|
Coordinator name:
|
Md Rayhan
|
Total mark:
|
50 /100
|
|
Researcher name:
|
Md Julkar Nayen
|
Total mark:
|
49 /100
|
|
Designer name:
|
Md Abrar Jahin
|
Total mark:
|
49 /100
|
|
Comments: Well done on a clear and professionally organised presentation. A concern is that task instructions needed a video (MP4) file to be submitted, rather than a PowerPoint. The result was a disjointed flow, instead of smooth. Spoken voices were sometimes too slow. The slides’ visual aspect was acceptable, though occasional language errors distracted, and some of the slides’ text was simply read aloud. On slide 3, words in the map are impossible to read. Slide 2 lasts over 30 sec with no sound. The total time is more than 20 minutes, which is reflected in the marks for flow of presentation.
It is unclear that many ideas put forward are authoritatively sourced (such as by EWB). So, occasional visual or aural citations or references would help reassure your audience (‘client’) that this information is reliable. Though references are shown on the final slide (reference list), justification for all key assertions should also be indicated in the presentation. Slide 5 could perhaps cite the EWB Design Brief (page 22). Various details (especially about costs) may be estimated on the basis of assumptions, which is fine if you give sensible reasons for using this or that assumption. Detailed costings are crucial with respect to the feasibility and implementation (including consideration of manufacturing, distribution and maintenance), and would need to appear in your Final Report 3C.
This semester, CUC106 design proposals must be presented on the basis of research into the context of communities in Cape York – including its remoteness, great distances between modern infrastructure facilities, and specific environmental conditions. Unfortunately, the suggestions in this presentation rely on assumptions that effectively contradict this context; and do not respond to the community needs as expressed by EWB Challenge. Accordingly, far more research is needed, and you may find that the project is not feasible or sustainable. In this case it may be better to explain why it is not feasible (with evidence), rather than start again.
|
|
Mark %
|
Project coordinator:
|
30 /50
|
Researcher:
|
29 /50
|
Prototype designer:
|
29 /50
|
Team component/
Design Solution
|
20 /50
|
|
High Distinction
(85-100)
|
Introduction and conclusion provide an excellent comprehensive context and overview of the chosen project and prototype design, including remaining constraints/issues
Overall slide design highly consistent and professional.
Layout & design of each slide strongly complements talk and stimulates interest
Always clear speech, excellent eye contact, highly engaging manner
|
50
49
48
47
46
45
44
43
|
Excellent and comprehensive explanation of why the prototype design is suitable, in terms of cultural, environmental, economic and technical points of view;
Excellent and comprehensive explanation of how the design might be implemented
Layout & design of each slide strongly complements talk and stimulates interest
Always clear speech, excellent eye contact, highly engaging manner
|
50
49
48
47
46
45
44
43
|
Excellent and clear description of the design and its function
The physical presentation of the model and the level of workmanship is excellent
Layout & design of each slide strongly complements talk and stimulates interest
Always clear speech, excellent eye contact, highly engaging manner
|
50
49
48
47
46
45
44
43
|
Team cohesion highly visible in a well-coordinated presentation and well-developed design.
Presentation is logically structured with excellent flow.
The design is highly original & innovative
The design is technically highly appropriate for the context and the brief
Physical representation of design idea (3D Model) is highly appropriate
|
50
49
48
47
46
45
44
43.
|
|
Distinction
(75-84)
|
Introduction and conclusion provide a very good context and overview of the chosen project and prototype design, including remaining constraints/issues
Overall slide design consistent and professional.
