Topic outline

  • Grading

    The course grade is based on maximum of 20p from the essay and 20p from the group work assignment.

    Essay:

    • max. 16 points based on the peer-review assessment
    • max. 2 points from the BYOE workshop feedback
    • max. 2 points from providing excellent feedback and peer-reviews (min. -2 points if no effort is evident in the feedback)

    Group work:

    • max. 12 points from the final pitching
    • max. 8 points from the lecture exercise deliverables (see detailed criteria below)
    Points  Grade 
     0   - 19.99
    		 0
     20 - 23.99
    		 1
     24 - 27.99
    		 2
     28 - 31.99
    		 3
     32 - 34.99
    		 4
     35 or more 
    		 5

    The grading range's lower value is the minimum score required for that grade.
    .99 fractions added for clarity.

    Bring Your Own Essay criteria (2p)

    • 1.0p - Deliverable: Essay draft formatted according to the template with a minimum of 5 pages (for .5p), 8 pages minimum for the total 1.0p (including cover and references)
      • No oversized images or extra page breaks please.
    • .5p - Attend the BYOE in person, and read at least TWO other students' essay drafts
    • .25p/.5p - Give constructive feedback for at least two other students' essay drafts

    Essay criteria (16p)


    The course staff reserves the right to adjust the average score of the peer-review if the gap between the lowest and highest peer-review scores is very large. Most often this is done by removing an outlier score from the average. Case by case decision is made if scores differ by 8 points or more.

    Referencing (0-2 points)

    0p: Very poor referencing or no references used at all. Referencing style is erratic.

    1p: Referencing used almost right, but there are unclear references, poor list of references, or several sentences whose source is unclear.

    2p: Referencing used properly; easy to see, which parts are from the materials and which ones are the writer's own ideas.

    Coverage of material (0-4 points) (materials include 9 given articles and 1 searched new article)

    0p: 3 or more of the given materials are not included in the essay, or the essay does not include any new material in addition to the given one.

    1p: Essay does not discuss 1-2 of the given materials, or all the materials are referred in the essay, but they are just mechanically listed/summarized without proper discussion or conclusions.

    2p: All materials are discussed in the essay, and about half of the given materials (at most 4 are covered insufficiently) are explained and discussed in an appropriate detail.

    3p: All materials are discussed in the essay, and most of the given materials (at most 2 are covered insufficiently) are explained and discussed in an appropriate detail.

    4p: All materials are explained and discussed in an appropriate detail.

    Structure of the essay (0-2 points)

    0p: There is no understandable structure that the reader could follow.

    1p: The essay goes through the materials one by one without synthesis or clear conclusions.

    2p: The essay has a clear structure that supports the topic and synthesises the materials to reach conclusions.

    Language and presentation (0-3 points)

    0p: The essay is hard to read, including disruptively many spelling errors. The text consists mostly of lists instead of sentences. The language is too complicated making the essay difficult to understand. The essay does not include any visualizations (figures, tables or charts).

    1p: The text includes minor spelling errors, but is mostly finalized and easy to understand. Essay contains figures, tables or charts that do not support the text.

    2p: The essay is easy and fluent to read. The presentation includes figures, tables or charts that support or summarize the text.

    3p: The essay is easy and fluent to read, and uses professional language. The essay uses different presentation methods variously to support the text and to summarize key findings.

    Content (0-5 points)

    0p: There are substantial misunderstandings or errors in the essay.

    1p: Presentation of the materials includes some misunderstandings and errors, but is mostly correct. There are no real conclusions or they are irrelevant or trivial.

    2p: In between: better than 1p, but does not fully meet the requirements of 3p

    3p: The essay presents the materials in a clear and understandable way, but does not include writer's own experiences or thoughts. The conclusions are quite brief, but they have been drawn appropriately from the material.

    4p: In between: better than 3p, but does not fully meet the requirements of 5p

    5p: The essay combines the cited works consistently and clearly, and reflects them to writer's own experiences or thoughts. Conclusions are clear and well elaborated. Also the materials have been assessed critically.

    There is no fixed grading limits for length, but clearly too short or long essays should lose points in Contents, Structure and/or Language and presentation. I would suggest additionally lowering the score one extra point for each missing page below 7 (C’mon people, it really cannot be shorter than 5-6 pages of text+cover+references), and each extra page over 12 (let us allow one extra page without a debate) if there is no plausible reason for the added length (such as max 2 pages of appendixes).

    Show Me Your Data criteria (2p)

    • .5p - Selection and application of user research methods
    • .5p - Ability to describe the chosen Customer Scene
    • .5p - Validity or perceived validity of the data
    • .5p - Linkage, relevance, and potential with the course theme


    User Research & Qualitative Analysis criteria (2p)

    • .5p - Deliverable: Affinity Diagram or Mind Map
    • .5p - Deliverable: 3 Transcribed and Anonymized Interviews (should include focusing follow-up questions)
    • .5p - Description of the categories/clusters in the Affinity Diagram
    • .5p - Description of the used Strategy to perform the categorization / clustering


    Communicating Results criteria (2p)

    • .5p - Deliverable: Description of main User Groups (User Profiles)
    • .5p - Deliverable: Personas (for main User Groups)
    • .5p - Deliverable: User Task Analysis (visualize main tasks)
    • .5p - Deliverable: Scenario


    Customer Journey and Stakeholder Maps criteria (2p)

    • .5p - Deliverable: Customer Journey Map. Visualize the entire Customer Journey, identify relevant touch points (journey steps)
    • .5p - Deliverable: Description of found touch points (journey steps) in sufficient detail
    • .5p - Deliverable: Stakeholder Map
    • .5p - Deliverable: Description of the stakeholders and their connections in sufficient detail


    Pitching criteria (click here to download the detailed criteria)

    • 0p-4p - Reliability and quality of the empirical evidence
    • 0p-4p - Analysis is valid and conclusions are meaningful
    • 0p-2p - Clear communication of results, essentially presentation technique and materials
    • 0p-2p - Relevance and value to the customer and to their customers


    • File icon
      Making Peer Assessment More Acceptable and Motivating PDF File PDF
    • Not available unless: You belong to L01 (SISU)
      Page icon
      Results Page
◄ Previous section
Customer Scene Investigation (CSI)