SEJ202 - 2025
Rubric for AT3 – Field investigation report (40%) – Team mark
Levels of achievement
Above expectation Met Expectation Partially met expectation Not demonstrated
Criteria (3) (2) (1) (0)
Project management Evidenced Time and Resource management Evidenced Time and Resource management While some evidence of Time and Resource No evidence of Time and Resource
using a range of supporting documents, using the following key supporting management was provided, key supporting Management provided
including but not limited to: documents: documents were missing. For example
* Proposed, flexible timeline * Proposed, flexible timeline provided only a proposed timeline or only
* Meeting minutes * Meeting minutes meeting minutes.
* Potential risks to successful project
GLO6, GLO7
completion
* Other
1 (3) (2) (1) (0)
Laboratory result All laboratory results were used in the Most laboratory results were used in the Some laboratory results were used in the Only one or two laboratory results
GLO6, GLO7
analysis analysis analysis analysis while some were not were used in the analysis
2 (6) (4) (2) (0)
Teamwork Excellent teamwork skills demonstrated Acceptable teamwork skills demonstrated While some teamwork skills were No evidence of teamwork is provided.
using documents like team charter, using key supporting documents like team demonstrated some key supporting
meeting minutes, quotes from peer charter and meeting minutes. All team documents like team charter or meeting
feedback, emails, documented discussions, members have worked as a team. minutes were missing.
etc.
All team members have worked as a team.
GLO7
2 (6) (4) (2) (0)
Formative peer Formative peer assessment is completed by Formative peer assessment is completed by Formative peer assessment is completed by None of the team members completed
GLO7
assessment and all team members. High quality peer most team members. Good peer assessment some team members. Provided feedback is the formative peer assessment.
feedback (check-in) assessment is evidenced though the is evidenced though the provision of not constructive, or is vague, or is limited, or
provision of constructive feedback constructive feedback regarding the quality is incomplete.
regarding the quality of ALL team members of ALL team members teamwork skills and
teamwork skills and contribution to the contribution to the team project.
team project.
1 (3) (2) (1) (0)
Summative peer Summative peer assessment is completed Summative peer assessment is completed by Summative peer assessment is completed by Less than half of the team members
assessment and by all team members. High quality peer all team members. Good peer assessment is most team members, not all. Provided completed the formative peer
feedback (final) assessment is evidenced though the evidenced though the provision of feedback is not constructive, or is vague, or is assessment.
provision of constructive feedback constructive feedback regarding the quality limited, or is incomplete.
regarding the quality of ALL team members of ALL team members teamwork skills and
teamwork skills and contribution to the contribution to the team project.
team project. There is evidence of
implementing feedback from earlier peer
assessment stage.
GLO7
1 (3) (2) (1) (0)
Sieve analysis All test results are properly combined and All test results are properly combined and All test results are not analysed, however, Not attempted or the results are mostly
presented in a condense insightful manner. presented. Calculations are mostly correct. some of the test results are presented and incorrect.
All calculations are correct. Adequate Some discussion is provided. Conclusions the calculations are correct.
discussion is provided on how possible and final results are clearly communicated.
outliers are identified and removed.
GLO1, GLO4, GLO5
Conclusions and final results are clearly
communicated and justified.
2 (6) (4) (2) (0)
Atterberg limits All test results are properly combined and All test results are properly combined and All test results are not analysed, however, Not attempted or the results are mostly
presented in a condense insightful manner. presented. Calculations are mostly correct. some of the test results are presented and incorrect.
All calculations are correct. Adequate Some discussion is provided. Conclusions the calculations are correct.
discussion is provided on how possible and final results are clearly communicated.
outliers are identified and removed.
GLO1, GLO4, GLO5
Conclusions and final results are clearly
communicated and justified.
1 (3) (2) (1) (0)
Soil classification The sample is correctly classified using both The sample is correctly classified using either A reasonable attempt has been made to Not attempted.
ASTM (USCS) and AS1726. Possible ASTM (USCS) or AS1726. classify the sample using ASTM (USCS) or
variations in classification due to variation AS1726, but there are clear mistakes in the
of test results in different trials is process showing lack of understanding.
GLO1
discussed.
1 (3) (2) (1) (0)
Soil chemistry results Statistical analysis is complete and correctly Statistical analysis is mostly complete and While statistical analysis has been No statistical analysis completed
and analysis interpreted, with results using appropriate correctly interpreted, with results using undertaken the analysis is mostly incorrect
GLO1, GLO4
uncertainty/error AND clear justification for appropriate uncertainty/error
the exclusion of any outliers
3 (9) (6) (3) (0)
Identification of All investigation limits have been Most investigation limits have been While investigation limits have been No investigation limits identified
investigation limits appropriately identified appropriately identified, but some minor presented, they are not relevant to the
GLO4
information is missing investigation
3 (9) (6) (3) (0)
Compaction results Correct graph produced by an appropriate Correct graph produced by an appropriate While a graph showing the compaction No compaction graph provided
GLO1, GLO2
software and included: The test points, the software and included: The test points, the curves was provided, it lacked key
compaction curve, OMC & MDD, and Zero- compaction curve, and OMC & MDD. information and there was no/superficial
air-void curve explanation provided.
