Assessment Criteria Section 

Weight

Unsubstantiated

90-100 

80 – 89 

70 – 79 

60 – 69 

50 – 59 

40 – 49 

30 – 39 

20 – 29 

0 – 19

Project background, context and innovation.

20% 

Provides a compelling, well-researched project background with deep  

contextual insight.  

Justification is highly persuasive,  original, and relevant.  

Demonstrates exceptional problem  solving ability with highly original,  innovative solutions of commerical  quality. 

A strong project background 

supported by relevant sources.  

Justification is clear, well argued, and  demonstrates thoughtful  

understanding of the significance of  the topic. 

Effectively solves complex problems  using thoughtful and creative  methods. 

Background is well developed and mostly relevant.  

Justification is logical and supported  by appropriate references.  

May lack some depth or originality but  remains coherent and convincing. 

Applies sound problem solving  strategies and introduces some  creative ideas. 

Adequate background with some relevant context.  

Justification is present but this  may be very general or not fully  developed.  

Demonstrates competent  problem solving with occasional  innovation.

Basic background provided with minimal context.  

Justification is vague or lacks  clarity with weak connection to  broader significance. 

Limited innovation or creativity. 

Background is superficial or partially relevant.  

Justification is unclear or poorly  articulated.  

Little understanding of context. 

Relies heavily on existing  

guidance or well established  methods.

Background is minimal or 

unfocused.  

Justification is weak,  

unsupported, or missing key  elements.  

Very little evidence of innovation.

Very limited background. 

Justification is absent or  

incoherent.  

Very limited evidence of problem  solving.

No discernible project 

background or justification.  

Lacks any meaningful  

engagement. 

Lacks understanding of the  project requirements with no use  of innovation.

Design and 

implementation

40% 

Design is highly innovative, robust, and user focused.  

Implementation is flawless, efficient,  and fully documented and tested. 

Exceeds expectations in functionality  and performance.

Design is well thought out and clearly addresses user needs and technical  requirements.  

Implementation is effective, only  minor improvements possible.  

Strong evidence of testing and  refinement.

Design is solid and appropriate. 

Implementation works well with very  few issues.  

Shows a comprehensive  

understanding of tools and  

technologies.

Design meets all basic 

requirements but has potential  for more depth and detail. 

Implementation is functional but  may have some issues.

Design is adequate but may be simplistic or generic.  

Implementation works but may  be incomplete or have  

functionality issues. 

Limited use of best practices in  documentation and testing.

Design is underdeveloped or poorly justified. 

Implementation is inconsistent,  with missing features.

Design is vague or inappropriate for the project. 

Implementation is unreliable or  mostly incomplete. 

Very limited design and 

documentation. 

Implementation shows little  functionality or coherence. 

No meaningful design or 

implementation.  

No attempt at developing an  artefact.

Use of research methods and supporting sources

20% 

Demonstrates exceptional professional level research skills. 

Uses a wide range of high-quality,  credible sources with exceptional  critical analysis.  

Research methods are expertly applied  and comprehensively justified.

Research is thorough and well structured.  

All sources are relevant, varied, and  critically evaluated.  

All methods are appropriate and  effectively implemented.

Strong use of research methods with good justification.  

Sources are mostly relevant and well integrated.  

Some critical evaluation is evident.

Competent research with 

appropriate methods.  

Sources are relevant but may  lack variety or depth.  

Limited critical engagement.

Basic use of research methods. 

Sources are mostly relevant but  may not be consistently  

evaluated or integrated in the  work.  

Some methods may lack clarity.

Research is minimal or 

inconsistent.  

Sources are used but with limited relevance or credibility.  

Methods are poorly explained or  applied.

Limited understanding of 

research methods.  

Very limited use of sources,  poorly chosen, or misused.  

Little evidence of critical  

thinking.

Very weak use of research methods.  

Sources are inappropriate or  irrelevant.  

Methods are unclear or absent.  No evaluation of material.

No use of research methods or sources. No evidence of  

investigation or inquiry. 

No coherent method or structure.

Evaluation and 

conclusion

20% 

Evaluation is deeply analytical, critical, and insightful.  

Demonstrates excellent understanding  of project outcomes, limitations, and  future improvements.  

Conclusions are clearly drawn from  evidence.

Thorough evaluation with strong critical analysis.  

Identifies project successes and  limitations clearly. 

Conclusions are well-supported and  demonstrate thoughtful reflection.

Evaluation is detailed and relevant. 

Shows good understanding of project  strengths and weaknesses.  

Conclusions are logical and based on  evidence, though they may lack depth  in some areas.

Evaluation covers main aspects of the project but may be  

somewhat descriptive.  

Some critical insight is present.  

Conclusions are reasonable but  may be lacking depth or context.

Evaluation is basic and mostly descriptive.  

Limited critical analysis.  

Conclusions are present but may  be vague or not fully supported by evidence.

Evaluation is superficial or incomplete.  

Lacks depth and critical thinking.  

Conclusions are weak or  

unconnected to the evaluation.

Evaluation is minimal and lacks coherence.  

Little to no critical reflection  present. 

Conclusions are unclear or  unsupported.

Very limited evaluation.

No meaningful analysis of  outcomes or limitations. 

Conclusions are either too  simplistic or irrelevant.

No attempt at an evaluation or conclusion.