GEO5016 Geomatics Supervisor Assessment Rubric

The internship report (70% of the mark) is assessed by the Geomatics supervisor, using the rubric below. Each item is scored on a scale from below 5 to 10.

	Mark per item
	<5	6	7	8	9	10
2.1. Context of research / internship topic and problem statement	Has not provided context/ rationale for the research or provided a problem statement. No description in which way this research fits within the overall project (if applicable) or in which way the research will add value to the internship organization.	Has provided context / rationale for the research and a problem statement but there is no clear link between context and problem statement. No description in which way this research fits within the overall project (if applicable) or in which way the research will add value to the internship organization.	Has provided context / rationale for the research and a problem statement with a clear link between context and problem statement. Has described in which way this research fits within the overall project (if applicable) or in which way the research will add value to the internship organization, but this description contains some errors	Has provided context / rationale for the research and a problem statement with a clear link between context and problem statement. Has described in which way this research fits within the overall project (if applicable) or in which way the research will add value to the internship organization. This description contains minor errors but does not distract.	Has provided a clear context / rationale for the research and a problem statement with a clear link between context and problem statement. Has clearly described in which way this research fits within the overall project (if applicable) or in which way the research will add value to the internship organization.	Has provided a clear context / rationale for the research and a problem statement with a clear link between context and problem statement. Has clearly described in which way this research fits within the overall project (if applicable) or in which way the research will add value not only to the internship organization but to society at large.
2.2. Formulation goals, tasks, and framework of internship topic	Has not formulated goals and proposed tasks of the internship topic, or the formulation contains serious errors.	Has formulated goals and proposed tasks of the internship topic. Has not made a clear link in which way proposed activities addresses the internship topic goals. The formulation is not complete or contains errors.	Has formulated goals and proposed tasks of the internship topic with a link in which proposed activities addresses the internship topic goals. The formulation is mostly complete or contains a few errors.	Has clearly formulated goals and proposed tasks of the internship topic with a clear link in which proposed activities addresses the internship topic goals. The formulation is complete and contains no errors	Has clearly formulated goals and proposed tasks of the internship topic with a clear link in which proposed activities addresses the goals. The formulation is complete, contains no errors and takes into consideration the goals of the overall project (if applicable).	Has clearly formulated goals and proposed tasks of the internship topic with a clear link in which proposed activities addresses the goals of the internship topic. The formulation is complete, contains no errors and is clearly linked to the goals of the overall project (if applicable).
2.3. Theoretical underpinning, use of literature	Does not provide a discussion of underlying theories or the discussion shows serious errors. Does not provide relevant literature in reference list, or only uses literature suggested by the supervisor.	Has found relevant theories, but the description has not been tailored to the internship topic or shows errors. Has provided literature in reference list but this list is very limited or contains a significant body of irrelevant literature.	Has found relevant theories and has been partially successful in tailoring the description to the internship topic. Few errors occur. Some relevant literature in reference list but also significant body of irrelevant literature	Has found relevant theories, makes a synthesis of those, and has been successful in tailoring the description to the internship topic. Used literature is relevant for the goals of the internship topic. An occasional reference may be less relevant but does not distract.	Has provided a clear and coherent overview of relevant theories exactly tailored to the internship topic. Used literature is relevant for the goal of the internship topic.	Has provided a clear, complete, and coherent overview of relevant theories exactly tailored to the internship topic as well as for the goals of the overall project (if applicable). Used literature is not only relevant to the internship topic but also to the goals of the overall project (if applicable) or to the internship organization.
2.4. Use of methods and processing / analysing data	Has not provided a description of used methodology or the description is incomplete or contains serious errors. Has not provided a description of the analysis of the data/ information or this description is incomplete or contains serious errors.	Has provided a description of methodology and analysis of the data/ information but is not always sufficient or appropriate, or description lacks important aspects.	Has provided a description of the methodology and analysis of the data/ information but minor aspects of the methodology and analysis are insufficiently described or not always appropriate.	Has provided a complete and mostly appropriate description of the methodology and analysis of the data/ information.	Has provided a complete and appropriate description of the methodology and analysis of the data/ information.	Has not only provided a clear and appropriate description of the methodology and analysis of the data/ information but has also provided new insights.
