Hilton

= toc Title of assignment and task: = = = = = =DESIGNING AN IMPROVED LAYOUT FOR AN EXISTING MOTOR MECHANICS WORKSHOP (a mini-project)=

Author: **Hilton Arries** Institution: **Boland College - Worcester Campus**

= Context of your assignment, e.g. discipline, students, level of studies = = = This assessment was given to MATHEMATICAL LITERACY students doing a branch of Mechanical Engineering (in actual fact Motor Mechanics). Though these students are on Level 4 (exit level for FET colleges), the assessment is pitched at Level 5 to prepare students for further studies in this field. The class consist of 20 male and 8 female students ranging from age 18 - 30 years old. Worcester is an urban area with most of the student's parents being seasonal workers. Of the 28 students, 15 of them are English speaking (two are first language speakers and 13 are second language speakers), whilst the rest is Afrikaans.

This Mathematical Literacy assessment features : "TOPIC 4 : SPACE, SHAPE AND ORIENTATION & SUBJECT OUTCOME 3 : 'Make physical and diagrammatic representations to investigate and/or illustrate solutions in the workplace and other areas of responsibility' "

See attached file :



This assessment was given at the begining of term 2 with the theory in this topic being taught during term 1.

= Full task description including title of assignment and formative tasks leading up to summative task = = = The Campus manager, mr Cordier approached the final year Motor Mechanics student to design a new layout for the existing workshop. Lecturers and students were complaining about the impracticality(A PROBLEM!) of the workshop for years, but money has always been an issue. The 2012-13 budget of Boland College make provision for the revamp of the Motor Mechanics workshop at the Worcester Campus. So money will not be a problem for this mini-project. The project thus, is feasible.

Further on, CPUT has come to the table and is sponsoring four bursaries for four prospective students at their university in any Engineering discipline (Electric, Mechanical, etc). This bursary exempt students from class fees for the first year. It will be awarded to the students with the best, practical and workable design and layout. Therefor students were divided up into seven groups of four to work on the mini-project.

**OBJECTIVE :**
PART 1 : Design a new practical, improved and workable 2D floor plan(layout) for the existing workshop. PART 2 : Design a scale model (3D model) from the new improved floor plan.

The mini-project is divided into four tasks :

**TASK 1** : ( DURATION 1 WEEK)

 * =====Research reasons for the current layout of the workshop(interview lecturers, search on building archives, etc).=====
 * =====Design a floor plan for the existing layout (Show doors, windows, measurements, facilities, machinery, etc).=====

**FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT 1 :** Friday of the first week - **Lecturer assessment**

 * Present a short report on your findings
 * Present a rough drawing of the existing layout.

**TASK 2** : (DURATION 2 WEEKS)

 * =====Investigate workshops in the motor industry (eg. 2 or more motor workhops in town)=====
 * =====Design 2 or 3 prospective new layouts based on the investigations done (Show doors, windows, measurements, facilities, machinery, etc).=====

**FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT 2 :** Friday of the third week - **Lecturer and Peer Assessment** (voting by the class)

 * Present an short oral of you experience **(Lecture Assessment)**
 * After presenting and showing the 2/3 prospective layouts, choose the most feasible one.**( Peer Assessment)**

**TASK 3** : (DURATION 2 WEEKS)

 * =====Design a neat and detailed scale drawing of the chosen design (Show doors, windows, measurements, facilities, machinery, etc).=====

**FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT 3 :** Friday of the fifth week - **Peer Assessment**
>
 * Present a neat and detailed scale drawing (2D) to the class.
 * Present an accurate and neat scale model (3D) to the lecturer.
 * Secret Ballot voting for best, most practical layout - Result hold back till after Summative Assessment
 * SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT :** Friday of the sixth week - **Lecturer Assessment**
 * Present a neat and detailed scale drawing (2D) to the lecturer.
 * Present an accurate and neat scale model (3D) to the lecturer.
 * Evaluate why the new layout might be better than the existing one.
 * Reflect on you experience whilst working on the mini-project (good and bad) --> (1 - 2 pages)

