and timeframes

• Outline of course objectives, activities and assessment.

• Further consideration of alternate research project topics

2 • Discussion with academic(s) on potential project topics

3

PROJECT MILESTONE #1 Submission of Project Proposal

Workshop #1. Mechanics of a literature search

• Tools and tips on use of library information databases.

• Using EndNote to manage your database of references.

Refer to ELISE and ELISE plus before workshop (see earlier section on Resources).

4

Workshop #2. How to structure a literature survey

• Bring details of literature search found to date to the workshop.

• Assessment pack distributed in-class

• draft annotated bibliography

5

6

PROJECT MILESTONE #2 Submission of Annotated Bibliography

7

8

9

PROJECT MILESTONE #3

Project Progress I-Literature Review

10

Consultation and feedback on Progress

• Obtain feedback from Supervisor

• Agreement & sign-off by Supervisor of Project Objective Agreement (POA)

• Submit to Course Authority


TABLE 2: Learning Activities Summary- Research Project B.

UNSW Week


1 Course briefing- objectives, expectations and timeframes

Finalise project plan and risk assessment

2 Finalise project plan and risk assessment

3


Project Progress II- Plam

Submission of Plan and Risk Assessment

Finalise experimental design, construct, commission and calibrate equipment

4 Consultation and feedback on Progress

• Obtain feedback from Supervisor

• Agreement & sign-off by Supervisor of Project Plan Agreement (PPA)

• Submit to Course Authority

5 Undertake experiments




9


Project Progress III- Preliminary Results and Analysis

Report and Assess results from experiments

10 Discuss results with supervisor


TABLE 3: Learning Activities Summary- Research Project C.

Research Project C

UNSW Week


1 Course briefing – objectives, expectations and timeframes

Finalise experimental design, construct, commission and calibrate equipment


3 Undertake experiments and analysis

4 Undertake final round of experiments and analysis

5 Analysis of results, begin draft of thesis

6 Prepare drafts of project results, conclusions and presentation

7 PROJECT MILESTONE #6 Submission of Seminar Presentation

Project Presentation* including objectives, current knowledge and most importantly the results, analysis, conclusions and recommendations.

8 PROJECT MILESTONE #7 Submission of Examiner’s Copy of Thesis

Submit thesis in form of Examiner’s Copy* for assessment

9

10 PROJECT MILESTONE #8 Submission of Final Submission Requirements

Complete summary of research in form of a conference paper plus finalise final version of thesis, copy and bind


5. COURSE ASSESSMENT

5.1 Assessment Summary

Assessment of the research project is based on the student submissions at each of the project milestones during the term. Specific details of the requirements of the submissions at these project milestones are contained in the Mining Research Project Learning Guide. The range of assessment tasks have been designed to ensure a student can demonstrate they have satisfactorily attained the minimum requirements of the course as defined in the Learning Outcomes of the course and Graduate Attributes of the program. The student is strongly advised to review the relevant Assessment Criteria for each submission contained in the following section before completing each of the assessment items.

TABLE 4 Overall course weighting.

Course Research Project A Research Project B Research Project C

Overall course weighting (%)

20 15 65


TABLE 5: Course assessments and due dates.

Assessment No.

Assessment / Project Milestone UNSW

Week due Weighting

Learning Outcomes

Research Project A

A01 Project Proposal 3 12% 1

A02 Annotated Bibliography (750-2000 words)

6 20% 2

A03 Progress Report I/ Report on Research Literature Review (12-20 pages)

9 61% 1, 2, 3 & 5

A04 On-going Consultation with Supervisor

Ongoing 5% 5

A05 Project Objectives Agreement (POA)

11 2% 5

Research Project B

A06 Progress Report II/ Report on Research Plan and Risk Assessment

3 30% 1-5

A07 Progress Report III/ Report on Results

9 65% 1-5


Ongoing 5% 5

Research Project C

A09 Student Seminar Presentation on project and outcomes

7 15% 1-5

A10 Examiner’s Copy of Thesis 8 65% 1-5

A11

Final Submission Requirements including:

• Conference Paper

• Final bound version of Thesis (2 copies)

• CD/DVD/USB containing project files

• Project Final Clearance form

• Graduate Destination form Honours Calculation spreadsheet

Stuvac 15% 6


Ongoing 5% 1-4


5.2 Assessment Requirements

Who

• All assessment items must be submitted to the Course Convenor. Unless stated otherwise, the submission must be made through the relevant Assignment Dropbox on Moodle. The assignment must not be submitted directly to the student’s individual Project Supervisor.

When

• Unless stated otherwise, the default deadline for submission of an assignment is 9:00am on the Monday in the nominated week. If the Monday falls on a Public Holiday then the due date is the next business day in the nominated week.

• Early submission is required in cases where the student will otherwise knowingly be absent on the due date of submission, for example to attend the Student Mining Games, a graduate employment interview etc. – no extensions will be granted in these circumstances.

• Prior to submission, the student should read the School Policy on Assignment Submissions which can be viewed at: www.engineering.unsw.edu.au/mining-engineering/what-we-do/about-the-school/school-general-guidelines

• In particular, the student should make sure they have read and understood the:

• Declaration of Academic Integrity;

• Assignment Submission requirements detailed in the University Policies section of the Course Outline; and

• School Policy on Assignment Submission available on the School's website (the web address is given in the Course Outline).

Where

• Unless stated otherwise, the submission must be made through the relevant Assignment Dropbox or Turnitin on Moodle. Turnitin is a plagiarism checking service that will retain a copy of the assessment item on its database for the purpose of future plagiarism checking.

What

• Submission requirements for all assignments are listed in Sections 4 and 7 of the Course Learning Guide.

• The submission must be: o a single document in PDF format; and o prepared in the form of a formal report. The report must include a list of reference

sources that are cited in the report that is prepared in accordance with the report writing standards of the School as detailed in the MEA Report Writing Guide for Engineers. A copy can be obtained from the UNSW Bookshop or downloaded from the School webpage.

• Each submission must have appended: o to the front, a signed copy of the Student Declaration Form and Coversheet; and o to the end, a copy of the Assessment Criteria. Copies of both these documents are available for download from Moodle.

• It is strongly recommended when preparing a report that the student use the provided Report Template available from Moodle. Note: as this template already incorporates the required the Student Declaration Form, a student does not need to separately append a signed copy of coversheet to their assignment.

How

• The name of the document must be consistent with the standard file naming convention as stated in the Assignment Submission, these being:

FamilyNameInitials_CourseCode_AssignmentNumber.pdf

• An example of a typical filename that follows this file naming convention would be: SmithPD_MINE4951_A01.pdf

http://www.engineering.unsw.edu.au/mining-engineering/what-we-do/about-the-school/school-general-guidelines

http://www.engineering.unsw.edu.au/mining-engineering/what-we-do/about-the-school/school-general-guidelines


which elements correspond to: o Family name of student: Smith o First and second initial(s) of student: PD o Course Code: MINE4951 o Relevant assignment number as defined in Table 2: A01 for the assessment task Project

Proposal o File format: PDF document

5.3 Penalties for a Non-Compliant Submission

A submission that is non-compliant with the School Policy on Assignment Submission and/or requirements as contained in this Course Outline may not be marked and/or penalty marks subtracted from the assignment mark for non-compliance. Some examples of a non-compliant assignment include the assignment submission:

• is not a single PDF document Penalty for non-compliance: assignment not marked.

• does not contain a signed copy of the Student Declaration Statement. Penalty for non-compliance: assignment not marked.

• is not fully consistent with the designated file naming convention as listed above and defined as Item #6 in the School Policy on electronic submission. For example, a file name such as ProjectProposal.pdf is NOT compliant. Penalty for non-compliance: 10 marks.

• does not have appended at the end of the assignment a copy of the official Assessment Criteria template. Penalty for non-compliance: 5 marks.

5.4 Assessment Process

Each student must have a Project Supervisor who is a member of academic staff in the School. In some instances, the Project Supervisor may deem it appropriate to appoint a Project Co-Supervisor who is either an academic from the School or some other School/Faculty/University or, a person from industry. The Project Supervisor is responsible in conjunction with the Course Convenor for assessment of the student’s performance in the research project. In general, it is strongly recommended that a student should arrange to consult with their Project Supervisor on a regular basis to discuss project progress, options and future direction and, issues that may potentially impact performance and/or project completion. The onus is on the student not the Project Supervisor to initiate and hold regular meetings to discuss progress and issues arising related to the timely and quality completion of the project. If there is frequent communication with the Supervisor, there is less likelihood that “surprises” will arise which can adversely impact on the successful and timely completion of the project and ensure the various milestones in the project are attained.

