Topic outline

  • Rubrics

    Assessment is done continuously by course teachers based on individual and group work: active participation (25%), blogs (25%), final presentation (25%) and final report (25%). The final grade will be calculated at the end of the course. The Rubrics below describe the assessment criteria. Please use this as a guidance for your learning and to support the quality of your work. 


     In the grades 3–5 of the table, the previous standard of quality is included in the next.


    Grade 1-2 3 4-5

    Blogs

    (25%)

         		The blog is poorly written and/or not delivered on time. The author does report on the design process conducted by their group and does not bring any reflective points. The blog does not provide evidence of the work in progress nor information related to corresponding design stage when the blog was written.The blog lacks information, and is not illustrated according to the content. Citation and references are not used correctly. The blog is well written and on time. The author reports on design process conducted by their group until that point bringing in considerate reflective points. The blog provides evidence of the work in progress and it includes key notions related to corresponding design stage when the blog was written.The blog is well illustrated, citation and references are used correctly. The blog is well written and on time. The author reports on the design process conducted by their group to date, bringing in excellent reflective points, that are well elaborated  supported with evidence (e.g. fieldwork observations, quotes….). The student evaluates their own process/project work. The blog provides evidence of the work in progress and it includes key notions related to the corresponding design stage when the blog was written. The blog is well illustrated and with relevant references that support the arguments. Citation and references are used correctly.
    Active participation
    and contribution to group work
    (25%)    		 The student does not attend to the minimum 80% attendance. Peers report bad performance, and low contribution to teamwork. Passive participation in interactive contact teaching. The student does not provide peer feedback when asked to or is delivered too late. The quality of the comments are low, e.g. non-constructive, too brief or simply does not match the needed content. The student attendance is at least 80%. Peers report good performance, and an average contribution to teamwork. Active participation in interactive contact teaching. The student does provide timely peer feedback when asked, and the quality of the comments are constructive and well articulated.
    		 The student attendance is at least 80%. Peers report a very good performance, and high contribution to teamwork. Active participation in interactive contact teaching. The student does provide timely peer feedback when asked, and the quality of the comments are constructive and very well articulated supported by robust arguments and with personal reflections.
    Final Presentation
    (25%)    		 Clarity, communicability (visual, graphical, oral, etc.): The amount of information lacks synthesis. The team's process and content of the project work is described but not connected to the project results. Lack of consistency in the use of design terms, the message might be confusing.

    Relevance and quality of research:
    Choice of methods, and participant sample lacks justification. Exploration of the subject-matter is surfaced. 

    Usefulness of research analysis and framing of identified problem areas: 
    The identified problems describe challenges, user needs, or human behavours broadly connected to the subject-matter. 

    Relevance of intervention in relation to research analysis:
    Links between research and porposal are not evident. There is a lack of systemic analysis to support the design intervention choice. 
    		 Clarity, communicability (visual, graphical, oral, etc.): The amount of information is correct and supports truthfully the team's design process and project results. Visual language, and appropriate use of design terms supports the message. Fieldwork data and other sources are well deployed as research evidence and project documentation. 

    Relevance and quality of research:
    Choice of methods, and participant sample are well justified. Exploration of the subject-matter includes multiple perspectives.  

    Usefulness of research analysis and framing of identified problem areas: 
    Identified problems are clearly articulated and documented. The identified problems uncover insightful challenges, user needs, or human behavours related to the subject-matter and project brief. 

    Relevance of intervention in relation to research analysis: 
    It is clear 'what needs to change'. There is consistency between research and proposal, links are evident. The choice of the design intervention/instrument is well justified with the systemic analysis, and leverage points identified in the systems maps. There are concrete steps  presented for the suggested change process.    		 Clarity, communicability (visual, graphical, oral, etc.): The narrative is robust and illustrated with relevant stakeholder stories. Visualisations such as diagrams, graphs or models supports the explanation of the work. Use of terms are specifically framed in the government context to suppport the key stakeholder's understanding. 

    Relevance and quality of research:
    Choice of methods, and participant sample are well justified. Exploration of the subject-matter is done in depth; it shows a critical and mature understanding of the topic. 

    Usefulness of research analysis and framing of identified problem areas: 
    Identified problems are clearly articulated and documented. The identified problems uncover insightful systemic challenges, user needs, or human behavours from relevant perspectives. 

    Relevance of intervention in relation to research analysis: 
    There is consistency between research and proposal, links are very well-justified. The choice of the design intervention is very well-suited to tackle the identified leverage point. The proposal is well-connected to the government's actions – or to other relevant stakeholders.
     Final Report (25%)  Description of the design process:
    The report is a summary of the entire design process across all phases. Description on the process lacks justifications for decisions made (selection of research participants, research methods, etc…). The value of the process is confusing. There are gaps bewteen design phases, which make the design process confusing. 

    Description of the project work:
    The team describes the content of the project with inconsistent use of design terms. The content lacks connection to the project topic and context of the work. 

    Documentation:
    The report lacks documentation of the process. The project work lacks general evidence. Credits and referencing is inconsistent, which questions research ethics, anonymity and confidentiality. The overall presentation of the report contains errors. 

    Critical reflection: 
    The report lacks reflective points. Conclusions on the learnings are rather summaries, which do not add depth or additional insight to the project report.    		Description of the design process:
    The report is a summary of the entire design process across all phases. Description on the process provides justifications for decisions made (selection of research participants, research methods, etc…). The value of the process is not articulated. There are links between all design phases, which are coherent. 

    Description of the project work:
    The team describes the content of the project with clarity, using correctly design terms introduced in the course, with references to the project topic and context of the work. 

    Documentation:
    Documentation on the design process (visualisations of the process, pictures, …) and research evidence (fieldwork data, pictures…), support the content of the work. Credits and referencing is done correctly, in-line with research ethics, anonymity and confidentiality. 

    Critical reflection: 
    The report provides some reflective points but does not elaborate further. Conclusions lack the team's own point of view and personal evaluation of the subject matter/design process.      		 Description of the design process:
    The report is a summary of the entire design process across all phases. Descriptions articulate on the value of the employed methods, tools and approaches, which provide excellent justifications for decisions made (selection of research participants, research methods, etc…).  Links between design phases are well-argued. 

    Description of the project work:
    The team describes the content of the project with clarity, using correctly design terms introduced in the course. The content shows a mature understanding of the project topic and context of the work. References from relevant sources support arguments and justifications. 

    Documentation:
    The report is well-documented with  research evidence, which support the general documentation of the process. Graphs and visualisations contribute to a clear communication of the project work. Credits and referencing is done correctly and support anonymity, in-line with research ethics, anonymity and confidentiality. 

    Critical reflection: 
    Team evaluates their own work and project critically. By providing elaborated reflections the team gets through their own point of view on the subject matter/design field.  

◄ Previous section
Inspirational reading
Next section ►
Final Show Materials