TASK MARK

Assignment 3:Data Warehouse Major Assignment Report 45

Video presentation 55

Report Weight 45% Total 100

Marking criteria

● Accuracy and Depth of Data Analysis

● Quality and Relevance of Visualizations

● Coherence of the Report Structure and Clarity in Presenting Methodology and Results

● Creative and Critical Interpretation of Analysis Results:

● Overall Quality of the Written Report:

○ Evaluate the clarity and effectiveness of the writing, including grammar, sentence

structure, and vocabulary.

○ Assess the proper use of visuals, such as figures, tables, and charts, to support the

written content.

○ Consider the adherence to proper citation practices and referencing of external

sources.

Note: Be sure you have met the above criteria in relation to the main topic: transport accessibility in metropolitan Melbourne

Additional Criteria

Report Document Readability Report is neat and clear with sufficient headings and consistent format

Correct and relevant component

submission All required tasks are provided according to the submission checklist Up to 20 marks deduction

Video presentation Weight 55%

Marking criteria N Level P Level C Level D Level HD Level

The content is detailed and

The content is well- well-structured, providing a

structured, with clear clear and coherent

explanations of the explanation of the The content is comprehensive and highly

introduction, methodology, introduction, methodology, detailed, offering thorough explanations of the

data analysis, and results. data analysis, and results. introduction, methodology, data analysis,

The content is poorly presented, with unclear explanations in the introduction, methodology, The content covers the basic aspects of the report but lacks depth in Most sections are adequately The connections between results, and conclusion. The connections

data analysis, results, and conclusion. The connection between these sections is weak, leading explaining the methodology, data analysis, and results. The connections connected, though some sections are strong, leading to between sections are seamless, creating a

The Quality of Content to a lack of coherence in the presentation. between sections are present but not well-developed. details may lack depth. a logical flow of information. cohesive and compelling presentation.

The presentation

The presentation shows a demonstrates a strong

solid understanding of the understanding of the dataset,

dataset, data processing, data processing, analysis

analysis techniques, and techniques, and interpretation The presentation exhibits an excellent

interpretation of results. The of results. The analysis is understanding of the dataset, data processing,

knowledge is sufficient, with comprehensive, with most analysis techniques, and interpretation of

The Depth of Knowledge of the Topic The presentation shows minimal understanding of the dataset, data processing, analysis The presentation demonstrates a basic understanding of the dataset, data most key aspects well aspects covered in depth, results. The analysis is thorough and well-

(Understanding of Dataset, Data Processing, techniques, and interpretation of results. There are significant gaps in knowledge, and the processing, and analysis techniques, but lacks depth in interpreting the results. covered, though some areas reflecting a high level of supported, showing deep knowledge and

Analysis Techniques, Interpretation of Results) analysis is superficial. The knowledge is evident, but key aspects are underexplored. may need further depth. knowledge. expertise in the topic.

The quality of the presentation in terms of Lack of preparedness and professionalism. The speaker is not included in the video. The The speaker shows reasonable preparation and professionalism. The speaker The speaker shows The speaker prepared well Excellent explanation of idea with clear

preparedness and clarity presentation does not have any logical structure. is included in the video. Some attempt at presenting the idea in a logical sufficient preparation and and shows professionalism. structure and excellent supporting evidence.

manner but still poorly done. professionalism. The The speaker is included in Explanation is presented clearly and flowed

speaker is included in the the video. The idea is smoothly from one point to the next in logical

video. The presentation has presented in a clear logical sequence in a sophisticated way.

sufficient logical structure. manner.

The amount of time spent in the Presentation is too short (less than 3 minutes) or too long (longer than 7 minutes) Presentation is shorter than 3.5 minutes or longer than 6 minutes, but still Presentation is shorter than 4 Presentation is shorter than Presentation is within 4.5 and 5.5 minutes

presentation (5 minutes) within 3 and 7 minutes minutes or longer than 6 4.5 minutes or longer than

minutes, but still within 3.5 5.5 minutes, but still within 4

and 6.5 minutes and 6 minutes

The video quality The video quality is poor, where it is difficult to listen to the voice clearly and the visual was The video quality is acceptable although there sometimes the quality of The video is reasonable with Very good used of the media. The video quality is excellent. Student shows

unclear. images and sound are not perfectly clear. some effort in using the Audio and video are clear a high effort in presenting the video and

presentation media. Audio and in a high quality. keeping the audiences' attention throughout

and video are in reasonable the five minutes presentation.

quality.