Discussion of Marks for Assignment 5 between JKC & MPA on 25 July 2001

Marks: PB top line and MPA bottom line with differences highlighted in red

Student Answer 1 Answer 2 Answer 3 Answer 4
Mark Anthony Farnworth 5
5		 8.5
9		 8.5
9		 5
5
Noreen Hanif 4.5
3		 6.5
6		 8
8		 5
4
Lakshminarayanan Rajamani     5
5		 5
6		 5
6		 4
3
Wolfgang Seidl 4
4		 7.5
7		 7.5
7		 4
3
Robert John Whittock 3.5
3		 4
4		 4
4		 3.5
3

Comment on marks allocated by Paul Barnes in note to Martin Attfield

The files for 5 candidates' marked (by me) assignment No.5 are attached. I have to explain some details:

  1. Farnworth seems to insist on submitting his work as 2 files, so you will see in consequence that I have had to produce the marked feedback as 2 files. They are obvious by the letters "P1" and "P2" in the file name to indicate page 1 and page 2. You cannot however move from one to the other but will have to launch each separately; Jeremy no doubt will stitch the addresses together when it is finally marked. [DONE by JKC]

  2. Rajamani gives a very good anwer in terms of a really nice colour-coded table, but with virtually no explanation of his steps taken (as required by the question). Consequently I could not divide the marks up into the 4 groups (out of 5, 10, 10, 5 resp.) indicated in the model answer, but do a more global marking in which I credited him with a food mark but some loss for lack of step explanations.

  3. Whittock's answers have some similarity to Rajamani but without the mitigation of having produced a nice table. In fact this one is tricky to mark. Jeremy suspects he is just knocking out minimal answers all the time; he might even have used JCPDS or other software to get the answer and covered it up by means of his lack of any information. My marks take into account that he has got the right answer (we can't deny that) by whatever means but little evidence as to how. Jeremy might do some detective work on his file usage.

ACTION

After discussions with MPA, the following actions were taken by JKC.

  1. Farnworth. Marks averaged.
  2. Hanif. Reduced PB's marks for Q1 and Q2 by 1/2 mark. Allowed marks for Q4 to stand.
  3. Rajamani. Split PB's total mark (15/25) into for Q1,Q2,Q3 as shown. Marks then averaged. Allowed marks for Q4 to stand.
  4. Seidl. Accepted PB's marks for Q2 and Q3 and MPA's for Q4.
  5. Whittock. Allowed PB's marks to stand. Check of web server log file showed that the card files for the answers had been checked on the server here, so the student is given the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, he is assumed to have done the assignment correctly despite the very brief answer.

Student marked work adjusted accordingly (with revised comments where appropriate).
[DONE by JKC 16/9/01]

Back