Artificial Intelligence Method Marking Scheme Page 1 of 4

Group/ Title Name: Group Marks: / 70

Group Member Name A: Individual Marks: /30 Total Marks: /100
Group Member Name B: Individual Marks: /30 Total Marks: /100
Group Member Name C:

Group Component

Fail Marginal Fail Pass Credit Distinction

0-3 4 5 6-7 8 - 10
No proposal done, or Illogical contents / missing No missing or minimal Good project description, Good detailed project
Proposal Submit the proposal after information in any one of the contents shown in all module and users stated in description, modules and
(10%) week 5. section, or sections. the proposal. users stated in the proposal
Good details proposal Project scopes were taken
submitted after week 5. into consideration.

0-5 67 89 10 -11 12 - 15
No design Minimal understanding of Some understanding of Good understanding of Excellent understanding
Illogical design which program design the program design the program design of the program design
was not related to the Minimal design done on the Brief design done based Good design done based Good detailed design
proposal / new proposal proposed topic on the topic or area stated on the topic or area stated done based on the topic
Major / obvious errors / in the proposal in the proposal /new or area stated in the
Design omissions in the nodes and Design is not corporate proposal proposal / proposal
(15%) robot with domain area Design is corporate with Perfect design is
/purposed domain area /purposed corporate with domain
Some minor errors / area /purposed
omissions

Level 2 Asia Pacific University of Technology and Innovation 2012

Artificial Intelligence Method Marking Scheme Page 2 of 4

0-3 4 5 6-7 8-10

No justification is done. Missing information in any one Minimal content structure Good content of structure Excellent content of
of the problems statement. justification and Clear justification about the structure
Supply minimal details of incorporate with objectives problem statement Clear justification about the
justification Minimal support Supply relevant case study problem statement
Problem documents (case study) to to support the problems Supply relevant case study
prove the problems are Some justification tally to support the problems
Justification existing
(10%)
with the objectives Details justification tally
with the objectives

05 6-7 8-9 10-11 12-15

Research & Not done No validation. Minor validations for Good coding styles Excellent validation
module Program not executable Little or no mapping between nodes options Good validation beyond Excellent mapping
Unable to solve a design and program solution Some mapping between nodes options between design and
integration problem Able to solve a problem and design and program Good mapping between program solution
(15%) Able to performance very perform intelligence solution design and program Excellent in the ability to
little intelligence behavior Include some techniques solution solve a problem and
behavior Less than 2 actions able to Able to solve a problem Good in the ability to mimicking the
Program solution does performance and mimicking the solve a problem and intelligence behavior
not map with design Program solution does map intelligence behavior in mimicking any
presented with design presented one to two modules intelligence behavior

0-7 8-9 10-12 13-14 15-20

Documentation No documentation Less than 50% of Evident of basic research Evident of good research Evident of in depth
(20%) submitted documentation complete carried out. carried out research carried out
Documentation merely Poor layout / flow Between 50% - 65% of Between 65% - 75% of More than 75% of the
contains the cover page Missing some essential the documentation the documentation documentation complete
and printout of the components within the complete complete Excellent layout / flow
program code documentation Average layout / flow Good layout / flow No missing components
No referencing Basic documentation No missing components No missing components of the documentation
standards not adhered to of the documentation of the documentation Excellent documentation
No referencing Did some referencing but Good documentation standards
did not adhere to standards Adhered to Harvard
Harvard Name Adhered to Harvard Name Referencing
Referencing Name Referencing standards with no
Sample outputs available standards but with minor obvious errors /
without any explanation errors / omissions omissions
Sample outputs available Sample outputs available

Level 2 Asia Pacific University of Technology and Innovation 2012

Artificial Intelligence Method Marking Scheme Page 3 of 4
with some explanation. with clear explanation

Individual Component

Fail Marginal Fail Pass Credit Distinction

0-3 4 5 6-7 8-10
Presentation Did not turn up for Barely able to explain the Able to explain some Provided good explanation of the Provided excellent
presentation codes / work done codes / work done codes and work done explanation of the codes /
Q&A Did not know how to Had difficulty in executing Able to execute the Able to execute the program work done
(10%) execute the system the system system Able to explain how own Able to execute the
Only able to explain own component of the system works program
component of the with at least one other component Able to explain how own
system / solution of the system / solution component of the system
works with all other
components of the
system / solution
Able to show additional
concepts / new ideas used
in the solution
A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C
Victor Noby

0 -7 8-9 10-12 13-14 15-20

Contribution Did not contribute at all Minimal contribution to the Average contribution to Good contribution to the project Contributed the most to
to the project project the project the project
Workload
matrix A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C
Victor Noby
(20%)

Remarks: __________________________________________________________________________________________________

Level 2 Asia Pacific University of Technology and Innovation 2012

Artificial Intelligence Method Marking Scheme Page 4 of 4

Level 2 Asia Pacific University of Technology and Innovation 2012