2.5. Reflection on results	No reflection on the results related to internship topic (own results). Discussion only touches trivial or very general points of criticism	Has identified most weaknesses in own results but some of these are irrelevant or non- existent. Does not weigh the impact of the identified weaknesses on the main results relative to each other	Has identified most weaknesses in own results. Has weighed the impact of the identified weaknesses on the main results relative to each other but some of these impacts are not well estimated.	Has identified all weaknesses in own results. Has correctly weighed the impact of the identified weaknesses on the main results relative to each other but has not indicated which (better) alternative methods could be used in future.	Has identified all weaknesses in own results. Has correctly weighed the impact of the identified weaknesses on the main results relative to each other. Has indicated which (better) alternative methods could be used in future.	Has not only identified all possible weaknesses in own results has also indicated which weaknesses affect the outcome of the entire project most. Has indicated which (better) alternative methods should be used in future.
2.6. Conclusion and discussion	No link between goals, results and conclusion. Conclusion merely repeats the results, or the conclusions are not substantiated by the results. No discussion about the added value of the research for the internship organisation.	Has drawn conclusions but has not addressed all goals. Some conclusions are not substantiated by the results. Only reflects on trivial aspects of the internship topic for the internship organisation and does not relate this discussion to the goals of the internship organisation.	Has linked most conclusions to the goals of the research, and most conclusions are substantiated by results. Conclusions are mostly clearly formulated but still contain some vagueness. Has identified the added value of the research but does not relate this to the goals of the internship organisation.	Has clearly linked conclusions to the goals of the research, and all conclusions are substantiated by results. Conclusions are clearly and concisely formulated. Has identified the added value of the research and makes references to the goals of the internship organisation but the relation is not clear.	Has clearly linked conclusions to the goals of the research, and all conclusions are substantiated by results. Conclusions are clearly and concisely formulated in a logical order. Has identified the added value of the research and relates this to the goals of the internship organisation.	Has clearly linked conclusions to the goals of the research, and all conclusions are substantiated by results. Conclusions are clearly and concisely formulated in a logical order. Has identified the added value of the research and relates this to the goals of the internship organisation and to society at large.
2.7. Fluency of language and writing skills	Has badly structured the report with information in the wrong section or level of detail is inappropriate. Formulation of the text is incorrect and inhibits a correct interpretation of the text.	Main structure is mostly correct, but lower-level hierarchy of sections is not logical in places. Some sections have overlapping functions leading to ambiguity in placement of information. Level of detail varies widely (information missing, or irrelevant information given). However, this does not always inhibit a correct interpretation of the text.	Main structure is correct but some information appears to be in an illogical place. Level of detail is inappropriate in a few places or irrelevant information is provided). The report could be more concise.	Most sections have a clear and unique function. Hierarchy of sections is mostly correct. Ordering of sections is mostly logical. All information occurs at the correct place, with few exceptions. In most places level of detail is appropriate. The text is unambiguous and concise.	Well-structured: each section has a clear and unique function. Hierarchy of sections is correct. Ordering of sections is logical. All information occurs at the correct place. Level of detail is appropriate throughout. The text is unambiguous and concise.	Well-structured: each section has a clear and unique function. Hierarchy of sections is correct. Ordering of sections is logical. All information occurs at the correct place. Level of detail is appropriate throughout. The text is unambiguous and concise. The textual quality is such that it could be acceptable for a peer- reviewed article.
2.8. Personal reflection on internship	Has not provided a personal reflection on the internship process, merely repeats reflection on research results.	Provides a reflection on the performed research in general terms. A personal opinion on the internship process appears weak. No examples provided of how existing skills were applied to new situation, or which skills were lacking.	Provides a reflection on the internship process in more personal terms. Provide at least one example of a an event or situation in which student was able to apply prior Geomatics skills to a new situation.	Provides a reflection on the internship process in personal terms, including a reflection of which new skills were acquired during the internship and provides at least one example of this.	Provides a reflection on the internship process in personal terms, including a reflection of which new skills were acquired during the internship and provides more than one example of this. Provides a reflection on which skills should be part of the Geomatics programme to better prepare future students	Provides a reflection on the internship process in personal terms, including a reflection of which new skills were acquired during the internship and provides more than one example of this. Provides a reflection on which skills should be part of the Geomatics programme to better prepare future students. Quality of reflection is suitable to be included in Geomatics Self- Assessment Report for external review.