File Name

Location

Description

Slope.shp

\final_project\data\results\

Shapefile containing slope information derived from dem. In polygon format.

Presentation (10%)

 Title and Intro (10%)

Methods (30%)

Results (10%)

Discussion (30%)

Conclusion (5%)

Appendix(5%)

90-100%

Dissertation organised & presented appropriately, clearly, succinctly

& professionally; could be published with only minor corrections.

References correctly cited and presented.

Information can be grasped at a glance; no duplication.

The motivation is described by critically analyzing relevant literature. Outstanding understanding of previous work. The project aim is correctly and clearly defined. Outstanding title demonstrating the topic clearly.

Concrete details of methods.

The research design is sound and creative; The criterion definitions are justified by multiple credible sources; Appropriate GIS tool selection and correct sequence of tools, as outlined in a flowchart.

The results are properly demonstrated in figures and/or tables, and fully summarized in text.

Sound explanations are given to the results. Error sources are fully discovered and correctly analyzed. Proper recommendations for actions are proposed based on the current situation.

Concise wrap-up, covering what has been done. Take home messages are consistent with aim.

All files are listed in the appendix table with name, location, and detailed descriptions.

80-89%

As 90-100 above but some corrections, deletions & amendments would be needed before publication. Style. of writing clear and perceptive.

As 90-100% above but less critically, showing still excellent understanding of previous work. An excellent title but the expression still can be improved.

As 90-100% except research design is less creative

As 90-100% but some results are over-stated.

As 90-100% but some evidence of over interpreting data.

As 90-100% except less  concise recap, but still covering all important take home messages.

As 90-100% except over-detailed file description.

70-79%

Clear & easy to read, but not necessarily publishable.

Presentation first class but with occasional repetition. Some inadequacies of style, leading to occasional misunderstandings. Good organization of references but with occasional formatting errors.

As 80-89% above but still good understanding the previous work. Some critical analysis on previous literature were attempted. A good title but some imprecise words.

As 80-89% except no creativity was shown in the research design.

 As 80-89, except some data could be demonstrated in a better way.

As 80-89% but less awareness on how to improve the present practice.

As 80-89% except some redundant information in the research recap.

As 80-89% except missing some minor information in file description.

60-69%

Very good, logical presentation; writing style. generally good, but some paragraphs obscure. Some repetition of both information & remarks. Overall easy to follow. Good organization of references but with some formatting errors.

The motivation is described by analyzing the background but without much critical thinking. The project aim is correctly and clearly defined. Good title but with some unrelated information.

As 70-79% except some minor issues found in the criterion definition or tool selection.

As 70-79% except some minor issues in data demonstration.

As 70-79% except minor issues found in 1-2 of the following items: 1) Interpretation of results; 2) evaluations on error sources; 3)

suggestions to improve current practice.

As 70-79% except some recap information is missing.

As 70-79% except missing some important information in file description.

50-59%

Good presentation, but writing style. not very good. Often inappropriate choice of illustrations, possibly too few or too many, too small, too complex, etc.

Graphs & tables not very well laid out. Repetition or poor organization of ideas & information. Significant formatting errors were found in references.

As 69-60% but some important literature is missing. No critical analysis was made. Title is generally consistent with the topic but not exact.

As 60-69% except some major issues found in tool selection.

As 60-69% except some major issues in data demonstration.

As 60-69% except minor issues found all three items: 1) Interpretation of results; 2) evaluations on error sources; 3)

suggestions to improve current practice.

As 60-69% except a few important take home messages were missing or the whole research recap is missing.

As 60-69% except missing a small number of file descriptions.

40-49%

Overall impression satisfactory & gives a reasonable knowledge of the major findings of the project, but poor presentation, e.g. graphs with bad scales and/or too few points, illustrations not well chosen, written style

unclear, poor organization of references etc.

As 59-50% but a large portion of important literature is missing. Title covers the broad area of the topic but not specific.

As 50-59% except some major issues found in the research design.

As 50-59% except many major issues in data demonstration, but, on the whole, data comprehensively presented.

As 50-59% except major issues found in one of the three items: 1) Interpretation of results; 2) evaluations on error sources; 3)

suggestions to improve current practice.

As 50-59% except sizable portion of take home messages were missing but still with research recap.

As 50- 59% except missing a large number of file descriptions.

30-39%

Presentation with many inadequacies, difficult to ascertain all that has been discovered.

However, a significant portion of the report is reasonably understandable.

As 40-49% except the aim was mentioned but without much background information. Title is partially related to topic.

As 40-49% except many issues found in the research design but still with a general framework.

As 40-49% except missing a large portion of results, but some major results were demonstrated and described.

As 40-49% except major issues found in two of the three items: 1) Interpretation of results; 2) evaluations on error sources; 3)

suggestions to improve current practice.

As 40-49% except missing most of take home message. Some attempts in recapping this research.

As 40- 49% except missing most file descriptions.

20-29%

Inadequate presentation. Information mixed up & not sensibly organized. Painful reading and, at the end, little clear idea of the major findings of the investigation.

The aim was not mentioned or incorrectly identified. Only a little relevant background information was mentioned. The title is marginally related to the topic.

As 30-39% except missing a large portion of methods and fail to make research design.

As 30-39% except most major results were missing.

Inadequate description of most results.

As 30-39% except major issues found in all of the three items: 1) Interpretation of results; 2) evaluations on error sources; 3)

suggestions to improve current practice.

No literature awareness

As 30-39% except no or almost no attempts in recapping this research.

As 30- 39% except missing almost all file descriptions.

10-19%

Very poor presentation. Information unorganized into any logically apparent sequence. Findings incoherent.

Missing aim and very little background information. Title is not consistent with topic, but with a few relevant words.

As 20-29% except only a few patches of methods were described.

Very few results were demonstrated or described.

Very few relevant discussions were made.

As 20-29% except no or almost no take home messages but still with some attempts in recapping this research.

Only file names were reported.

0-9%

No evidence in organization.

Irrelevant or no background information. Irrelevant or no aim and title.

No or irrelevant methods were described.

No or irrelevant results were demonstrated or described. No or almost no attempt in data handling

No or irrelevant discussions.

No or irrelevant information provided.

No or irrelevant file information was provided.