5.5 Assignment Attachments

Depending on the assessment item, grading will be undertaken by the Course Convenor and/or Project Supervisor. In the case of the:

• Project Proposal and Annotated Bibliography, assessment will be undertaken by the Course Convenor and/or Course Teaching Assistant.

• Project Progress Report assessment will be undertaken by the student’s Project Supervisor and the Course Convenor.

Grading of the Project Progress Report usually involves some or all of the following steps.

• A student must submit each assignment item to the Course Convenor who will record the date of submission.


• The Project Report will then be given to the student’s Project Supervisor.

• The Project Supervisor will assess the work. A provisional mark will be returned to the Course Convenor.

• The relativity between Supervisors of the provisional mark will be audited.

• Provisional marks will be distributed to all Project Supervisors in confidence. Marks will not be released and the reports are not returned at this stage.

• A meeting of all Project Supervisors will discuss relativities.

• Penalties will be deducted from the adjusted provisional mark.

• The final mark will be released after which reports can be collected from the Project Supervisor.

Note: Do NOT submit any assessment item directly to your Project Supervisor, as a late submission penalty will be applied.


6. ASSESSMENT CRITERIA The following assessment criteria provides a guide for students to consider when preparing the major assessment items in the course. The student is strongly advised to review the relevant framework before undertaking their assignment. This is also used as a guideline by the assessor when marking an assignment. The criteria for each item of assessment and the descriptions contained therein are not intended to be prescriptive nor is it an exhaustive list. Rather it should be viewed as a framework to guide the student as to the type of information, depth of coverage and the quality standard that is expected to be evident in a submission; the framework illustrates for example how an excellent achievement could be distinguished from a satisfactory and from a poor achievement. The student should be cognisant that a range of factors is often being assessed in any one assignment; not just whether the final results are numerically correct. Consideration is given to other relevant attributes that contribute to the Learning Outcomes of the course as well as the Graduate Attributes of the overall degree program. Hence, the student is cautioned against using the assessment criteria merely as a checklist of the content in an assignment. When assessing an assignment, elements in the framework will be examined in terms of quality and creativity. Hence ensuring all the listed elements are covered in an assignment may not always be sufficient in itself and will not automatically lead to full marks being awarded. Other factors such as how the student went about presenting information, level of creativity/novelty of the factors considered and solution, how an argument was structured and/or the elements supporting a particular recommendation or outcome are also important. Finally, the criteria can provide the basis for feedback to a student on their performance in an assignment. Periodically the criteria are reviewed and updated; hence, changes may be made from time to time to the framework to improve its effectiveness in achieving these objectives. Note: Reference to RWG in the assessment criteria refers to the MEA Report Writing Guide, and GTA to the AusIMM Guide to Authors.


6.1 A01: Research Project Proposal

The assessment criteria and relative weighting that will be used in assessing the Project Proposal is summarised in the following table.

Table 3. Assessment Criteria – Research Project Proposal

Criteria Excellent Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor nil

Quality of proposal

the submission was in the form of a formal report that was written and presented to a professionally high standard that was grammatically correct, and clear to read and understand and, conformed in all aspects entirely with the RWG in terms of format, structure and style, in particular:

• proposal contains all essential elements including o well defined

Project Objectives and Expected Outcomes; and

o a clear description of the research elements associated with the project; and

o evidence of preliminary background reading on the topic; and

• all in-text citations were correct as per the RWG; and

• all sources of information were referenced; and

• all listings in the References section were correct and all exactly in total accord with AusIMM referencing requirements as defined in the GTA and RWG; and

• all bibliographical details correctly provided in for each listing in the Reference section; and

• there were no references missing from the References section

• total word count was not less than 750 and did not exceed 1500 words.

the submission was in the form of a formal report that was well written and presented to a high standard and on the whole reasonably clear to read and understand with only a few errors and, conformed in nearly all aspects of the RWG in terms of format, structure and style, in particular:

• proposal contains most essential elements including o a generally well

defined Project Objectives and Expected Outcomes;

o a clear description of the research elements associated with the project;

o evidence of some preliminary background reading on the topic; and

• referencing and references were mainly correct and in total accord with AusIMM referencing requirements as defined in the GTA and RWG; and,


the submission was in the form of a formal report that while it contained the correct information, it was overall somewhat difficult to understand, unclear, ambiguous and/or contained several unsubstantiated statements though it conformed in most aspects of the RWG with only a few exceptions in terms of format, structure and style, in particular:

• proposal contains many essential elements including o a vaguely defined

Project Objectives and Expected Outcomes;

o a description of the research elements;

o little or no evidence of preliminary background reading on the topic; and

• referencing and references were mostly correct and in accord with AusIMM referencing requirements as defined in the GTA and RWG with only a few very minor exceptions; and ,


the submission was mostly in the form of a formal report that contained many errors and/or was difficult to read; and/or was ambiguous and/or contained unsubstantiated statements; and/or was not always consistent with the RWG with many minor exceptions in terms of format, structure and style, in particular:

• proposal lacked many of the essential elements with o poorly defined


o poorly defined or incomplete description of the research elements;

o no evidence of preliminary background reading on the topic; and/or

• many errors in referencing and/or references were not correct and were not in accord with AusIMM referencing requirements as defined in the GTA and RWG; and/or

• total word count was less than 500 words.

the submission was largely not in the form of a formal report and/or was very poorly written/ presented making it difficult to understand and follow and/or it contained many major conformances with the RWG, in particular:

• proposal does not contain most of the essential elements with o little/no defined


o missing description of the research elements;

o no evidence of preliminary background reading on the topic; and/or

• majority of referencing and/or references were not correct and were not in accord with AusIMM referencing requirements as defined in the GTA and RWG; and/or

• total word count was less than 250 words.

the submission was not consistent with the expectations of a formal report and largely inconstant with the RWG in terms of report format, structure and writing style and/or contained major non-conformance issues with RWG in particular:

• report was not consistent with requirements of a formal report

• no proposal submitted; and/or

• not submitted on time; and/or

• missing sections from report; and/or

• no in-text citation in main body of report of information sources used; and/or

• incorrect system of citing references with respect to RWG; and/or

• no References section; and/or

• incorrect system of listing references in the References section; and/or

• incomplete and/or incorrect bibliographic details provided for references in the Reference list; and/or

• did not conform with AusIMM referencing requirements as defined in the GTA and RWG; and/or

• did not conform with assignment submission requirements; and/or

• did not have attached an Assignment Coversheet and/or a completed self-assessment form.

10 9 8 7 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0


6.2 A02: Annotated Bibliography

The assessment criteria and relative weighting that will be used in assessing the Annotated Bibliography is summarised in the following table.

Table 4. Assessment Criteria – Annotated Bibliography


Relevance of references to topic (15%)

All references were relevant to the topic with in particular an explicit linkage and relevance made in the discussion for annotated reference.

Majority of references were relevant to the topic with explicit linkage to topic made in the discussion.

Many references relevant to the topic with few exceptions,

Only a few references were relevant to the topic.

Majority of references were not relevant to the topic and/or had only a tenuous link to topic.

References had no relevance to the topic and/or no explicit discussion as to linkage/relevance to topic.

15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Variety of sources (15%)

A balanced array of at least four different types of reference sources critiqued/annotated; and, a minimum of ten references of which there were a minimum of five different types of reference sources included in the References list (e.g. journals, conference papers, monographs, and websites)

A variety of at least three different types of reference sources critiqued /annotated; and, a minimum of ten references of which there are a minimum of five different types of reference sources included in the References list

Several different types of at least two different types of reference sources critiqued /annotated; and, a minimum of ten references of which there are a minimum of three different types of reference sources included in the References list

Fewer than three different reference sources critiqued; and/or fewer than ten references included.

Very few different sources critiqued; and/or fewer than six references included.

Only the one source critiqued; and/or fewer than five references included in the References section

15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Quality of the critique in the annotations (30%)

Excellent discussion with all relevant and significant key points of interest identified especially pointing out the importance of the information contained in each of the references.

Good discussion and most key points of interest identified that points out the importance of the information contained in each of the references

Some discussion and some key points of interest identified with some identification of information relevant to the topic

Some discussion but only a few key points of interest identified.

Little discussion or lack of discussion on key points of interest and/or were poorly identified.

No discussion or identification of any key points of interest from the reference.

