Assessment and Feedback

As per First, with explicit mechanisms for monitoring whether agreed contributions and inclusive practices are being followed and are effective.

Establishes how the team will identify emerging problems, adapt its arrangements and hold members accountable.

A specific, actionable agreement recognising individual strengths, weaknesses and accessibility needs, with measurable contributions, responsibilities and deadlines.

Defines how the team will actively leverage diversity and accommodate individual needs.

Establishes clear procedures for resolving disagreements, managing unexpected circumstances and maintaining inclusive participation.

A specific agreement identifying individual strengths, weaknesses and contributions, with defined responsibilities and deadlines.

Describes practical strategies for inclusive participation and accommodating individual needs, including procedures for addressing disagreements or unmet commitments.

Identifies individual strengths, weaknesses and intended contributions.

Establishes expectations for inclusive teamwork, with some specific responsibilities, timescales and arrangements for accommodating different needs.

A generic agreement describing how the team intends to work together inclusively, recognising the importance of individual differences but without clearly defined contributions or practical arrangements.

An agreement is submitted, but provides little actionable information about individual responsibilities or how equality, diversity and inclusion will be supported.

No meaningful Team Operating Agreement is provided, or the submission does not address how the team will work together inclusively.

Critically evaluate the wider context of a complex problem.

Synthesises stakeholder, sustainability, diversity, inclusion, cultural and societal factors to develop original insight.

Critically engages with competing perspectives and their implications.

Analyses the wider context of a complex problem.

Clearly connects stakeholder, sustainability, diversity, inclusion, cultural and societal factors.

Explains their relevance and implications for stakeholders.

Explains the wider context with good understanding.

Connects key stakeholder and sustainability, diversity, inclusion, cultural and societal factors.

Begins to evaluate their implications.

Identifies relevant stakeholders and wider contextual factors.

Makes some connections between sustainability, diversity, inclusion, cultural and societal considerations.

Analysis is limited or superficial.

Demonstrates limited understanding of the wider context.

Identifies some stakeholders and relevant factors.

Attempts to make connections, but these are mainly descriptive or unclear.

Misunderstands or omits important stakeholders or contextual factors.

Limited consideration of sustainability, diversity, inclusion, cultural or societal issues.

Connections are often unclear or incorrect.

Little or no meaningful stakeholder analysis or consideration of the wider context.

Critically evaluates alternative design solutions using a structured selection process.

Synthesises sustainability, diversity, inclusion, cultural and societal considerations to justify an original and well-informed selection.

Critically evaluates responsibilities, benefits, trade-offs and wider implications.

Evaluates alternative design solutions using appropriate selection criteria.

Clearly considers sustainability, diversity, inclusion, cultural and societal factors.

Provides a well-supported justification for the selected design.

Applies a structured design selection process.

Considers key sustainability, diversity, inclusion, cultural and societal factors.

Explains their relevance and provides appropriate justification for the selection.

Uses a generally structured approach to design selection.

Identifies relevant design criteria and considers some sustainability, diversity, inclusion, cultural or societal factors.

Justification is limited or lacks depth.

Demonstrates a basic design selection process.

Identifies some relevant design factors and responsibilities.

Attempts to justify the selection, but reasoning is mainly descriptive or superficial.

Uses a weak or incomplete design selection process.

Limited consideration of sustainability, diversity, inclusion, cultural or societal factors.

Justification is unclear, unsupported or inconsistent.

No meaningful structured design selection process.

Relevant factors are largely omitted, misunderstood or not used to justify the design choice.

Critically applies systematic approaches to define complex problems.

Synthesises user needs, constraints and requirements to establish a comprehensive problem definition.

Critically evaluates competing requirements and wider implications.

Applies systematic approaches effectively to define complex problems.

Clearly identifies and analyses user constraints and requirements.

Explains relationships between requirements and the defined problem.

Applies appropriate systematic approaches to define complex problems.

Identifies key user constraints and requirements accurately.

Makes clear connections between the problem and user needs.

Uses a generally appropriate approach to define the problem.

Identifies some relevant user constraints and requirements.