Layout & design of each slide complements talk and stimulates interest
Mostly clear speech, good eye contact, engaging manner
|
42
41
40
39
38
|
Very good explanation of why the prototype design is suitable, in terms of cultural, environmental, economic and technical points of view;
Very good explanation of how the design might be implemented
Layout & design of each slide complements talk and stimulates interest
Mostly clear speech, good eye contact, engaging manner
|
42
41
40
39
38
|
Very good clear description of the design and its function
The presentation of the model and the level of workmanship is very good
Layout & design of each slide complements talk and stimulates interest
Mostly clear speech, good eye contact, engaging manner
|
42
41
40
39
38
|
Team works well together in delivering a well-coordinated presentation and design
Presentation is logically structured with very good flow between speakers
There are strong components of originality & innovation in the design
The design is technically appropriate for the context and the brief
Physical representation of design idea (3D Model) is very appropriate
|
42
41
40
39
38
|
|
Credit
(65-74)
|
Introduction and conclusion provide generally informative context and overview of the chosen project and prototype design, including remaining constraints/issues
Overall slide design generally consistent and professional.
Layout & design of each slide somewhat complements talk and stimulates interest
Generally clear speech, good eye contact, somewhat engaging manner
|
37
36
35
34
33
|
Generally informative explanation of why the prototype design is suitable, in terms of cultural, environmental, economic and technical points of view;
Generally informative explanation of how the design might be implemented
Layout & design of each slide somewhat complements talk and stimulates interest
Generally clear speech, good eye contact, somewhat engaging manner
|
37
36
35
34
33
|
Generally good description of the design and its function
The presentation of the model and the level of workmanship is neat and tidy
Layout & design of each slide somewhat complements talk and stimulates interest
Generally clear speech, good eye contact, somewhat engaging manner
|
37
36
35
34
33
|
Teamwork is generally apparent in delivering a co-ordinated presentation and design.
Presentation is mostly logically structured with good flow between speakers
Some evidence of originality & innovation in design
The design is, on the whole, technically appropriate for the context and the brief
Physical representation of design idea (3D Model) is satisfactory
|
37
36
35
34
33
|
|
Pass
(50-64)
|
Introduction and conclusion provide some context and overview of the chosen project and prototype design, including remaining constraints/issues, but more information would be useful
Overall slide design reasonably consistent
Layout & design of each slide barely complements talk and stimulates interest
Acceptably clear speech, some eye contact, steady but unengaging manner
|
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
|
Some explanation of why the prototype design is suitable, in terms of cultural, environmental, economic and technical points of view; but more information required.
Some explanation of how the design might be implemented, but detail lacking
Layout & design of each slide barely complements talk and stimulates interest
Acceptably clear speech, some eye contact, steady but unengaging manner
|
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
|
Adequate description of the design and its function but some detail lacking.
The presentation of the model and the level of workmanship is acceptable
Layout & design of each slide barely complements talk and stimulates interest
Acceptably clear speech, some eye contact, steady but unengaging manner
|
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
|
There is some evidence of teamwork with no major contradictions between speakers.
Presentation is generally logically structured with a basic sense of flow.
Design shows minimal evidence of originality or innovation.
The design is in some respects appropriate for the context and the brief
Physical representation of design idea (3D Model) is a poor choice
|
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
|
|
Fail
(0-49)
|
Introduction and conclusion do not provide a sufficient context and/or overview of the chosen project and prototype design, and remaining constraints/issues are not addressed
Overall slide design inconsistent and unprofessional.
Layout & design of most slides detracts from talk and/or deters interest
Unclear speech, very little eye contact, disinterested/inappropriate manner
|
24
20
15
10
5
|
Insufficient explanation of why the prototype design is suitable, in terms of cultural, environmental, economic and technical points of view;
Insufficient explanation of how the design might be implemented
Layout & design of most slides detracts from talk and/or deters interest
Unclear speech, very little eye contact, disinterested/inappropriate manner
|
24
20
15
10
5
|
Poor description of the design and its function
The presentation of the model and the level of workmanship is not satisfactory
Layout & design of most slides detracts from talk and/or deters interest
Unclear speech, very little eye contact, disinterested/inappropriate manner
|
24
20
15
10
5
|
Teamwork lacking with little or no cohesion between speakers and/or major contradictions in material.
Presentation structure and flow is poor making presentation very difficult to follow
Design shows no evidence of originality or innovation.
The design is inappropriate for the context and the brief
Physical representation of design idea (3D Model) is non-existent
|
24
20
15
10
5
|
Nobody
teachersfeedback.docx
0