30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Referencing (20%)




• all bibliographical details correctly provided for each listing in the Reference section; and

• there were no missing references from the References section

• majority of intext citations were correct with only a few minor errors; and

• majority of sources of information were referenced with only a few minor exceptions; and

• all listings in the references section were mostly correct and in total accord with AusIMM referencing requirements as defined in the GTA and RWG; and

• the bibliographical details were correctly provided for each listing in the Reference section with only few minor exceptions; and

• there were only one to two references missing from the References section

• most in-text citations were correct though there were several errors and

• some information is not referenced; and

• all listings in the references were correct and in accord with AusIMM referencing requirements as defined in the GTA and RWG with only a few very minor exceptions; and

• bibliographical details correctly provided for most listings in the Reference section with several minor exceptions; and

• the References section was mostly complete with only a few references missing from the References section

• many errors with in-text citations; and/or

• too little use of in-text citations and/or

• several instances of information not being properly referenced to identify source of information; and/or


• bibliographical details not always correctly provided or were incomplete in many listings in the Reference section; and/or

• the Reference section was incomplete/ and/or several missing references

• most in-text citations had errors; and/or

• little use of made of in-text citations to identify source of information; and/or


• bibliographical details were not always correct or were incomplete in many listings in the Reference section; and/or

• there were many references missing from the References section

• there were no in-text citations in the main body of report indicating the sources of information; and/or

• there was no References section; and/or

• incorrect system of citing references in report with respect to RWG; and/or

• the references were unsorted or an incorrect system of listing references used in the References section; and/or


• many missing references from the References section;

• did not conform with AusIMM referencing requirements as defined in the GTA and RWG

20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0



Standard of Presentation (20%)

in the form of a formal report that was written and presented to a professionally high standard and conformed in all aspects entirely with the RWG in terms of format, structure and style, in particular:

• conformed entirely with the prescribed guidelines in the RWG in terms of report format, structure and writing style; and

• thesis structure contained all the required sections as required for a formal technical report and was in accord with RWG; and

• structure followed a logical progression; and

• format of thesis was completely in accord with the report writing conventions as detailed in RWG; and

• use of tables, figures and equations was correct and completely in accord with the RWG with no errors; and

• writing style was appropriate; and

• there was no evidence of spelling and grammatical errors; and

• a completed Assignment Coversheet and assessment form was attached

in the form of a formal report that was well written and presented and conformed in nearly all aspects of the RWG in terms of format, structure and style, in particular:

• conformed in most aspects with RWG in terms of format, structure and writing style; and,

• structure and contained all major elements; and

• format was largely in accord with RWG with only a few minor errors; and

• use of tables, figures and equations was largely correct with only a few minor errors; and

• style was largely appropriate for a thesis with a few minor exceptions; and

• largely free of spelling and grammatical errors; and


in the form of a formal report conformed in most aspects of the RWG in terms of format, structure and style, in particular:

• in most respects was in reasonable conformance with the RWG in terms of format, structure and writing style with only a few very minor exceptions; and,

• structure was mostly correct and/or some minor elements could have been added; and

• format was mostly in accord with the RWG though it had some minor errors; and

• use of tables, figures and equations was mostly correct though there were several minor errors; and

• style was appropriate in most instances with some minor errors; and

• several minor spelling and grammatical errors; and


in the form of a formal report but it was not always consistent with the RWG in terms of format, structure and style, in particular:

• contained many minor exceptions to RWG in terms of format, structure and writing style; and/or

• several issues with structure and/or many minor errors and/or omissions; and/or

• many issues with format as it deviated from RWG; and/or

• several issues with use of tables, figures and/or equations; and/or

• writing style was inappropriate in some instances; and/or

• many instances of spelling and/or grammatical errors; and/or

• did not have attached a completed Assignment Coversheet and/or assessment form

the submission was not in the form of a formal report and/or it contained many major conformances with the RWG, in particular:

• contained major non-conformance issues with RWG in terms of format, structure and writing style; and/or,

• significant issues with structure and/or many major errors and significant omissions; and/or

• large number of significant major issues in format; and/or

• use of tables, figures and/or equations was largely inconsistent with RWG; and/or

• writing style was inappropriate in many instances; and/or

• large number of spelling and/or grammatical errors; and/or


the submission was not consistent with expectations of a formal report and largely inconstant with the RWG, in particular:

• no thesis submitted; and/or


• thesis was largely not consistent with requirements in terms of format, structure and writing style of a thesis and/or had major non-conformance issues with RWG; and/or

• most essential elements of structure were missing; and/or

• report lacked any apparent logical structure; and/or

• significant amount of information was missing; and/or

• format was not in accord with the RWG standards; and/or

• use of tables, figures and/or equations was incorrect; and/or

• inappropriate writing style; and/or

• major issues due to numerous spelling and/or grammar errors; and/or



20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0


6.3 A03: Project Progress Report I- Literature Review

The assessment criteria and relative weighting that will be used in assessing the Project Progress Report is summarised in the following table.

Table 5. Assessment Criteria – Project Progress Report


Extent and depth of research on topic (15%)

• comprehensive range and variety of references sources which are all relevant to the topic area associated with research objectives

• no gaps in references sources

• good broad range of references that are mostly relevant and appropriate to the topic

• all significant references included except for a few minor omissions

• reasonable range of references from different sources

• many significant references were considered with some minor omissions

• limited range of references and/or some that are not appropriate to the topic

• many significant references were missing

• poor range of references and/or many are not appropriate to the topic

• most significant references were missing

• little/no evidence of any research

15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Critique and interpretation of the information and, justification of research objectives (40%)

• all information has been appropriately critiqued and cross-referenced that demonstrated significant insight into topic

• considered all up-to-date and relevant issues with no gaps in discussion on the topic

• full integration of the appropriate sources e.g. differences in results, critiquing different theories

• research objectives are all clearly defined with each being fully justified and clearly linked to the findings outlined in the literature review

• good evidence of some information being critiqued with some insight into topic and some cross linkage

• most of the relevant information and issues were discussed with few gaps

• most sources are well integrated e.g. differences in results, critiquing different theories

• research objectives are well defined and each are adequately justified by the literature review

• a mixture of critique and paraphrase of information with limited evidence of any significant insight being demonstrated

• many of the major relevant information and issues were discussed

• some effort made to integrate the variety of sources e.g. differences in results, critiquing different theories

• research objectives are adequately defined though they are poorly justified and/or with tenuous links to the literature review

• information has largely been paraphrased with little sight provided

• some relevant information and/or issues were missing and/or inadequately discussed

• limited effort made to integrate the variety of sources e.g. differences in results, critiquing different theories

• research objectives are poorly defined or are poorly justified, – further consideration is required

• little or no interpretation of information

• large amounts of and/or some major relevant information and/or issues were not discussed

• no/little effort made to integrate the variety of sources e.g. differences in results, critiquing different theories

• research objectives are poorly defined and poorly justified – major revision is required

• no critique or interpretation provided

• no discussion of relevant information and/or issues

• no statement and justification of research objectives

40 38 36 35 32 30 28 27 24 22 20 19 16 14 12 10 9 8 6 4 2 1 0

Outline of proposed tasks, activities, training requirements and resource requirements with link to research objectives (10%)

• contains a comprehensive list of the various tasks and activities that need to be undertaken to achieve the objectives

• detailed list of all required resources (materials and equipment) has been identified

• demonstrated sufficient depth and quality of consideration to the tasks, activities and resources such that there is a high level of confidence the project outcomes can be achieved

• contains all the various major tasks and activities and most of the minor tasks and activities that need to be undertaken to achieve the objectives

• list of required resources (materials and equipment) has been identified

• depth and quality of consideration has addressed most of the major tasks, activities and resources requirements with few minor omissions such that there is good level of confidence the project outcomes can be achieved

• contains a list of many tasks and activities that need to be undertaken to achieve the objectives

• list of some required resources (materials and equipment) has been identified

• depth and quality of consideration has addressed many of the major tasks, activities and resources requirements with some omissions such that there is a reasonable level of confidence the project outcomes can be achieved

• contains some tasks and activities but some important elements were not considered

• incomplete list of the required resources missing many important resources (materials and equipment) has been identified

• many omissions in tasks, activities and/or resources such that there is a low level of confidence the research objectives can be achieved – further consideration is required to this section

• list is largely incomplete with significant gaps evident

• limited list of the required resources (materials and equipment) has been identified

• many major omissions in tasks, activities and/or resources such that there is very low level of confidence that the research objectives can be achieved – major revision required to this section

• no list of tasks, activities and materials provided

• no alignment with achieving the research objectives

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0



Conclusions And definition of the Research Question/ Objectives (10%)

• clear, concise and comprehensive statement of project objectives that reflects state of understanding of topic

• good statement of project objectives that reflect current state of understanding of topic

• reasonable statement of project objectives that reflect to some degree current state of understanding of topic

• poorly revised project objectives that does not account for current state of understanding of topic

• project objective is ambiguous and/or does not account for current state of understanding of topic

• no concluding remarks about the project objectives and project plan were provided

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Referencing (10%)




• all bibliographical details correctly provided in for each listing in the Reference section; and

• there were no references missing from the References section

• majority of sources of information were referenced with a few minor exceptions; and

• all listings in the references were mainly correct and in total accord with AusIMM referencing requirements as defined in the GTA and RWG; and

• bibliographical details correctly provided for each listing in the Reference section with only few minor exceptions; and

• there was one reference missing from the References section

• most in-text citations were correct though there are several errors and/or










• the Reference section was incomplete/ missing several references




• bibliographical details not always correct or incomplete in many listings in the Reference section; and/or


• no in-text citation in main body of report of information sources used; and/or



• incorrect system of listing references in the References section; and/or




10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0



Standard of report presentation (15%)

• in the form of a formal report that was excellently written and prepared to a professional high standard that was grammatically correct, and clear to read and understand; and

• the report conformed entirely with RWG in terms of report format, structure and writing style; and

• report structure contained all the sections as required for a formal technical report and was in accord with RWG; and


• format of report was completely in accord with the report writing conventions as detailed in RWG; and


• writing style was appropriate and completely in accord with a formal technical report; and

• there was no spelling and grammatical errors etc. in report.

