Progress Report Marked Rubric
Hello, dear friend, you can consult us at any time if you have any questions, add WeChat: THEend8_
ENG4701 Progress Report Marked Rubric
Please use this rubric to discuss with your supervisor how you can improve your work for the ENG4702 Final Report. The highlighted items criteria are an
average of two assessors’ marks for the criteria.
Note: The marked rubric is feedback - it states the performance criteria required to improve from your current (highlighted) level to higher levels.
Project Title: Machine-learning-based prediction of aerodynamic forces on airfoils at low Reynolds numbers
Student Details: Jiaqi Sun (28152190)
Overall Grade: C (Moderated) - This grade may not necessarily match this rubric, as there was a large disagreement between the assessors. This
report was moderated by the discipline co-ordinator
Comment(s) from
Marker(s):
Good progress report.
Please make and effort to allow any engineer/scientist to understand your report. Explain Reynold's numbers, aerodynamic
derivatives qualitatively. For your full report make sure you provide a birds-eye view explanation of the machine learning models,
the labeled training data that goes into the model and the test data. Provide examples that illustrate what you are trying to
achieve.
-----
Methodology requires a lot more details, e.g. loss functions, neural network framework, training data
-----
ENG4701 Progress Report Marking Rubric - 60%
Facet 80-89 (90+ only if exceptional – e.g.immediately publishable) 70-79 60-69 50-59 0-49 (0 if element is missing)
Introduction
(/5)
The introduction enables the reader to
understand the purpose and the significance
of the project, clearly and logically.
The introduction enables the reader to
understand the purpose and the significance
of the project, but they are left with some
questions in their mind.
The introduction enables the reader to
understand the purpose and the significance
of the project, but they are left with some
obvious unanswered questions in their mind.
The introduction enables the reader to
understand the purpose and the significance
of the project, but there is some confusion
and numerous obvious answered questions
in their mind.
The introduction leaves the reader with
significant confusion regarding the purpose
and/or significance of the project.
Hypothesis/Research
Question
(/5)
The hypothesis OR research question OR
problem opportunity statement is
exceptionally well formulated based on the
gaps identified in the literature review.
The hypothesis OR research question OR
problem opportunity statement is very well
formulated based on the gaps identified in
literature review
The hypothesis OR research question OR
problem opportunity statement is
moderately formulated based on the gaps
identified in literature review
The hypothesis OR research question OR
problem opportunity statement is poorly
formulated based on the gaps identified in
literature review
The hypothesis OR research question OR
problem opportunity statement is not
defined.
Aims & Objectives
(/5)
Aims are highly appropriate and aligned to
the topic.
Aims are appropriate and aligned to the
topic.
Aims are somewhat appropriate and aligned
to the topic.
Aims are mostly inappropriate and have poor
alignment with the topic.
Inappropriate aims presented, and/or lacks
alignment with the topic.
Objectives are clear, appropriate, Specific,
Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and
Time-bound (SMART).
Objectives are clear, appropriate, Specific,
Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and
Time-bound (SMART). Only minor
improvements to be made.
Objectives are moderately clear, appropriate,
Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic
and Time-bound (SMART).
Objectives are identified and somewhat
appropriate.
Objectives are not clear or SMART.
Literature
Review/State of the
Field
(/10)
Click here for help
on writing a
Literature Review
Click here for help
on citing and
referencing
Click here for help
on maintaining
Academic Integrity
Technical challenges are clearly identified,
systematically organized and explained in
context and justified.
Technical challenges are clearly identified,
explained in context and justified.
Technical challenges are clearly identified and
explained in context.
Technical challenges are identified and
explained.
Key technical challenges are lacking or
vaguely specified.
Existing techniques/solutions are critically
reviewed, compared/analysed and
systematically organised and presented.
Existing techniques/solutions are reviewed
and critically compared, but lack systematic
organisation and presentation.
Existing techniques/solutions are identified,
reviewed and critically compared.
Existing techniques/solutions are identified
and presented, but there is no review or
comparison of them.
Existing techniques/solutions are not clearly
identified, reviewed, or compared.
Consults a very large number (>30, or an
exhaustive number, depending on field) of
appropriate sources to problem solve and
justify the approach used systematically and
comprehensively.
Consults numerous (15 to 30) appropriate
sources to problem solve and justify the
approach used systematically and
comprehensively.
Consults numerous (6-15) appropriate
sources and compares existing solutions to
and justify the approach used.