2 (6) (4) (2) (0)
Discussion of Complete and concise discussion is Complete discussion is provided and results Limited discussion is provided or some The results are not discussed, or
compaction results provided and results are interpreted are mostly interpreted correctly / Outlier inaccuracies in interpretation of results / incorrectly interpreted
correctly / Outlier results are identified and results are identified / Possible sources of Outlier results are not identified / Possible
possible sources of errors or inconsistencies errors or inconsistencies are discussed, but sources of errors or inconsistencies are not
are thoroughly and correctly discussed in not in depth, or there are mistakes in discussed.
GLO1, GLO4
depth. External references are used when presented interpretations.
necessary.
2 (6) (4) (2) (0)
CBR results and All test results shared are properly All test results shared are properly All test results are not analysed, however, Not attempted or the results are mostly
discussion combined and presented in a condense combined and presented. Calculations are some of the test results are presented and incorrect.
insightful manner. All calculations are mostly correct. Some discussion is the calculations are correct.
correct. Adequate discussion is provided provided. Conclusions and final results are
on how possible outliers are identified and clearly communicated.
GLO1, GLO4
removed. Conclusions and final results are
clearly communicated and justified.
2 (6) (4) (2) (0)
Literature review and The literature review used high quality The literature review used good quality While a literature review was provided, the No literature review provided
discussion on CBR and references to provide a clear and concise references to provide a discussion explaining choice of reference could improve, but
compaction results summary, while explaining the observations the observations from the test results mostly provided correct results and
GLO1, GLO4
from the test results considering the considering the literature review. discussions. It lacked the link between the
literature and highlighting possible obtained results and the existing literature
anomalies
3 (9) (6) (3) (0)
CBR sensitivity to Correct and thoroughly discussed results Correct results supported by calculations but Results are incorrect and not supported by Not attempted
GLO1, GLO5
moisture content supported by calculations, discussions, and limited discussion or reference to literature literature review.
literature review. review.
1 (3) (2) (1) (0)
Visualisation of CBR Correct and professionally created graph Correct graph produced by an appropriate While a graph showing all the CBR results was No CBR graph provided
sensitivity to moisture visualising the results in a condensed and software provided it has major errors.
GLO4
content. clear manner.
1 (3) (2) (1) (0)
Compaction plan The discussion on the compaction plan The discussion on the compaction plan While the discussion on the compaction plan There was no compaction plan
thoroughly examined and analysed the test addressed the most important aspects of the attempted to examine and analyse the test submitted
results against the literature, going beyond compaction plan with good rigor and results, substantiation and references to the
the most important aspects of the substantiation and reference to some of the literature were lacking
compaction plan with good rigor and test results and discussions.
substantiation. Providing reference to
GLO1, GLO5
previous results and discussions on CBR
sensitivity and potentially other references.
3 (9) (6) (3) (0)
Report writing - The written language used throughout the The written language in the technical report The written language in the presentation was The written language in the presentation
Language technical report was: Clear, Precise, was mostly: Clear (easy to understand), sometimes difficult to understand due to was often difficult to understand.
Appropriate, AND Concise (brief and Precise (correct use of language - few many grammatical and spelling errors /
comprehensive) with attention given to the grammatical or spelling errors) and contained jargon or inaccurate use of
format Appropriate (for the audience) language. Careful proof reading and editing
GLO2
required
1 (3) (2) (1) (0)
Report writing - The product was carefully formatted and The product was formatted according to The product required significant formatting/ The product was not ready for
Formatting polished resulting in an easy to follow and formatting requirements and was generally editing, as the work was difficult to follow presentation as it clearly lacked
enjoyable reading experience for the easy to follow, however additional formatting / editing
audience formatting/ editing/ would improve the
GLO2
audience experience.
1 (3) (2) (1) (0)
Report writing - Literature was presented using the required Literature was presented using the required While references provided there were many No references provided
Referencing ‘referencing style’ with no errors ‘referencing style’ with few formatting errors errors /or they were poorly formatted / the
sources were not credible (e.g. Wikipedia)
Consider seeking support at the library to
develop your research skills
GLO2
1 (3) (2) (1) (0)
Presentation and Graphics / diagrams / images were clear Graphics / diagrams / images were clear While graphics/diagrams/ images were Graphics/ diagrams / images were not
visualisation and were used to support the key messages and were used to support the key messages provided, the quality or formatting required used, were very poor quality or
of the presentation and demonstrated of the presentation. All visuals correctly improvement or choice of imaged distracted detracted from the presentation
obvious attention to sizing and format. All attributed the audience from the key message
visuals correctly attributed
GLO2
1 (3) (2) (1) (0)