• in the form of a formal report that was well written and presented to a high standard and on the whole reasonably clear to read and understand with only a few errors;

• the report conformed in most aspects with RWG in terms of report format, structure and writing style; and,

• report structure and contained all major elements; and



• style was largely appropriate for a technical report with a few minor exceptions; and

• largely free of spelling and grammatical errors.

• in the form of a formal report that while it contained the correct information, it was overall somewhat difficult to understand, unclear, ambiguous and/or contained several unsubstantiated statements; and,

• in most respects was in reasonable conformance with the RWG in terms of report format, structure and writing style with only a few very minor exceptions; and,

• report structure was mostly correct and/or some minor elements could have been added; and

• format of report was mostly in accord with the RWG though it had some minor errors; and



• several minor spelling and grammatical errors.

• in the form of a formal report that contained many errors an/or was difficult to read; and/or was ambiguous and/or contained unsubstantiated statements; and/or,

• the report contained many minor exceptions to RWG in terms of report format, structure and writing style; and/or

• several issues with report structure and/or many minor errors and/or omissions; and/or

• many issues with format of report as it deviated from RWG; and/or



• many instances of spelling and/or grammatical errors.

• was not presented in form of a formal report and/or was poorly written and/or presented; and/or,

• contained major non-conformance issues with RWG in terms of report format, structure and writing style; and/or,

• significant issues with report structure and/or many major errors and significant omissions; and/or

• large number of significant major issues in format of report; and/or



• large number of spelling and/or grammatical errors.

• no proposal submitted; and/or


• report was not consistent with requirements of a formal report in terms of report format, structure and writing style and/or contained major non-conformance issues with RWG; and/or

• most essential elements of report structure were missing; and/or



• format of report was not in accord with the RWG standards; and/or


• inappropriate report writing style; and/or

• major issues /numerous spelling and/or grammar errors; and/or


• did not have attached an Assignment Coversheet and/or a completed self-assessment form

15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0


6.4 A04, A08, A12: Consultation with Supervisor

The assessment criteria and weighting that will be used in assessing the quality of the student consultations is summarised in the following table.

Table 6. Assessment Criteria – Consultation with Supervisor


Quality of consultation

• student maintained regular contact with academic supervisor (at least once a week), and

• clearly demonstrated consistent effort and progress, and

• discussed points that demonstrated student was considering potential issues as well as options to resolve these issues related to project, and

• was able to clearly demonstrate significant initiative and competence that contributed to successful completion of first stage of project

• student maintained regular contact with academic supervisor (at least once a fortnight), and

• demonstrated to a reasonable degree of some effort and progress of project, and

• discussed some issues related to project, and

• demonstrated competence in completing project and was largely self-directed

• student had intermittent contact with academic supervisor (at least once a month), and

• indicated sporadic progress, and

• some initiative in resolving issues

• but had to be largely guided in project by Supervisor

• student had infrequent contact with academic supervisor (e.g. two to four times during term), and/or

• little evidence to suggest otherwise that the project was not high on agenda and not left until final weeks before submission, and

• little initiative demonstrated nor ownership shown of the project unless directed by Supervisor

• student had very little contact if any with academic supervisor (perhaps only once for the term), and/or

• little evidence to suggest otherwise that large portion of the project was left till the last minute, and

• lack of any initiative demonstrated nor ownership shown of the project

• lack of any meaningful consultation by student with academic supervisor

5 4 3 2 1 0


6.5 A06: Progress Report II- Research Plan and Risk Assessment


Project

schedule

• comprehensive schedule of all required activities and events was clearly and neatly indicated

• all project milestones were identified.

• all tasks on the project’s critical path were clearly identified and discussed

• schedule appears

to be realistic and practical demonstrating

detailed level of

planning with

sufficient

allowance given

to contingencies

such that there is

a high level of

confidence the

project outcomes

can be achieved

on time

• schedule of

activities and events was provided

• all major milestones were identified

• most of the major

and minor tasks on the project’s critical path were clearly identified with some discussion

• the schedule is

realistic and

clearly

demonstrates

good planning with

reasonable

allowance to

contingencies

such that there is

good level of

confidence the

project outcomes

can be achieved

on time

• reasonable schedule of activities and events was provided

• many major milestones were identified

• many of the tasks

on the project’s critical path were identified with a few minor omissions though there was little discussion

• schedule is

reasonable with some minor

issues such that

there is a

reasonable level

of confidence the

project outcomes

can be achieved

on time

• incomplete

schedule of activities and events was presented

• only a few milestones were identified.

• some tasks on the project’s critical path were not identified with many omissions and/or not discussed

• schedule is poorly defined such that

there is a low level

of confidence the

project objectives

can be achieved

on time – further

consideration

needs to be given

to the schedule

• haphazard schedule

of activities and events was presented

• no project milestones were identified

• most tasks on the project’s critical path were not identified and/or with some important omissions and not discussed

• schedule is

unrealistic such that there is a

very low level of

confidence project

objectives can be

achieved on time –

major revision of

the schedule is

required

• no schedule of tasks and activities provided

• no tasks on the project’s critical path were identified and/or discussed

• no identification of

project milestones

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Risk

management

plan

• student, in the role of Project Manager, has considered all relevant and potential physical and process hazards associated with the project

• applied an appropriate method to rate the risk of each hazard and ranked these risks to identified major risks

• appropriate and comprehensive

set of controls to

manage all major

risks that will

contribute to

successful project

completion

• student, in the role of Project Manager, has considered most of the relevant and potential physical and process hazards associated with the project

• assigned

appropriate rating and ranked the risks

• defined

appropriate controls to

manage most

major risks that

will contribute to

successful

completion

• student, in the role of Project Manager, has considered many of the relevant and potential physical and process hazards associated with the project

• applied simple rating and ranking of the risks

• appropriate

controls defined for many

of the major risks

though lacks

appropriate

controls in some

minor areas

• student, in the role of Project Manager, has considered few of the relevant and potential physical and process hazards associated with the project

• inappropriate rating or ranking the risks

• poorly defined, inadequate

and/or incomplete

set of controls

that do not

address some

major risks such

that there is a low

level of

confidence the

research

objectives can be

achieved – further

consideration in

managing the

risks is required

• student, in the role of Project Manager, has considered few or none of the relevant and potential physical and process hazards associated with the project

• no rating and ranking of the risks

• very few, inadequate and poorly defined

controls such that

there is a very low

level of confidence

project objectives

can be achieved –

major revision in

managing the risks

is required

no risk

assessment

provided

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0


Contingency

plans

detailed

appropriate and realistic

alternate action

plans such that

there is a high

level of confidence

the project

outcomes can be

safely achieved

on time and within

budget

reasonably

appropriate alternate action

plan(s) such that

there is good level

of confidence the

project outcomes

can be safely

achieved on time

and within budget

some

consideration given to some an

alternate action

plan such that

there is a

reasonable level

of confidence the

project outcomes

can be safely

achieved on time

and within budget

poor/little

discussion on appropriate

alternate action

plan provided –

further

consideration is

required in this

section

unclear/confused/inapp ropriate and/or incomplete discussion of appropriate alternate action plan – major revision required to this section

no contingency

plans provided

5 4 3 2 1 0

Conclusions

• clear, concise

and comprehensive statement of project objectives that reflects state of understanding of topic

• all project management

issues relevant have

been identified

• good statement of project objectives that reflect current state of understanding of topic

• most of the major project

management

issues have

been

considered

• reasonable

statement of project objectives that reflect to some degree current state of understanding of topic

• many of project management

issues have been

considered with

some minor

omissions

• poorly revised

project objectives that does not account for current state of understanding of topic

• inadequate outline

of the project

management

issues

• project objective is ambiguous and/or does not account for current state of understanding of topic

• poorly outlined

project management issues

no concluding

remarks about the project

objectives and

project plan

were provided

5 4 3 2 1 0


6.7 A07: Progress Report III- Preliminary Results and Analysis

Criteria Excellent Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor

Progress Report Achievement is beyond expectations with respect to plan. If any complexities or challenges have been encountered, a plan for equivalent work has been developed with significant progress made. Highly detailed discussions on work completed. The student is clearly on track to demonstrate a sophisticated understanding of the meaning and implications of their research findings.

