Established Date: 14 Dis 2015 / Rev 03

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY

NAME OF SUPERVISOR
C. REPORT WRITING AND SUBMISSION
Abstract (LO4) score /2
Abstract is clear and well described. Components include problem statement, objectives, method,
2
result and conclusion.
Abstract is not well described. One or two component missing from the abstract. 1
Abstract is not presented. 0
Project Overview and Literature Review (LO1) score /6
A lot of related works have been found and clearly explained. Theory presented is clear and
complete as to enhance project impact. Sources of information are properly cited. 5 6

Sufficient amount of related work found. Theory presented is complete and clear. Most sources
of information are properly cited. 3 4

Insufficient related work is found. Reader may have a few questions on theory or have to
revise the material. Most sources of information are not cited. 1 2
Literature review is not done or plagiarized. Missing, incomplete or incorrect description
of theory. 0
Experimental Works (LO2) score /6
Methodology is correct, well described and sustainability elements are covered. 5 6
Methodology is accepted but some details are missing. 3 4
Methodology is acceptable but important details are missing. 1 2
50 Marks

Methodology is unacceptable. 3 0
Results and Analysis (LO2) score /6
Data are presented clearly in the table, graph or graphic or any appropriate format. Result fully 15 6
achieved project objectives. Analysis is clear and accurate.
Data are presented clearly in the table, graph or graphic or any appropriate format. Result is 3 4
partially achieved project objectives. Analysis of data is sufficient.
Insufficient and poor presentation of data. Lack of analysis in presenting data. 1 2
Insufficient result or plagiarized data are presented. 0
Discussion (LO2) score /6
Detailed discussion and related to results. Cross literature and referencing is excellent. 5 6
Discussion is evident but ability to cross literature is limited. 33 4
Discussion is not related to results. Cross literature and referencing is poor. 1 2
No discussion provided for any results. 0

Conclusion and Recommendation (LO2) score /6

1
 Sufficient summarization of project achievements. Acceptable recommendations for future 3 4
works.
Insufficient summarization of project achievements. No recommendations for future works. 1 2
Conclusion and recommendations are not explained 0
Project Potential (LO4) score /5
Clear explanation of project commercialization potential or practical application 3 4 5
No explanation of project commercialization potential or practical application 0 1 2
Report Format and Writing Skill (LO1) score /5
Report is very clear and sentences are easy to understand. Minor grammatical errors. Report is
well structured and follows standard format. 4 5
Report is well written but occasionally some points are not easy to understand. Some
grammatical errors present. Standard format is used. 2 3

Report is not well written with many grammatical errors and/ or standard format is not followed. 1
Report is too difficult to understand or plagiarized works was presented and/ or standard format is
not followed. 0
References (LO4) score /3
Most reference sources are recent (≤ 5 years) and follow standard format or referencing 3
Acceptable references sources and follow standard format of referencing 2
Poor references sources and incorrect referencing format. 1
No reference. 0
Originality (LO3, EM3) score /5
Original content (Similarity Index less than 30% ) - 5
Original content ( Similarity Index is between 31 - 50 % ) - 2
Original content ( Similarity Index is more than 50 % ) - 0
SUB-TOTAL C / 50

STUDENT’S OVERALL SCORE

NAME OF EXAMINER
SIGNATURE Date