DA224X, DA225X, DA226X: Grading criteria

The degree project is evaluated according to the following criteria: Process, Engineering and Academic content in addition to the Presentation. These are placed on a scale from Very high quality (MHK) to High quality (HK), Pass (G) or Fail (F).

Process consists of three evaluation segments; Content consists of four and Presentation consists of three. These are evaluated on a scale of Very high quality (MHK), Pass (G) or Fail (F). If a degree project receives the grade F in any segment, it cannot be awarded an overall passing grade. For both MHK and G, all criteria for both levels must be met.

Weighting of segment grades

To obtain the respective final grades, the following is required:

MHK in all areas of Process, Content and Presentation

MHK in two areas and HK in the third

lowest of HK in two areas

lowest of HK in one area

All areas passed

Grading criteria and weighting for each segment

For each respective area to receive the respective grade, all areas for grading must be passed and:

Process

MHK

MHK for at least two grading areas

MHK for one grading area

P1, P2, P3 passed

Engineering and academic content

MHK

MHK for at least two grading areas

MHK for one grading area

IV1, IV2, IV3, IV4 passed

Note that part IV4 can only be graded with G or F.

Presentation

MHK

MHK for Pre1 and one of Pre2 and Pre3

MHK for Pre1 or for both of Pre2 and Pre3

Pre1, Pre2, Pre3 passed

Process

The ability to comprehensively, critically, independently and creatively identify, formulate, analyse, evaluate and manage complex phenomena and issues also with limited information.

The ability to critically and systematically integrate knowledge and the ability to identify the need for further knowledge

The ability to plan and complete qualified tasks using adequate methods for the framework stated, in addition to evaluating this work.

The significance of the goals for the degree project

Grounds for assessment

The ability to formulate a relevant research question for the work, analyse this adequately, and critically assess the results of the study in relation to the question.

The report: Question, Results and Conclusions

Display independent working

The ability to plan and conduct acquisition of new knowledge

The ability to plan time and content and follow this plan

The specification and supervisor's foundation for the project process

The ability to complete a correct evaluation of the project

The report: Evaluation

Grading criteria

P1: Question and conclusions thereon

The project has a clear and well-defined hypothesis that can be adequately tested. There is a clear connection between the hypothesis, results and conclusions. The project's conclusions are well supported and correct.

MHK

Additionally, the hypothesis is well thought through and the project is shown to be comprehensive through the hypothesis and/or methods being collected from several subjects

P2: Independence and planning

A thorough and realistic specification for the project has been formulated independently. If it has not been possible to meet set deadlines, adjustments have been documented and communicated.

The project has been conducted independently, but with moderate input from the supervisor. Feedback from the supervisor has been taken into consideration constructively.

MHK

The student has, in addition, planned their time well and met the deadlines.

P3 Evaluation

The project has been evaluated in a correct manner, using suitable methods.

MHK

The evaluation is exhaustive (e.g., it uses various alternative methods) and the results are analysed openly and critically.

Engineering and academic content

Substantial deepened knowledge within the main field/specialisation of the subject, including a deepened insight into research and development work.

Deepened knowledge of methodology within the main field/specialisation of the subject,

The ability to create different technical solutions as well as to participate in research and development work and thereby contribute to knowledge development

The ability to identify, within the framework of the specific degree project, which questions need to be asked in order for relevant dimensions of sustainable development to be taken into consideration

The ability to, within the framework of the degree project, assess and show awareness of ethical aspects of research and development work regarding methods, work practices and results of the degree project

The ability to, within the framework of the degree project, identify the role of science and the engineer in society

The significance of the goals for the degree project

Grounds for assessment

IV1

Display advanced knowledge within the subject field

Display knowledge of relevant current research and development

The report: Theory and background (incl. previous studies), Discussion

IV2

The ability to select, describe and apply relevant methods for the work

The report: Method selection and the application of the selected method.