Highly satisfactory achievement against the plan. If complexities or challenges have been encountered, a plan for equivalent work has been developed with satisfactory progress made. Detailed discussions on the work completed. The student clearly on their way to demonstrating a good understanding of the meaning and implications of their research findings.

Mostly satisfactory achievement against the plan. If complexities have been encountered a plan for equivalent work has been developed and a good start has been made. Some discussion of the work completed. The student looks to be developing a reasonable understanding of the meaning of their research findings.

Marginal achievement compared to the plan. If complexities have been encountered a plan for equivalent work has been developed but with little progress. Only superficial discussions of the work completed. The student will probably be able to demonstrate some understanding of the meaning of their results.

Achievement is not satisfactory with respect to the plan. Little work has been done to address any complexities or challenges encountered. Little or no discussion of the work completed. It is unclear that the student understands what their results mean.

40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 10 0

Reflection on Progress

Compares and contrasts the thesis, with industrial and other academic experiences, illuminating the differences and similarities between them. The student also demonstrates deep understanding of their field(s) of study and broadening perspective through the research experience. Evaluates changes in learning through the thesis, recognizing complex contextual factors (e.g. works with ambiguity and risk, deals with frustration), demonstrating self-awareness, and envisions a future self or develops plans that build on the research experience.

Compares and contrasts the thesis, with industrial and other academic experiences, illuminating the differences and similarities between them. The student also demonstrates a growing understanding of their field(s) of study and developing perspective through the research experience. Evaluates changes in learning through the thesis, through either recognizing complex contextual factors (e.g. works with ambiguity and risk, deals with frustration), demonstrating self-awareness, and/or envisioning a future self / developing plans that build on the research experience.

Compares and contrasts the thesis, with industrial and/or other academic experiences, illuminating the differences and similarities between them. Evaluates changes in learning through the thesis, recognizing complex contextual factors (e.g. works with ambiguity and risk, deals with frustration).

Compares and contrasts the thesis, with industrial or other academic experiences, inferring differences and similarities between them. Articulates strengths and challenges during the thesis, with contexts.

Identifies superficial connections between the thesis, and industrial or other academic experiences. Describes own performances during the thesis with general descriptors of success and failure at a superficial level.

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Revised project plan

Highly thoughtful and incisive discussions on future project plan and expected results. A reasonable strategy to ensure progress is stated, explained in detail and innovative.

Quality discussion of the future project plan and expected results. A reasonable strategy to ensure progress is stated and explained in detail.

Some discussions of future project plan and outcomes. A reasonable strategy to ensure progress is stated and briefly explained.

Superficial discussion of future project plan &/or outcomes. A reasonable strategy to ensure progress is stated.

Little or no discussion of future project plan or outcomes. No reasonable strategy to ensure progress in stated.

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0


Criteria Excellent Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor

Document presentation

The document follows a clear and logical structure indicated using headings and other conventions. The report is very easy to read: well- written, with good spelling and grammar, and appropriate language style. Text spacing aids readability. All aspects of formatting are consistent throughout the document. Graphical and tabular presentation of data is appropriate, clear, consistent and economical. Discernment is shown in the placement of graphical elements (figures, tables, etc.), whether in the body of the work or in the appendices. References in text match reference list (and vice versa) and are cited properly.

The document makes good use headings, sub-headings and other stylistic conventions to indicate document structure. The report is easy to read: writing is clear enough, with good spelling and grammar, and reasonable choice of language style. Graphical elements (figures, tables, etc.) are labelled, largely formatted consistently and cited correctly. References in text match reference list (and vice versa) and are cited properly.

The document makes some use headings and other stylistic conventions to indicate document structure. The report is reasonably easy to read: there may be some issues with spelling, grammar or style but it doesn't affect comprehension. Figures and diagrams are generally fine, although there may be some issues with the graphical presentation of data - poor choice of axes, overcrowding, poor use of chart space, etc. References in text match reference list (and vice versa) and are cited properly.

Document is not at a professional level but does make use of headings and sub-headings to indicate document structure. The report is may be difficult to read: writing is just ok, broad idea comes across; spelling and grammar have some flaws, not quite appropriate language style. Although figures and tables are labelled, the formatting is unclear and/or inconsistent to the extent that the reader can lose track of the context when reading. References in text match reference list (and vice versa) and are mostly cited correctly.

The document is poorly structured, does not cohere or shows a lack of understanding of the purpose of its sections. Much effort is required to read and understand the report: writing is poor, many mistakes with spelling and grammar, and possibly inappropriate langue style (e.g. too informal) Presentation is poor to the extent that it impedes reading of the document. Examples include inconsistent formatting, and unlabelled figures or tables. References are either not cited or cited inconsistently.

5 4 3 2 1 0


6.8 A09: Seminar presentation

Table 7: Assessment Criteria – Seminar Presentation


Introduction, Aims and Objectives (15%)

• provided an excellent and comprehensive overview of the project context, aims and objectives, significance and likely benefits

• provided a good overview of the project context, aims, objectives, significance and benefits, but some points not clearly made

• provided a reasonable overview of the project context, aims, objectives, significance and benefits, but lacked overall clarity

• provided only a limited overview of the project, resulting in some questions about its formulation and or outcomes

• provided limited or confusing overview of the project, resulting in many questions about its formulation and outcomes

• provided no project background, context nor motivation

15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Research Quality and Analysis (40%)

• demonstrated a deep understanding of past work undertaken in the topic area

• clearly identified the gap in knowledge or best practice addressed by the project

• research methodology based on solid scientific principles and also demonstrated a degree of novelty or creativity

• results analysed in depth and with insight, drawing on models and other analytical tools linking back to theory, aims and objectives

• demonstrated a sound understanding of past work undertaken in the topic area

• fairly identified the gap in knowledge or practice addressed by the project

• research methodology based on solid scientific principles, but degree of novelty or creativity was unclear or absent

• results analysed with some insight and made use of some models or analytical tools that in part linked back to theory, aims and objectives

• demonstrated an adequate but incomplete understanding of past work in the topic area

• unclearly identified the gap in knowledge or practice addressed by the project

• research methodology based on solid scientific principles, but followed well-established methods

• results analysed with minimal insight and made limited use of models or analytical tools to link to theory, aims and objectives

• demonstrated minimal understanding of past work in the topic area

• poorly or did not identify the gap in knowledge or practice addressed by project

• research methodology unclear or not based on solid scientific principles

• little analysis of results undertaken, and little attempt to link them to theory, aims and objectives

• demonstrated limited or no understanding of past work in the topic area

• no attempt to identify the gap in knowledge or practice addressed by project

• research methodology unsoundly based or not described

• limited or no analysis of results presented, or no results presented

• no content provided, significant content missing, content not relevant, and or content derived from or due to work of others with minimal analysis or added insight

40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31

30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23

22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15

14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4

3 2 1 0

Conclusions and Recommendations (15%)

• clear, concise, appropriate, useful and insightful conclusions soundly linked to the observed results

• provided detailed recommendations for further or improved work stemming from critical reflection on project

• clear, well-developed set of conclusions showing recognition of the significance of the results

• provided a number of recommendations for future or improved work stemming from some reflection on project

• limited but satisfactory articulation of project conclusions with some links to results limited number of recommendations for future or improved work which may or may not have stemmed from reflection on project

• questionable or unclear set of conclusions which are not fully supported by the results

• unclear or irrelevant recommendations for future work, with no evidence of reflection on project

• invalid or inappropriate conclusions with only tenuous justification

• inappropriate or no recommendations for future work

• lacked any clear conclusions or justification

• lacked any recommendations for future work

15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Responses to Questions (10%)

• excellent and valid responses to all questions

• appropriate and valid responses to all or most questions

• adequate responses to most questions

• limited or questionable answers to most or some questions

• inappropriate and invalid responses to questions

• unable to reasonably respond to questions, or no time for questions

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Visual Aids and Resources (10%)

• excellent balance of informative content that supplemented rather than dominated the presenter’s message

• optimum number of slides or visual aids

• slides and embedded graphics efficiently communicate results and are easy to read and digest

