Transcription of BME Design Grading Overview
1 BME Design Grading Overview Overview The goal of this document is to increase the transparency of BME Design Grading process. It is challenging because the course includes students from three levels, projects that address a wide variety of focus areas (tissue engineering, instrumentation, biomechanics, etc.) with variable degrees of maturity and difficulty, clients with different levels of expertise, technical savvy and funding, and a dozen or more advisors in any given semester. Grading Process Most grade components are assessed using standardized evaluation forms that can be found on the course website. Guides describing how to produce A'-worthy course deliverables such as presentations, papers and notebooks are on the course website as well.
2 The faculty advisor (or team of advisors) directly assesses those components that do not have an evaluation form. Final grades are then calculated as an approximately equal weighting of scores in the following categories: 1. Course deliverables a. Notebooks (midsemester and final). b. Oral presentation (midsemester and final). c. Written documentation (midsemester and final). 2. Project output and team function Design process completeness (also evaluated as part of each deliverable). Prototype construction and evaluation (PDS, client satisfaction). Contributions to advisor meetings, group meetings, and team objectives (Peer/Self Assessment).
3 Technical leadership; outreach (for 402). Group v. Individual Work BME Design is a team-oriented course, so individual grades are partially linked to team performance. Individual performance can be assessed directly from notebooks, meeting discussions, and contribution to team objectives. We also look for evidence of individual contributions in other categories. Individual performance is obvious during oral presentations, but cannot be completely decoupled from team output (slide layout and content, evidence of Design process, etc). While it is not feasible to directly assess each person's contribution to written reports or prototype construction and testing, advisors use details in the notebook, progress reports and meeting discussions to gain additional insight.
4 On the whole, there is approximately equal contribution from individual and group performance to the Grading categories. Scoring v. Grades Evaluation forms include several outcomes that are typically graded on a 4-point scale. The overall score for each deliverable is a weighted average of the outcome scores ( , experimental data or analysis may not be expected at midsemester). Those scores are reported on the evaluation form, and are often converted into an approximate grade or grade range for student interpretation. Grading Consistency We use standardized evaluation forms and criteria for most assessments, but each project, client, group and advisor are different just as each job, market, company and boss are different.
5 Category weights are adjusted slightly based on advisor discretion to account for the uniqueness of each project and team. In general, if you do good work, you will get a good grade, according to the following descriptors: A = outstanding performance in all categories AB = some minor deficiencies in some deliverables B = minor deficiencies in most/all of the categories, or one major problem in course deliverables BC = minor deficiencies in all categories and/or multiple major problems in course deliverables C = major problems with course deliverables, sub-par effort overall D = missing deliverables, major problems with deliverables that were turned in, poor effort F = no deliverables, no effort