Links between the problem and requirements are limited or superficial.

Demonstrates a basic approach to problem definition.

Identifies some user constraints or requirements.

Attempts to make connections, but these are mainly descriptive or unclear.

Uses an incomplete or inappropriate approach to problem definition.

Important user constraints or requirements are omitted or misunderstood.

Connections are unclear or inconsistent.

Fails to meaningfully define the complex problem.

User constraints and requirements are largely absent, inappropriate or misunderstood.

Demonstrates an outstanding understanding of the environmental, social, and economic impacts of the proposed engineering design throughout its entire life cycle. Provides a critical examination of the assumptions and limitations of the design, considers complex trade-offs between competing priorities, and identifies where further evidence or investigation is needed. The final proposal is supported by an exceptionally well-reasoned justification that demonstrates outstanding engineering judgement.

Provides a thorough evaluation of the environmental, social, and economic sustainability of the proposed design throughout its life cycle. Considers specific project features, compares different design options, and explains the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed choices. Identifies important project constraints, operational risks, and user needs, proposing practical improvements supported by clear justification.

Provides a clear and well-supported analysis of the environmental, social, and economic impacts of implementing and operating the proposed design. Considers specific project features, compares the proposal with alternative solutions, and identifies the main benefits, disadvantages, and trade-offs. Uses these findings to reach a well-reasoned judgement about the sustainability, safety, and financial viability of the proposal.

Identifies and explains the main environmental, social, and economic impacts of implementing and operating the proposed design, using specific project features to support the discussion. Recognises potential sustainability benefits and disadvantages but considers them mainly as separate issues. Provides limited discussion of how these factors influence one another, the trade-offs involved, or the overall sustainability of the proposal.

Identifies basic environmental, social, and economic considerations related to the proposed design, showing a general understanding of how engineering solutions affect resources, costs, and people. However, the discussion is mainly descriptive, with limited application to the specific project and little evaluation of design trade-offs, operational risks, or impacts at the end of the design's life.

Shows some awareness of the importance of sustainability in engineering design but provides very limited analysis of the environmental, social, and economic impacts of the proposal. The discussion relies mainly on general statements, with little assessment of design trade-offs, operational risks, or evidence of applying engineering design methods. Provides limited justification for the proposed design.

Fails to demonstrate an adequate understanding of the environmental, social, and economic impacts of the proposed design. Sustainability considerations are missing or addressed through vague and unsupported statements. Important environmental, safety, and financial risks are overlooked, with little or no evidence of applying engineering design methods or considering the impacts of the design throughout its life cycle.

As per First Class, with critical evaluation of whose perspectives have informed the design and which users may remain excluded. Establishes a justified approach for ongoing engagement with diverse users, validating inclusivity and using feedback to inform further design development.

Demonstrates how inclusivity has been embedded throughout the design process, influencing the identification of user needs, the definition of requirements and subsequent design decisions. Critically evaluates competing user needs, justifying compromises and examining how these may benefit or disadvantage different groups.

Demonstrates how consideration of diverse user needs has influenced specific design requirements and decisions, rather than simply introducing accommodations after the design has been developed. Explains how these decisions address barriers to inclusion and improve the proposed solution.

Identifies specific needs and potential barriers experienced by different user groups. Proposes relevant design features or adaptations to address these needs, but does not demonstrate how inclusivity has influenced the wider design process.

Demonstrates a general understanding of the importance of inclusive design, recognising its responsibilities and benefits beyond legal compliance. Identifies ways in which different user needs could be accommodated, but without applying these to specific design decisions.

Acknowledges the importance of inclusivity in engineering design but provides insufficient evidence of understanding how diverse user needs should influence design decisions.

Does not meaningfully address inclusivity within the design process. Provides little or no relevant evidence of understanding why inclusive design matters or how differences between users should influence engineering design.

Independently researched evidence is used to critically evaluate specific examples from project week, demonstrating how diversity in team composition influenced team performance.

Independently researched frameworks are used to critically evaluate the effectiveness of inclusive teamwork strategies personally implemented during project week, and to develop a justified plan for future practice, including how improvements will be monitored.