• no errors on slides or format inconsistencies

• good balance of content that supplements the presenter’s message

• reasonable number of slides or visual aids

• slides and embedded graphics communicate results, with most easy to read and digest

• few minor errors or format inconsistencies

• adequate balance of information in slides

• satisfactory number of slides or visual aids

• slides and embedded graphics communicate some results, and for the most part are legible and well-designed

• several minor errors or format inconsistencies or shortcomings

• some slides difficult to read and or included too much content

• too few or too many slides or visual aids

• slides dominated the communication process

• several major errors or format inconsistencies or shortcomings

• most slides were poorly designed or impossible to read

• inappropriate number of slides or visual aids

• message was often confusing

• many major errors, mistakes or format inconsistencies

• no slides or visual aids, or these were mostly illegible, confusing and or contained many errors that distracted the audience from the main message

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0



Presentation Delivery (10%)

• excellent standard of clear oral presentation

• speaker was always mindful of the audience in delivery

• confident and enthusiastic delivery resulting in engagement of the audience

• excellent structure which clearly provided all relevant background information, method, and outcomes related to project

• clearly delivered all key aspects within the defined timeframe with no sense of rush

• clear presentation of main messages

• speaker was often mindful of the audience in delivery

• largely confident delivery with reasonable level of audience engagement

• good structure which provided most relevant background information, method, and outcomes related to project

• completed on time

• adequate presentation of main messages

• some recognition of need of audience in delivery

• reasonable delivery with some attempt at audience engagement

• some evidence of planning evident that ensured the audience was informed of most of the main messages

• delivery was rushed in places to complete on time

• generally inadequate presentation

• speaker spoke to screen and or notes and not to audience

• messages confused and or ambiguous leading to lack of audience engagement

• presentation difficult to follow partly due to poor planning and or erratic structure or delivery

• rushed delivery meant important messages not well communicated

• poorly presented with little or poor structure

• poorly presented leading to alienation or lack of engagement of audience

• little evidence of planning result in limited or no communication of main messages

• did not complete on time

• inaudible presentation or no oral delivery

• speaker was unaware of or ignored audience

• lacking any structure

• difficult to understand main messages

• poor time management or not completed within allotted timeframe

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0


6.6 A10: Examiners Copy of Thesis

Considering the diversity of topics and the approaches that can be taken by a student in their research project, assessment of each thesis will be partly dependent on the complexity of the major activities involved in the project; the higher the complexity, the greater the potential for a higher mark. As a guide, the following research activities are ranked from relatively low complexity to high complexity.

• state of the art investigation;

• laboratory investigation or some quantitative/qualitative assessment;

• modelling of results/observed behavior; and

• development of some underlying principle.

A good honours thesis would be expected to involve one or more activities of higher complexity.

The thesis should represent a comprehensive report on the research project consistent with the usual requirements of an undergraduate thesis. The Examiner’s Copy of the Thesis should include an updated and improved version of the earlier submitted literature review provided in the Progress Report taking account of the comments and suggestions made by the Supervisor.

Aside from complexity, assessment will also account for the quality of work undertaken by a student in conducting the research and presentation of the thesis. As would be expected there should be a reasonable correlation between the quality of the research and the resultant assessment.

Another dimension to assessment of the thesis entails the student’s demonstrated capability in Project Management. This includes consideration of whether the project objectives were clearly defined and achieved, achieving the various project deadlines, degree of ownership and leadership of the project, amount of initiative demonstrated, identifying and managing the various forms of risk; organisational and scheduling skills, and, how any WH&S and environment issues of the research project were managed.

The assessment criteria and weighting that will be used in assessing the Examiner’s Copy is summarised in Table 4.

Table 8: Assessment Criteria – Examiner’s Copy of Thesis


Abstract (10%)

• clearly and concisely describes all essential aspects of the project including context, aims and objectives, methodology, outcomes and critical assessment

• clearly describes most of the essential aspects of the project such as context, aims and objectives, methodology, outcomes and critical assessment

• adequately describes most of the essential aspects of the projects though one or more components is missing

• inadequately and or verbosely describes the essential aspects of the project, or many of the essential aspects are missing, or inappropriate material included

• poorly written and or does not describe most of the essential aspects of the project, or is primarily comprised of irrelevant or inappropriate material

• not included or largely incomplete

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Introduction (5%)

• provided an excellent and comprehensive overview of the project context, scope, aim and objectives, significance and likely benefits

• provided a good overview of the project context, scope, aims, objectives, significance and benefits, but some points not clearly made

• provided a reasonable overview of the project context, scope, aims, objectives, significance and benefits, but lacked overall clarity

• provided only a limited overview of the project, resulting in some questions about its formulation and or outcomes

• provided limited or confusing overview of the project, resulting in many questions about its formulation and outcomes

• provided no project background or motivation, or is largely incomplete

5 4 3 2 1 0



Literature Review, Methodology, and Risk Management (10%)

• provided an extensive, relevant, logically-organised and critical review which demonstrated a deep understanding of past work in the topic area

• presented specific research and general theory which helps communicate and justify the research project

• clearly identified the gap in knowledge or best practice addressed by the project

• presented an excellent description of research methodology and or experimental procedure, based on sound scientific principles

• clearly evidenced adherence to a well-defined risk management plan

• provided a relevant, logically-organised and critical review which demonstrated a sound understanding of past work in the topic area

• presented specific research and general theory which helps communicate and justify the research project

• fairly identified the gap in knowledge or practice addressed by the project

• presented a good description of research methodology and or experimental procedure, based on solid scientific principles

• clearly evidenced adherence to a good risk management plan

• provided an adequate but not necessarily critical review which demonstrated a basic understanding of past work in the topic area

• presented some specific research and general theory which helps justify or describe the research project


• presented an adequate description of the research methodology and or experimental procedure, based mostly on sound scientific principles

• evidenced adherence to a good but incomplete risk management plan

• provided limited review of relevant background material, limited critical analysis, demonstrating a flawed understanding of past work in the area

• presented little specific research and or general theory which helps justify or describe the research project


• presented a limited description of the research methodology and or experimental procedure, or these were unsoundly based

• evidenced adherence to an unsatisfactory risk management plan

• provided an extremely limited review of background material with no critical analysis, demonstrating a lack of understanding of past work in the topic area

• presented very little research or theory to justify or describe the research project

• no attempt to identify the gap in knowledge or practice addressed by the project

• poor description of the research methodology and or experimental procedure, or these lacked scientific basis

• little evidence of adherence to a risk management plan, or this was poorly defined

• review and critique of relevant background material is missing or largely incomplete, demonstrating no understanding of past work in the topic area

• no description of the research methodology and or experimental procedure

• no evidence of adherence to a risk management plan, or this is largely incomplete

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Results and Analysis (30%)

• excellent use of visual aids (e.g. tables, graphs and figures) to concisely present results

• all relevant results are presented clearly and in depth, along with meaningful analysis and interpretation with respect to appropriate theory

• clear and creative analysis of the results with respect to the aims and objectives of the research project

• good use of visual aids (e.g. tables, graphs and figures) to concisely present results

• most relevant results are presented clearly, along with meaningful analysis and interpretation with respect to appropriate theory

• good but conventional analysis of the results with respect to the aims and objectives of the research project

• satisfactory use of visual aids (e.g. tables, graphs and figures) to present results

• many relevant results are presented, along with some meaningful analysis and interpretation with respect to appropriate theory

• satisfactory analysis of the results but lacking interpretation with respect to the aims and objectives of the project

• inappropriate use of visual aids (e.g. tables, graphs and figures) to present results

• some results are presented but these are incomplete or irrelevant, while limited analysis and or interpretation of these results is given

• limited analysis of results or the results are not aligned to the aims and objectives of the research project

• poor or limited use of visual aids (e.g. tables, graphs and figures) to present results

• limited or irrelevant results are presented and no analysis or interpretation is given

• little or no analysis or interpretation of results

• no relevant results are presented and no analysis or interpretation is given

30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Research Quality and Innovation (20%)

• clear evidence of innovation and creativity in research approach, along with an evaluation of other approaches

• evidenced adherence to a clearly articulated and organised plan

• project execution clearly demonstrated an understanding of the state-of-the-art as well as the generation of new knowledge or improvement of industry best practice

• some evidence of innovation or creativity in research approach, along with an evaluation of other approaches

• evidenced adherence to a well-described and organised plan

• project execution clearly demonstrated an understanding of the state-of-the-art as well as the generation of valuable, but not novel, engineering results

• research approach is conventional and systematic, but included an evaluation of other approaches

• satisfactory evidence of adherence to and description of a plan

• project execution demonstrated some understanding of the state-of-the-art as well as the generation of some engineering results