Consults some (3-5) appropriate sources to
problem solve and justify the approach used.
References are inappropriate/irrelevant to
the problem, or missing.
Facet 80-89 (90+ only if exceptional – e.g.immediately publishable) 70-79 60-69 50-59 0-49 (0 if element is missing)
Methodology &
Methods
(/10)
(Research Projects)
Appropriate choice of research methodology,
clearly and convincingly justified by literature
review and insightful analysis of the problem.
Appropriate choice of research methodology,
justified by literature review and insightful
analysis of the problem.
Appropriate choice of research methodology,
justified by analysis of the problem.
Appropriate choice of research methodology,
with weak justifications.
Inappropriate choice of research
methodology
Appropriate selection of research methods
that strongly support the chosen
methodology and will clearly generate
intended data.
Appropriate selection of research methods
that support the chosen methodology and
will most likely generate intended data.
Appropriate selection of research methods
that support the chosen methodology but
may not fully generate the intended data.
Appropriate selection of research methods
that support the chosen methodology but it
is unclear if it will generate the intended
data.
Inappropriate selection of research methods
Clear and detailed description of proposed
data to be collected with appropriately
chosen instruments and detailed and specific
experimental procedures if appropriate.
Clear and detailed description of proposed
data to be collected with appropriately
chosen instruments and general
experimental procedures if appropriate.
General, but not detailed, description of
proposed data to be collected with chosen
instruments and experimental procedures if
appropriate.
General, but not detailed, description of
proposed data to be collected with vague
description of instruments and general
experimental procedures if appropriate.
Data collection process is inappropriate
Clear and detailed description of proposed
data analysis techniques that are highly likely
to result in the ability to draw meaningful
conclusions that answer the research
question or prove/disprove the hypothesis.
Clear description of proposed data analysis
techniques that are likely to result in the
ability to draw meaningful conclusions that
answer the research question or
prove/disprove the hypothesis.
Clear description of proposed data analysis
techniques that may result in the ability to
draw meaningful conclusions that answer the
research question or prove/disprove the
hypothesis.
Vague description of proposed data analysis
techniques that may or may not result in the
ability to draw meaningful conclusions that
answer the research question or
prove/disprove the hypothesis.
Data analysis techniques are inappropriate
Requirements,
Design
Specifications &
Approach
(/10)
(Consulting /
Industry Projects)
Functional, Non-Functional and Stretch
project requirements are identified and
clearly stated with evidence of consultation,
review and approval by the stakeholders.
Requirements are realistic and highly likely to
be realised.
Functional and Non-Functional project
requirements are identified and stated with
evidence of consultation, review and
approval by the stakeholders. Requirements
are realistic and likely to be realised.
Functional and Non-Functional project
requirements are identified and stated.
Requirements are realistic and likely to be
realised.
Functional project requirements are
identified and clearly stated and appropriate.
Project requirements are unclearly stated
and inappropriate.
A Design Specification proposes elegant and
detailed solutions demonstrating significant
initiative and evidence of original thought in
the resolution of the project goals.
A Design Specification proposes realistic and
detailed solutions demonstrating significant
initiative and evidence of original thought in
the resolution of the project goals.
A Design Specification proposes possibly
workable solutions demonstrating evidence
of original thought in the resolution of the
project goals.
A Design Specification proposes questionable
solutions that are likely, but not convincingly,
able to achieve the project goals.
Designs are unrealistic and unlikely to
achieve the project goals.
All design decisions are convincingly justified
by systematic evaluation and comparison of
proposed solutions and alternatives.
Most design decisions are justified by
systematic evaluation and comparison of
proposed solutions and alternatives.
Some design decisions are justified by
systematic evaluation and comparison of
proposed solutions and alternatives.
Design decisions are weakly justified with
attempted (but questionable) analysis.
Design decisions are not justified.
Clear evidence of evaluation of the strengths
and weaknesses of the project approach,
which are addressed with suggestions for
mitigation.
Clear evidence of evaluation of the strengths
and weaknesses of the project approach.
Some evidence of evaluation of the strengths
and weaknesses of the project approach.
Weak evidence of evaluation of the strengths
and weaknesses of the project approach.
No evaluation of the strengths and
weaknesses of the project approach.
Facet 80-89 (90+ only if exceptional – e.g.immediately publishable) 70-79 60-69 50-59 0-49 (0 if element is missing)
Project Progress
(Research Projects)