Critically reflects on the value of diversity, using specific examples from project week to examine how different perspectives, experiences or backgrounds influenced the team's work and outcomes.

Evaluates specific EDI strategies personally implemented during project week, explaining their purpose, effectiveness and limitations. Uses this evaluation to propose specific, measurable and justified improvements to future practice.

Identifies and explains specific examples of diversity within their project-week team, reflecting on how these influenced the team's activities, decisions or outcomes. Explains what these experiences have taught them about the value of diversity.

Describes specific strategies they personally adopted to support EDI during project week. Reflects on their effectiveness, identifying what worked, what did not, and why.

Identifies and lists specific examples from their project-week experience that illustrate the benefits or importance of diversity within a team. Describes how diversity influenced their team's activities or decisions, but does not examine the significance of these experiences for their own understanding.

Describes and lists specific actions they personally undertook to support EDI within their team, explaining what they did and their intended purpose, but does not provide details about the outcome of the actions.

Identifies and explains examples of how diversity within a team could influence its activities, decisions or outcomes. Demonstrates a general understanding of the value of diversity, but does not draw on specific experiences from project week.

Describes strategies that could be adopted to support EDI within a team, explaining their intended purpose and potential effectiveness, but without reference to personal application during project week.

Acknowledges the relevance of diversity to teamwork but does not demonstrate an understanding of how diversity can influence team activities, decisions or outcomes.

Acknowledges the importance of supporting EDI within a team but does not identify or explain strategies through which this could be achieved.

Does not meaningfully address the value or importance of diversity within a team. Provides no relevant evidence of understanding how diversity relates to team activities or outcomes.

Does not meaningfully address the responsibility to support equality, diversity and inclusion within a team. Provides no relevant discussion of EDI strategies or practices.

As per First Class, with analysis grounded in independently researched, recognised and appropriately cited theoretical frameworks for personal reflection, demonstrating how these have informed the evaluation of learning experiences and plans for future development.

Demonstrates critical introspection into their personal learning experiences, examining how their understanding, skills and approaches to learning have developed throughout project week.

Uses specific examples to evaluate the effectiveness of their learning approaches, explaining what facilitated or hindered their development. Explicitly examines differences between their initial expectations or understanding and their experiences at the end of project week.

Uses these reflections to develop a specific and justified plan for improving their future learning and skills development. Establishes how proposed improvements will be monitored, how their effectiveness will be evaluated and how this evaluation will inform further development.

Demonstrates an understanding of their personal learning experiences during project week, explaining what they learned, how they learned it, and the factors that influenced their development.

Compares their initial understanding, skills or approaches to learning with those at the end of project week, explaining the significance of these changes.

Reflects on the strengths and weaknesses of their approaches to learning, explaining why particular approaches were successful or unsuccessful. Identifies potential improvements to future learning practices, drawing on their personal experiences to justify these suggestions.

Describes specific personal learning experiences during project week, identifying knowledge or skills developed.

Compares their understanding, skills or approaches to learning at the beginning and end of project week, identifying changes without explaining their significance.

Identifies strengths and weaknesses in their approaches to learning, describing what they found successful or challenging without examining the underlying reasons or implications for future development.

Demonstrates a general understanding of the purpose and importance of reflection in learning and skills development.

Identifies relevant learning activities, skills or approaches to learning, but discusses these in general terms rather than through specific personal experiences during project week.

Recognises that reflection can support future improvement, identifying potential benefits for learning and skills development without demonstrating how their own experiences have informed their understanding of themselves as learners.

Acknowledges the requirement to reflect on personal learning and development, but provides insufficient evidence of learning about their own understanding, skills or approaches to learning.

Does not reference their mySkills portfolio submissions or demonstrate an understanding of the purpose of maintaining a portfolio of achievement.

Describes activities undertaken during project week or makes general statements about the importance of reflection, but does not identify what they personally learned from these experiences or how their understanding or skills developed.

Describes experiences without analysis or learning.

No questioning or future planning.

Has not engaged with mySkills.

Does not meaningfully address personal learning or skills development during project week.