LEEDS BECKETT UNIVERSITY

LEVEL 6 BSC (HONS) CIVIL ENGINEERING

MAJOR PROJECT MODULE: COURSEWORK BRIEFING SHEET 1

FEASIBILITY STUDY & REPORT

Stage 1: Feedback presentations (Individual grade)

Observed group feedback presentations will be scheduled for weeks 6-7. Each group
presentation should last 20 minutes, and should give each student the opportunity to
feedback their initial findings from their allotted tasks from the Feasibility Study (See
Stage 2) to their respective groups and two examiners**. The group, as a whole, should
seek to recommend some land within one of the Aire Valleys 5 area plan zones for
the client to acquire and develop.

This is intended to be a formal stand up type of presentation, and as such the use of
PowerPoint would be appropriate. Each student should be prepared to answer
questions on their presentations.

** These presentations will be observed, and assessed, by two members of

academic staff. Students will be allocated a mark for their participation in this group
presentation based upon their level of preparation, communication skills and the
technical competency of their recommendations.

Stage 2: Group Report (Group work)

Each group should produce a preliminary report (Limited to 10,000 words per group)
outlining the major civil engineering issues that are likely to be encountered in
conjunction with the existing proposals for each of the Aire Valleys 5 area plan
zones; and any infrastructure issues that may affect the overall Aire Valley site.

The authors should use their engineering judgement to review all available site data.
For example, using a range of sources such as: site visits; lecture/module material and
further background research to identify the major civil engineering issues connected
with this development.

The groups workload should be allocated in a fair and logical manner. For example:
with each member of the group taking responsibility for reviewing all Civil Engineering
issues within one of the five area plan zones; or alternatively, each group member
taking responsibility for reviewing the issues that fall within a specific civil engineering
discipline (e.g. structures, geotechnical, hydraulic issues) across the whole Aire Valley.
Each student should feed their respective findings back to the group; the group should
then discuss their collective findings and subsequently recommend some land within
the Aire Valley for your client to acquire and develop. This should be the site/s that
your group considers to be the most straightforward to develop in terms of its inherent
civil engineering issues.

The group report will be assessed against the following criteria, each of which will
carry equal weighting:

Original and effective analysis (engineering judgement).

Breadth of Civil Engineering issues considered (e.g. structural issues,
highways, temporary works, pedestrian / transport issues, sustainability,
significant H&S issues etc).
 Consideration of issues within pre-construction, construction, operational and
decommissioning phases of the scheme
Clarity of the overall report, including use of English.
Appropriate use of drawings / sketches to aid communication.
Appropriate use of structure / formatting within report
Appropriate content and technical detail for intended reader (i.e. client)
Minutes of meetings, demonstrating organised approach and allocation of
tasks.

Note: Assessment of group-work components

A group mark will be awarded for Stages 2 & 3 of the assessed work. It is imperative
that the normal civil engineering convention of using initials to indicate originators and
checkers of work be used. Work not identified in this way will not be assessed.

IMPORTANT INFORMATION:

All members of each group will be required to work as an effective member of the team.
If a group feels that any member of the team is not demonstrating the required level of
commitment, a yellow card and red card system will operate:

Yellow Card: The whole group must arrange to hold a meeting in the presence of the
module leader. At this meeting, grievances must be aired, and fair and appropriate
targets agreed and set for each member of the group.

Red Card: Following a yellow card meeting, the performance of the group will be
monitored. Any group member failing to meet targets will be removed from the group.
Any individual red-carded in this way will be required to submit an individual report
covering all of the aspects expected of a group report.

Submission dates Semester 1

The Major Project coursework hand-in dates are as follows:

Stage 1) Presentations: Weeks 6,7 10 %

Stage 2) Group Report A: Week 12 40 %

Stage 2 must be submitted at the relevant Major Project Lecture slot.

Please email the Module Leader to arrange late submissions.
 LEEDS BECKETT UNIVERSITY
LEVEL 6 BSC (HONS) CIVIL ENGINEERING
MAJOR PROJECT:
GENERIC MARK SCHEME (APPLIED TO ALL PROJECTS)

Excellent Outcome: 70% +

Most of the relevant information/skills accurately deployed
Excellent grasp of theoretical/conceptual/practical elements.
Good integration of theory/practice/information in pursuit of the assessed
works objectives.

Above average outcome: 60- 69%

Most of the relevant information/skills accurately deployed
Good grasp of theoretical/conceptual/practical elements.
Good integration of theory/practice/information in pursuit of the assessed
works objectives.

Average outcome: 50- 59%

Much of the relevant information/skills mostly accurately deployed
Adequate grasp of the theoretical/conceptual/practical elements.
Fair integration of theory/practice/information in pursuit of the assessed
works objectives.

Satisfactory outcome: 40- 49%

No major omissions or inaccuracies in the deployment of information/skills
Some grasp of theoretical/conceptual/practical elements.
Integration of theory/practice/information present intermittently in pursuit of
the assessed works objective.

Unsatisfactory outcome: 30- 39%

Knowledge and understanding at a limited level; may be errors both in terms
of factual knowledge and understanding;
expression of ideas not always clear, and argument/discussion weakly
structured.

Unsatisfactory outcome: 15- 29%

Knowledge and understanding at a limited level shown by significant errors
and/or omissions both in terms of factual knowledge and understanding, with
tendency to description rather than analysis;
may include to express ideas clearly, lack of coherence in terms of structure,
inclusion of irrelevant material.

Unsatisfactory outcome: below 15%

Overall lack of relevant information, descriptive not analytical; may also be
repetitive, lack organisation, demonstrate inadequate use of language and
inability to construct sentences.