Assessment

The various assessment methods present in this module are summarized below.

Written exam

An exam is always taken individually and written on paper. During an exam, students need to demonstrate that they have acquired the knowledge and skills that are desired for completing the module component. To provide insight into the questions that will be asked during an exam, example exams might be provided during lectures and/or on Canvas.

Assignment

Assignments are executed individually or in small groups. Assignments can be graded by marks or a ‘pass’ or ‘fail’ assessment. Passing an exam might be a pre-condition for having the possibility to hand in an assignment or the other way around.

Project assessment

The project assignment is an integrated group assignment in which students need to show that the acquired knowledge is applied adequately. The assessment as a group component and an individual components, the individual compontents may vary per educational program (see assessment tools). As the different students have different backgrounds, different interests play a role in the assessment of the project (see rubric).

Peer review

The intelligence for listening, understanding and coping. Working in multi-disciplinary groups is not easy. To be able to improve your personal skills on multi-disciplinary work it is important to get feedback from your group members on how they experience you as a group member and your contribution to the group work. In this module we use non-anonymous peer review. This enables you to assess your group members on several aspects of cooperation. Each project member will receive feedback twice, halfway during the module and before the project exam. Your individual feedback scores give you (and your group members) the possibility to start a discussion on how to improve personal skills and group interaction. The results will be taken into account at grading your project assignment.

Individual oral exam (ME)

The ME students will have an individual oral exam on their role as specialist in the project. For some specializations, extra assignments will be given during the course. During the exam ME students discuss their specific engineering solution, and the integration with other specialization tracks, with a team of experts using the group document and software tools.

Project exam

The project exam is a meeting during which a project group presents the project results in an oral presentation and is questioned by at least two examiners. Ideally, the tutor of the project group is one of the examiners.

Note: The project assignment is realistic to such an extent that the company that provides the assignment has an interest in the results. This, however, does not imply that the final product is the major basis for the assessment. In fact, the reasoning behind the product, argumentation of design decisions, the decisions and their mutual relations are important topics in the assessment. This ‘academic’ result will also be decisive for the resulting mark. In an extreme situation this implies that a ‘bad’ product might not necessarily lead to an unsatisfactory grade. It also implies that a ‘good’ product is not guaranteed to pass the project.

Rubric

The rubric used for the project is displayed below. You can also have a look at the assessment template used by the tutor and examiner during the project exam.