• research approach is unconventional and not well considered, or does not logically stem from the background research presented

• limited evidence of adherence to and description of a plan

• project execution demonstrated flawed understanding of the state-of-the-art and or little generation of engineering results

• research approach is haphazard and has no logical basis

• limited evidence of the description of a coherent work plan

• project execution shows very little understanding of the state-of-the-art and no generation of results

• little or no evidence of research quality, planning or execution

20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0



Conclusions and Recommendations (10%)

• clear, concise, appropriate, useful and insightful conclusions soundly linked to the observed results and their significance

• provided detailed recommendations for further or improved work stemming from critical reflection on project


• provided a number of recommendations for future or improved work stemming from some reflection on project

• limited but satisfactory articulation of project conclusions with some links to results

• limited number of recommendations for future or improved work which may or may not have stemmed from reflection on project


• unclear or irrelevant recommendations for future work, with no evidence of reflection on project


• inappropriate or no recommendations for future work


• lacked any recommendations for future work

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Referencing (5%)




• all bibliographical details correctly provided for each listing in the Reference section; and

• there were no missing references from the References section

• majority of intext citations were correct with only a few minor errors; and

• majority of sources of information were referenced with only a few minor exceptions; and

• all listings in the references section were mostly correct and in total accord with AusIMM referencing requirements as defined in the GTA and RWG; and

• the bibliographical details were correctly provided for each listing in the Reference section with only few minor exceptions; and

• there were only one to two references missing from the References section

• were correct though there were several errors and










• the Reference section was incomplete/ and/or several missing references




• bibliographical details were not always correct or were incomplete in many listings in the Reference section; and/or


• there were no in-text citations in the main body of report indicating the sources of information; and/or



• the references were unsorted or an incorrect system of listing references used in the References section; and/or




5 4 3 2 1 0



Standard of Presentation (10%)

in the form of a conventionally prepared thesis in the School that was excellently written and prepared to a professional high standard that was grammatically correct, and clear to read and understand; and

• conforms entirely with the prescribed guidelines in the RWG in terms of report format, structure and writing style; and

• thesis structure contained all the required sections as required for a formal technical report and was in accord with RWG; and


• format of thesis was completely in accord with the report writing conventions as detailed in RWG; and


• writing style was appropriate; and

• there was no evidence of spelling and grammatical errors; and


in the form of a thesis that was well written and presented to a high standard and on the whole reasonably clear to read and understand with only a few errors;

• conforms in most aspects with RWG in terms of format, structure and writing style; and,

• structure and contained all major elements; and



• style was largely appropriate for a thesis with a few minor exceptions; and

• largely free of spelling and grammatical errors; and


in the form of a thesis that while it contained the correct information, it was overall somewhat difficult to understand, unclear, ambiguous and/or contained several unsubstantiated statements; and,

• in most respects was in reasonable conformance with the RWG in terms of format, structure and writing style with only a few very minor exceptions; and,

• structure was mostly correct, and/or some minor elements could have been added; and

• format was mostly in accord with the RWG though it had some minor errors; and



• several minor spelling and grammatical errors; and


in the form of a thesis that contained many errors and/or was difficult to read; and/or was ambiguous and/or contained unsubstantiated statements; and/or,

• contained many minor exceptions to RWG in terms of format, structure and writing style; and/or

• several issues with structure and/or many minor errors and/or omissions; and/or

• many issues with format as it deviated from RWG; and/or



• many instances of spelling and/or grammatical errors; and/or


was not presented in form of a thesis and/or was poorly written and/or presented; and/or,

• contained major non-conformance issues with RWG in terms of format, structure and writing style; and/or,

• significant issues with structure and/or many major errors and significant omissions; and/or

• large number of significant major issues in format; and/or



• large number of spelling and/or grammatical errors; and/or


• no thesis submitted; and/or


• thesis was largely not consistent with requirements in terms of format, structure and writing style of a thesis and/or had major non-conformance issues with RWG; and/or

• most essential elements of structure were missing; and/or



• format was not in accord with the RWG standards; and/or


• inappropriate writing style; and/or

• major issues due to numerous spelling and/or grammar errors; and/or



10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0


6.7 A11: Conference Paper

The assessment criteria and weighting that will be used in assessing the Conference Paper is summarised in Table 5.

Table 9: Assessment Criteria – Conference Paper


Title, Abstract & Introduction (20%)

• title accurately reflects the content of the paper

• abstract clearly and concisely describes all essential aspects of the project including aims, methodology, and main findings

• introduction provides an excellent and comprehensive overview of the project context, background, and state of the art, with appropriate referencing

• clearly identifies the gap in knowledge or best practice addressed by the project

• title reflects content of the paper well

• abstract clearly describes most of the essential aspects of the project such as aims, methodology, and main findings introduction provides a good overview of the project context, background, and state of the art, with appropriate referencing

• fairly identifies the gap in knowledge or practice addressed by the project

• title adequately reflects the content of the paper

• abstract adequately describes most of the essential aspects of the project though one or more components is missing

• introduction provides a reasonable overview of the project context, background, and state of the art, but lacked clarity or appropriate referencing


• title poorly reflects the content of the paper

• abstract inadequately or verbosely describes the essential aspects of the project, or many of these aspects are missing, or inappropriate material included

• introduction provides only a limited overview of the project or is poorly referenced, resulting in some questions about its formulation


• title is not relevant to the content of the paper

• abstract poorly written or does not describe most of the essential aspects of the project, or is primarily comprised of irrelevant or inappropriate material

• introduction provides limited or confusing overview of the project or is not referenced, resulting in many questions about its formulation

• no attempt to identify the gap in knowledge or practice addressed by the project

• title not included or is nonsensical

• abstract not included or largely incomplete

• introduction not included or largely incomplete

20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Methodology and/or Experimental Procedures (20%)

• presents an excellent description of research methodology and or experimental procedure, based on sound scientific principles

• presents a good description of research methodology and or experimental procedure, based on solid scientific principles

• presented an adequate description of the research methodology and or experimental procedure, based mostly on sound scientific principles

• presented a limited description of the research methodology and or experimental procedure, or these were unsoundly based

• poor description of the research methodology and or experimental procedure, or these lacked scientific basis

• no description of the research methodology and or experimental procedure

20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Results and Discussion (40%)

• excellent use of visual aids to concisely present results

• all relevant results are presented along with meaningful analysis and interpretation with respect to appropriate theory

• clear demonstration of how the project advances knowledge and or industry best practice

• good use of visual aids to concisely present results

• most relevant results are presented along with meaningful analysis and interpretation with respect to appropriate theory

• some demonstration of how the project advances knowledge and or industry best practice

• satisfactory use of visual aids to present results

• some relevant results are presented, along with some meaningful analysis or interpretation with respect to appropriate theory

• demonstration of how the project advances site-specific knowledge or practice

• inappropriate use of visual aids to present results

• some results are presented but these are incomplete or irrelevant, while limited analysis and or interpretation of these results is given

• no clear discussion of the new knowledge or practice emanating from the project

• poor or limited use of visual aids to present results

• limited or irrelevant results are presented and no analysis or interpretation is given

• project does not result in any meaningful new knowledge

• no relevant results are presented and no analysis or interpretation is given

40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31

30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23

22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15

14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4

3 2 1 0

Conclusions (10%)

• clear, concise, appropriate, useful and insightful conclusions soundly linked to the observed results and their significance


• limited but satisfactory articulation of project conclusions with some links to results




10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0



Format Standard of Paper (10%)

• paper contains all the required sections in a structure that follows a logical presentation, and is clear to read and understand

• format conformed entirely with the prescribed guideline (i.e. AusIMM Guide to Authors) in terms of structure, writing style, use of tables, figures and equations

• all sources were cited appropriately in text, listed in the references, and in the required format (i.e. AusIMM Guide to Authors)

• no evidence of spelling or grammatical errors

• paper contains all the required sections in a structure that follows a largely logical presentation, and is mostly clear to read

• format conformed in most part with the prescribed guideline in terms of structure, writing style, use of tables, figures and equations, with only minor errors

• majority of sources were cited appropriately in text, listed in the references, and in the required format

• only minor spelling and grammatical errors

• paper contains most of the required sections in a structure that is sub-optimal making it ambiguous or difficult to understand in places

• format mostly conformed with the prescribed guideline in terms of structure, writing style, use of tables, figures and equations, but with a number of minor errors

• most sources were cited in text, listed in the references, and in the required format, but some are not cited or in the required format

• several minor spelling and grammatical errors.

