Discussion of Marks for Assignment 6 between JKC & MPA

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

Student Answer 1 Answer 2 Answer 3 Answer 4 Answer 5
Mark Anthony Farnworth 3
3		 3
3		 2
2		 3
3		 7
8
Noreen Hanif 5
5		 2
3		 0
0		 0
0		 5
4
Lakshminarayanan Rajamani     Not Submitted
Zero Marks
Wolfgang Seidl 3
3		 5
5		 5
4		 5
5		 6
7
Robert John Whittock 5
5		 4
1		 0
2		 2
1		 8
8

ACTION

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

  1. Farnworth. JKC too generous in Q5, so 7 marks given.
  2. Hanif. JKC too generous in Q2, MPA too generous for table in Q5.
  3. Rajamani. Zero marks awarded. Student was reminded to hand in work.
  4. Seidl. JKC missed error in Q2, MPA too generous for table in Q5.
  5. Whittock. This answer generated the most discussion since the candidate fell for the pseudo C-centred symmetry. In the end, 2 marks were given for Q2. JKC too harsh for Q3, but then too generous for Q4 so MPA's marks accepted.

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

Back