IV3

The ability to participate in research and development and contribute new knowledge

The report: Results, Conclusions

IV4

The ability to relate the work to sustainable development, issues of scientific ethics and societal benefit or social impact, where relevant

The report: Introduction and/or discussion

IV1: Background knowledge in the main area

The work utilises knowledge from second-cycle studies within the main area. The background contains a written summary of previous research and development and the student's own work is in accordance with the conclusions of this summary. The work's relation to the knowledge front within the main area is described.

MHK

The summary of the literature also contains a more succinct synthesis of previous research and/or development work which is relevant for the work.

IV2: Method selection and application

Engineering or scientific theories and methods, relevant for the main area/focus, have been chosen, presented and applied correctly.

The degree project shows an in-depth method knowledge regarding problem formulation, modelling, analysis and evaluation.

MHK

Chosen theories and methods have been applied and/or combined in a more innovative manner.

IV3: The work's contribution

The work has been conducted in a research or development environment, which has been clearly presented. The results of the work are correct, non-trivial and have an established news value.

MHK

Furthermore, the work contributes to knowledge of a certain greater significance (e.g. it must, following revision together with the supervisor, be capable of being published at an examining conference or be applied in practical engineering utilisation.

IV4: Awareness of ethical, social and sustainability aspects

Presents the questions posed as well as justifies the work and discusses results based on perspectives with a focus on sustainable development and ethical aspects or clearly and correctly accounts for these dimensions being missing in the specific degree project.

Presents the societal relevance of the assignment and the results by clearly discussing for whom and why the work and its results are interesting in a broader perspective.

Presentation, analysis, argument

The ability to, orally and in writing in English and/or Swedish, clearly present and discuss one's conclusions and the knowledge and arguments that form the basis for these.

The ability to analyse and critically evaluate different technical solutions

The significance of the goals for the degree project

Grounds for assessment

Pre1

The ability to present the work in a written report that is clear in terms of argument, structure, language and academic/technical formalities.

The report: entire

Pre2

Ability to orally present and discuss the work

Oral presentation

Pre3

Ability to immerse oneself in other projects and solutions

Public discussion and examination of other degree projects

Grading criteria

Pre1: Written report

The report is well-structured with a clear presentation of the work, the results and conclusions with a clear analysis and a well-supported argument. Structure, language and layout in the report follow technical/academic standard. Spelling, grammar and formatting are at a good level. The results are presented in a structured way and are clearly illustrated (figures, tables, charts etc.).

MHK

The report as a whole is very well-written with report structure, linguistic use, formalities and scientific accuracy of the highest quality.

Pre2: Oral presentation

The presentation is clear, succinct, adapted to the audience and keeps within the set time frame. Questions and comments from the opponent and audience are answered in a satisfactory manner.

MHK

Furthermore, the presentation is motivational and summarises the background, method and result of the work with good presentation techniques. Questions and comments from the opponent and audience are answered in order for an in-depth discussion.

Pre3: Public discussion and examination

Written opposition: The opponent record is clear and completed.

The respondent's report has been evaluated critically with strengths and any weaknesses identified. Relevant and constructive suggestions for improvement have been given.

Oral opposition: Questions and comments have enabled the respondent to explain ambiguities and further develop arguments in the report by opening up for in-depth answers.

Group supervision: The student has constructively participated in the written and oral feedback of the other group members' work (e.g. assignment description, specification, theory, report draft). The assessment basis is not included in the exceptional cases when the degree project has not been conducted with group supervision.

MHK

The written opposition has also given such relevant and realistic suggestions for improvement that the report can be improved if they are adhered to. The valuation of the report is in-depth and examines the work's method, results and evaluation in a way which displays the opponent's own in-depth knowledge within the main area.

The oral opposition has asked questions that enable an in-depth, relevant for the audience, discussion between the opponent and the respondent who thereby has contributed to increasing the audience's understanding of the work.

Group supervision: The student's feedback to other group members has been of very high quality in the form of relevant and realistic suggestions for improvement that have meant that at least one other work in the group has been significantly improved, or could have been, if the suggestions had been applied. The assessment basis is not included in the exceptional cases when the degree project has not been conducted with group supervision.