• paper does not contain most of the sections required of an academic paper, or is poorly structured making it very difficult to comprehend,

• format rarely conformed with the prescribed guideline, featuring incorrect use of structure, writing style, tables, figures or equations

• many sources were not cited appropriately in text, listed in the references, and or in the required format

• many major spelling and grammatical errors

• not presented in the form of an academic paper or is significantly lacking in its content or structure

• format contained major non-conformance issues with the prescribed guideline in terms of report structure, writing style, tables, figures or equations

• most sources were not cited or listed appropriately, while those that were did not follow the required format

• large number of spelling and or grammatical errors.

• no paper submitted, or the document was largely inconsistent with requirements in terms of format and structure

• no in-text citation or listing of information sources, or incorrect system of citing sources

• references section was missing

• major issues due to numerous spelling and or grammatical errors

• did not conform with assignment submission requirements

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0


7 STUDYING AN UG COURSE IN MINING ENGINEERING AT UNSW

7.7 How We Contact You

At times, the School or your lecturers may need to contact you about your course or your enrolment. Your lecturers will use the email function through Moodle or we will contact you on your @student.unsw.edu.au email address. We understand that you may have an existing email account and would prefer for your UNSW emails to be redirected to your preferred account. Please see these instructions on how to redirect your UNSW emails: https://www.it.unsw.edu.au/students/email/index.html

7.8 How You Can Contact Us

We are always ready to assist you with your inquiries. To ensure your question is directed to the correct person, please use the email address below for:

• Enrolment or other admin questions regarding your program: [email protected]

• Course inquiries: these should be directed to the Course Convenor.

7.9 Computing Resources and Internet Access Requirements

The School provides blended learning using the on-line Moodle LMS (Learning Management System). It is essential that you have access to a PC or notebook computer. Mobile devices such as smart phones and tablets may compliment learning, but access to a PC or notebook computer is also required. Note that some specialist engineering software is not available for Mac computers. You can access the School’s computer laboratory on-line with the School laboratory access guidelines and Class bookings. It is recommended that you have regular internet access to participate in forum discussion and group work. To run Moodle most effectively, you should have:

• broadband connection (256 Kbit/sec or faster) • FireFox • ability to view streaming video (high or low definition UNSW The Box options)

More information about system requirements is available at www.student.unsw.edu.au/moodle-system-requirements.

7.10 Accessing Course Materials Through Moodle

Course outlines, support materials are uploaded to Moodle, the university standard Learning Management System (LMS). In addition, on-line assignment submissions are made using the assignment dropbox facility provided in Moodle. All enrolled students are automatically included in Moodle for each course. To access these documents and other course resources, please visit: www.moodle.telt.unsw.edu.au

7.11 Assignment Submissions

The School has developed a guideline to help you when submitting a course assignment. Please take a closer look at all these details on our website: www.engineering.unsw.edu.au/mining-engineering/assignment-submission-policy

https://www.it.unsw.edu.au/students/email/index.html

mailto:[email protected]

https://www.engineering.unsw.edu.au/mining-engineering/sites/mine/files/u30/AfterHoursPolicy_MiningEng%20150816.pdf

https://sites.google.com/a/mining.unsw.edu.au/bookings/computer-lab-bookings

http://www.student.unsw.edu.au/moodle-system-requirements

http://www.student.unsw.edu.au/moodle-system-requirements

https://moodle.telt.unsw.edu.au/

http://www.engineering.unsw.edu.au/mining-engineering/assignment-submission-policy

http://www.engineering.unsw.edu.au/mining-engineering/assignment-submission-policy


We encourage you to retain a copy of every assignment submitted for assessment for your own record either in hardcopy or electronic form. On rare occasions, assignments may be mislaid and we may contact you to re-submit your assignment.

7.12 Late Submission of an Assignment

Full marks for an assignment are only possible when an assignment is received by the due date. In fairness to those students who do meet the assignment due date and time, deductions will apply to submissions made after this time. Details on deductions that are automatically applied to late submissions are available on our webpage: www.engineering.unsw.edu.au/mining-engineering/late-submissions We understand that at times you may not be able to submit an assignment on time, and the School will accommodate any fair and reasonable extension. We would recommend you review the UNSW Special Consideration guidelines – see following section. In the case of the Project Progress Report, penalty marks will be applied at the following rate if submitted after the due date: five (5) percentile points of the maximum possible mark for each day or part thereof that the assessment is overdue. For example, if a student submitted the Project Progress Report five days after the due date and the unadjusted mark was 68% then the final adjustment mark for the assignment would be 43%; that is the raw mark of 68% less 25 percentile points (5 days @ 5 percentile points per day).

7.13 Special Consideration

You can apply for special consideration through UNSW Student Central when illness or other circumstances interfere with your assessment performance. Sickness, misadventure or other circumstances beyond your control may:

• Prevent you from completing a course requirement, • Keep you from attending an assessable activity, • Stop you submitting assessable work for a course, • Significantly affect your performance in assessable work, be it a formal end-of-term

examination, a class test, a laboratory test, a seminar presentation or any other form of assessment.

We ask that you please contact the Course Convenor immediately once you have completed the special consideration application, no later than one week from submission. More details on special consideration can be found at: www.student.unsw.edu.au/special-consideration

7.14 Unsatisfactory and/ or Non-completion of course

A student who has not satisfactorily completed all the requirements of MINE4951 Mining Research Project A will not have met the prerequisite requirements and therefore will not be eligible to undertake MINE4952 Mining Research Project B.

7.15 Course Results

For details on UNSW assessment policy, please visit: www.student.unsw.edu.au/assessment In some instances, your final course result may be withheld and not released on the UNSW planned date. This is indicated by a course grade result of either:

http://www.engineering.unsw.edu.au/mining-engineering/late-submissions

http://www.engineering.unsw.edu.au/mining-engineering/late-submissions

https://student.unsw.edu.au/central

https://student.unsw.edu.au/special-consideration

https://student.unsw.edu.au/special-consideration

https://student.unsw.edu.au/assessment


• WD – which usually indicates you have not completed one or more items of assessment or there is an issue with one or more assignment; or

• WC – which indicates you have applied for Special Consideration due to illness or misadventure and the course results have not been finalised.

In either event it would be your responsibility to contact the Course Convener as soon as practicable but no later than five (5) days after release of the course result. If you don’t contact the convener on time, you may be required to re-submit an assignment or re-sit the final exam and may result in you failing the course. You would also have a NC (course not completed) mark on your transcript and would need to re-enroll in the course.

7.16 Students Needing Additional Support

The Student Equity and Disabilities Unit (SEADU) aims to provide all students with support and professional advice when circumstances may prevent students from achieving a successful university education. Take a look at their webpage: www.studentequity.unsw.edu.au/

7.17 Academic Honesty and Plagiarism

Your lecturer and the University will expect your submitted assignments are truly your own work. UNSW has very clear guidelines on what plagiarism is and how to avoid it. Plagiarism is using the words or ideas of others and presenting them as your own. Plagiarism is a type of intellectual theft. It can take many forms, from deliberate cheating to accidentally copying from a source without acknowledgement. The University has adopted an educative approach to plagiarism and has developed a range of resources to support students. All the details on plagiarism, including some useful resources, can be found at www.student.unsw.edu.au/plagiarism. All Mining Engineering students are required to complete a student declaration for academic integrity which is outlined in the assignment cover sheets. By signing this declaration, you agree that your work is your own original work. If you need some additional support with your writing skills, please contact the Learning Centre or view some of the resources on their website: www.lc.unsw.edu.au/. The Learning Centre is designed to help you improve your academic writing and communication skills. Some students use the Centre services because they are finding their assignments a challenge, others because they want to improve an already successful academic performance.

7.18 Report Writing Guide for Mining Engineers

The School has a report writing guide (RWG) available for all mining engineering students. View this website to download a copy of this guide: https://www.engineering.unsw.edu.au/mining-engineering/sites/mine/files/publications/MEA_ReportWritingGuide_eBook_2018ed.pdf

7.19 Continual Course Improvement

At the end of each course, all students will have the opportunity to complete a course evaluation form. These anonymous surveys help us understand your views of the course, your lecturers and the course materials. We are continuously improving our courses based on student feedback, and your perspective is valuable. We also encourage all students to share any feedback they have any time during the course – if you have a concern, please contact us immediately.

http://www.studentequity.unsw.edu.au/

https://student.unsw.edu.au/plagiarism

http://www.lc.unsw.edu.au/

https://www.engineering.unsw.edu.au/mining-engineering/sites/mine/files/publications/MEA_ReportWritingGuide_eBook_2018ed.pdf

https://www.engineering.unsw.edu.au/mining-engineering/sites/mine/files/publications/MEA_ReportWritingGuide_eBook_2018ed.pdf

undergraduate course outline · 2019-05-30 · mine 4951, 4952, 4953: mining research projects a, b...

Documents