FYP/FYT Grading Scheme

Preamble

A faculty member from the CSE dept. is assigned to each FYP as a reader. For FYT's, each adviser will invite a faculty member usually from the CSE dept. to be the reader. The advisors and the readers are responsible for grading the four components (proposal report, progress report, oral presentation and demo, and final report) of the projects/theses and for arriving at a final grade for each student. For projects that have a software development component, we expect to see the use of software engineering techniques in the project. For the CPEG students who have not taken COMP 3111 (previously known as COMP 211), they are encouraged to visit the project example page of COMP 3111 to get some basic ideas.

The CSE department wishes all students to write good academic reports. Thus, ALL FYP/FYT students are required to meet with our Communication Tutors to check their reports twice before the submission of the final report. Check the Instruction for Reports as well as the Communication Tutors' website for more details.

Grades are given to individual students based on their own contributions to their projects. Each FYP/FYT student needs to submit an individual self assessment report of his/her contributions upon the submission of final reports. Members of a group project may receive different grades.

Demonstrations of the final results are required for every project that has a software component.

Oral presentations and posters are required, although only oral presentations are graded.

Grading Specifics

There are three aspects to the FYP/FYT grading.

  1. [COMP 4982/COMP 4982H/COMP 4991/COMP 4992/COMP 4981/COMP 4988]

    All students are given an official grade of PP at the end of the Summer and Fall semesters respectively. The four components of the final score have the following weighting from the advisor's perspective:

    • Project proposal report - 5%
    • Project progress report - 25%
    • Final project report - 40%
    • Oral presentation - 30%

    The advisor may give different scores in each of the four components to students within the same group.

    The reader will focus on the product of the project. A different set of weights are used based on the reader's perspective:

    • Project proposal report - 5%
    • Project progress report - 15%
    • Final project report - 40%
    • Oral presentation - 40%

    The reader gives one score for each of the four components for each project.

  2. [Grade Determination]
    • Advisors and readers grade the four components independently.
    • Advisors grade the four components for each of the students in group projects. Thus, it is possible that members of the group receive different scores for each component.
    • Readers grade the four components for the project only. Thus, all members receive the same score for each component.
    • The final score for each student is computed by combining the scores given by the advisor and the reader using a advisor-reader weighting of 60:40.
    • Readers may interact with advisors during the year to gain more insights on the projects.
  3. [The four components]
    • Both the readers and the supervisors use the same grading scheme for each component.
    • The grading scheme for the proposal report is:
      • Project objective formulation, methodology to be followed, background - 30%
      • Clarity and presentation of the report (organization, use of English) - 40%
      • Planning of future work - 30%
    • The grading scheme for the progress report is:
      • Work completed - 50%
      • Clarity and presentation of the report (organization, use of English) - 20%
      • Use of software engineering techniques (concepts of initial system development, system requirement specification, system analysis specification & user interface specification are included here) - 30%
    • The grading scheme for the final report is:
      • Results obtained - 60%
      • Clarity and presentation of the report (organization, use of English) - 30%
      • Use of software engineering techniques (concepts of system design specification and implementation are included here) - 10%
    • The grading scheme for the oral presentation is:
      • Organization and quality of slides - 30%
      • Timing and clarity of presentation, demo - 40%
      • Quality of answers - 30%