Learning goals <4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Product concept. Design and engineer a consumer product that fulfills the request of a client The final product concept does not answer any request from the company, is developed without knowledge on the existing portfolio, consumer market and competition. The product clearly cannot be implemented in the production cycle of the client. The final product concept is not able to answer the most important requests from the company, the existing portfolio, market and competion are not sufficiently taken into account. It is doubtful whether the concept can be implemented in the production cycle of the client. The final product concept only suits the most important requirements, the existing portfolio, market and competiton are taken into account only to a limited extend. After some adaptions, it is plausible to assume that the concept can be implemented in the production cycle of the client. The final concept answers most of the requests of the client. The basics of the company portfolio, consumer market and competition are taken into account. It is plausible to assume that the concept can be implemented in the production cycle of the client. The final concept answers almost all requests of the client, significant attention is paid to the company portfolio, market and competition. With some time and effort it can be implemented in the production cycle of the client. The final product concept answers all requests of the client, fits very well within the existing portfolio and consumer market, the competition is clearly documented. With little extra time and effort it can be implemented in the production cycle of the client. The final product concept perfectly answers all requests of the client, fits seamlessly in the existing portfolio, the consumer market and competition are clearly documented. The concept is elaborated to such an extent that it can be directly adopted by the client.
2. Selection of deliverables. Select and set priorities in a plethora of relevant design aspects in the form of deliverables towards a client for a new and mass-producible product. The choice of aspects that are elaborated is not well-founded, coherence between the aspects is missing. The assignment is not taken into account. The choice of aspects that are elaborated is not well-founded, the coherence between the aspects is insufficient, the assignment is only marginally taken into account. The choice of aspects that are elaborated is not always well-founded, coherence between aspects is limited, the assignment is mostly taken into account The choice of aspects that are elaborated is well-founded, coherence is satisfactory. The assignment is taken into account. The choice of aspects that are elaborated is well-founded and largely coherent, the assignment is well taken into account. The choice of aspects that are elaborated is very-well founded, the collection of deliverables is very coherent. The assignment is included very well. The choice of aspects that are elaborated is completely rational, the collection of deliverables is completely coherent. The assignments is fully represented.
3. Quality of deliverables: Integrate and employ knowledge from different fields of expertise (like marketing, styling, CAD/CAM, intellectual property, packaging, production, supply chains, research methodology, etc.). The quality of the deliverables is clearly insufficient. There is too much difference in quality and added value between deliverables. Mutual dependencies and important concequences are not taken into acount. The quality of deliverables is mostly insufficient. There is a strong difference in quality and added value between deliverables. Mutual dependencies and important consequences are largely overlooked. The quality of deliverables is only satisfactory. There is difference in quality and added value between deliverables. Mutual dependencies and important consequences are sometimes included. The quality of deliverables is sufficient. There is reasonable balance between the quality and added value between deliverables. Basic mutual dependencies and important consequences are included. The quality of deliverables is good. Almost all deliverables are of equal quality and added value. Multiple mutual dependencies and important consequences are included. The quality of all deliverables is very good, are very well balanced and of high value. A wide range of mutual dependencies and important consequences is correctly presented. The quality of deliverables is extrordinary - the quality and added value of each deliverable is excellent. The deliverables are perfectly connected, taking into account all mutual dependencies or interrelations.
4. Documentation and rationale: Document a product and its development cycle such that selected priorities and design choices are underpinned and can be discussed easily with representatives from a diverse audience. The interactive document does not fulful the basic requirements in terms of structure, content, grammar, layout and clarity. The product concept and design choices are not properly described. The document is not of added value during discussions. The interactive document does only fulfil some basic requirements in terms of structure, content, grammar, layout and clarity and does not succeed in clearly describing the product concept and design choices. The document is hardly of added value during discussions. The interactive document only fulfils the basic requirements in terms of structure, content, grammar, layout and clarity, description of product concept and design choices remains rather vague. The added value of the document in quickly providing explanation during discussions is limited The interactive document fulfils the basic requirements in terms of structure, content, grammar, layout and clarity, the description of product concept and design choices is sufficient. The document offers some value in quickly providing explanation during discussions. The interactive document fulfils all requirements in terms of structure, content, grammar, layout and clarity. The underpinning of the product concept and design choices is good. The document can be used to provide explanation during discussion and is clearly of added value. The interactive document is very good in terms of structure, content, grammar, layout and clarity. Underpinning of the concept and design rationale is detailed and clear. The document can very well be used to quickly and smoothly provide explations during discussions and it proves it's added value as a stand-alone document. The interactive document is faultless in terms of structure, content, grammar, layout and clarity. Underpinning of the concept and design rationale leaves nothing to be desired. The document quickly and smootly provides excellent explations during discussions with a broad audience, the document proves to be an excellent stand-alone document as well.
5. Product communication and presentation: Present and communicate a product and development in a convincing and coherent way. The presentation is incomplete and not well-prepared, the added value of the product concept is not included. The promotion material at the exhibition is not available or very amateurisly realised. The presentation is incomplete, the added value of the product is not convincing. The exhibition is not well-prepared and contains material that is badly though-out. The presentation is mostly complete, but the added value of the product is not very convincing. The exhibition contains material that is not always coherent and could be more professional. The presentation is complete, rather convincing and shows the added value of the product concept. The museum exhibition contains promotion material that leaves room for improvement or is not self-explanatory. The presentation is good and clearly conveys the added value of the product concept. The museum exhibition is convincing, contains promotion material that is coherent and looks good. The presentation is very convincing, of high quality and completely coherent. The museum exhibition is of high quality with promotion material that can almost be directly used in practice. The presentation is professionaly arranged and beautifully conveys the added value of the product concept. The museum exhibition and promotion material are professionaly designed, completely self-explanatory and can be used in practice.
6. Organisation: Concurrently pay attention to subject-matters and organizational aspects (project planning, reflection on intermediary results and project management) The organisation of the project was chaotic, planning was not included. The relationship and communication with the tutor was totally unprofessional. Reflection on intermediary results was lacking, feedback was not used. The organisation of the project was sometimes chaotic, planning was largely missing. The relation with the tutor could be more effective and efficient. Reflection on the project work was lacking, feedback was used only in limited amounts. The organisation of the project could have been better, planning was just sufficient to meet deadlines. The relation with the tutor could be more effective and efficient. Reflection on the project work could have been done more regularly to improve results. The organisation of the project was sufficient to meet the deadlines, the relation with the tutor was satifactory, yet not very professional. Reflection on the project work were sometimes used to improve the results. The organisation of the project was good and planning was in order. The relation with the tutor was mostly professional. Reflections on the project work were regularly organized and properly used to improve results. The organisation of the project was good, proper planning allowed the group to work efficiently and the relation with the tutor was professional. Reflection on the project work was continously done to improve results. The organisation of the project was excellent, the relation with the tutor was very professional and the tight and well drawn-up planning allowed to group to excell. Reflection on the project work was continuously and thouroughly done and used to improve results.

Deficiencies

The project needs to be completed with a sufficient mark. When (part of) a project group turns out not to have finished the project successfully, the following situations can occur:

  1. If the result is univocally insufficient, the student/group has failed the project and thus the entire module.
  2. If only specific subjects in the project results are unsatisfactory, the examiners can offer the possibility to ‘repair’ this part by handing in a supplement. Per supplement only one subject is treated; a maximum of two supplements may be handed in to repair the project. If more than two subjects are insufficient, the students involved fail the project (and thus the module). The exact content of the supplement and the organizational settlement is determined by the examiners. In general, a supplement needs to be handed in within 2 weeks after the start of the next quartile. The examiners assess the supplement(s). When these supplements are satisfactory, they can be graded with a 6 at the most, and contribute to the final mark accordingly.
  3. If the individual oral exam (ME students only) results are unsatisfactory, the examiners can offer the possibility to ‘repair’ this part by handing in a supplement. The content of the supplement and the organizational settlement is determined by the examiners. When these supplements are satisfactory, they can be graded with a 6 at the most, and contribute to the final mark accordingly. This supplement does not count in the maximum of two stated in the previous item.
  4. In exceptions, the examiners can – in consultation with the examination committee – determine individual arrangements. These arrangements are no basis for other students to establish rights.

For the module components, the rules of the responsible educational programs apply. These rules can be found in the student charters of the educational programs.