**OUTCOME : WINNERS WILL BE ANNOUNCED (BY CAMPUS MANAGER) TWO WEEKS LATER AFTER MODERATION WAS DONE BY A MODERATOR FROM A COLLEGE IN THE WESTERN CAPE(eg Northlink, College of Cape town. etc).**
= Marking grid/rubric = = =  ** MARKING RUBRIC FOR THE DESIGN OF AN IMPROVED LAYOUT FOR A MOTOR MECHANICS WORKSHOP **
 * ** STUDENTS IN GROUP NAMES : ** ||||||||  ||
 * ** SUBJECT : ** ||||||||  ||
 * ** CRITERIA ** ||  **EXAMPLARY**   **(MERIT)**  ||  **COMPETENT**   **(CREDIT)**  ||  **DEVELOPING**  ||  **BEGINNING**   **(NYC)**  ||
 * ** 1. Cover Page ** || ** /2 **  ||  ** 2 **  ||  ** 1 **  ||  ** 0 **  ||   ||
 * ^  ||^   ||  Done extremely neatly with name, level, and title.   Lots of extra effort  ||  Done neatly with only name & title, or name & level  ||  Done neatly with only name.  ||^   ||
 * ** 2. Content page (Index) ** || ** /3 **  ||  ** 3 **  ||  ** 2 **  ||  ** 1 **  ||  ** 0 **  ||
 * ^  ||^   ||  Done extremely neatly with all headings, sub-headings, page no’s on index page match content  ||  Done very neatly with all headings, sub-headings, page no’s on index page match content  ||  Complete with all headings, sub-headings, page no’s on index page match content  ||  Not   included  ||
 * ** TASK 1 : LECTURER ASSESSED ** ||
 * ** 3. Research and collection of **
 * information. Rep **** ort) ** || ** /10 ** || ** 7+ **  ||  ** 6 **  ||  ** 5 **  ||  ** 4 **  ||
 * ^  ||^   ||  Lots of effort.   Consulted wide variety of resources  ||  Some effort.   3 relevant resources  ||  Little effort.   2 relevant resources  ||  Very little effort.   1 relevant resource.  ||
 * ** 4. Floor plan of current layout ** || ** /5 **  ||  ** 4+ **  ||  ** 3 **  ||  ** 2 **  ||  ** 1 **  ||
 * ^  ||^   ||  Very creative. Correct measurements. All elements included (i.e. doors, windows, machinery, etc)  ||  Creative. Correct measurements. Many elements included (  ||  A bit of creativity Correct measurements. Some elements included  ||  Not very creative. Incorrect measurements. Only 2 elements included.  ||
 * ** TASK 2 : LECTURER AND PEER ASSESSED ** ||
 * ** 5. Oral Presentation (Lecturer Assessed) ** || ** /7 **  ||  ** 5+ **  ||  ** 4 **  ||  ** 3 **  ||  ** 2 **  ||
 * ^  ||^   ||  Excellent, relevant and concise. Presented in a clear confident way. All 4 members participated in oral.  ||  Mostly relevant Presented in a clear confident way. Most members participated in oral.  ||  Not very audible.   Irrelevant. Only 1 or 2 members participated in oral  ||  Barely audible.   Irrelevant and confusing. Only 1 member participated in oral  ||
 * ** 6. Prospective layouts (Peer Assessed) ** || ** /3 **  ||  Very creative. Logical layout  ||  Creative. Mostly logical layout  ||  Bit of creativity. Almost logical layout  ||  Not very creative. Layout   Chaotic  ||

= = = = = = = = = Rationale for design based on theoretical educational literature = = = =Peer review=
 * ** TASK 3 : LECTURER AND PEER ASSESSED ** ||
 * ** CRITERIA ** ||  **EXAMPLARY**   **(MERIT)**  ||  **COMPETENT**   **(CREDIT)**  ||  **DEVELOPING**  ||  **BEGINNING**   **(NYC)**  ||
 * ** 7. Design of scale drawing (2D-model) **
 * Peer assessment taken into account ** || ** /10 **  ||  ** 7+ **  ||  ** 6 **  ||  ** 5 **  ||  ** 4 **  ||
 * ^  ||^   ||  Outstanding presentation of extreme high quality. In-depth insight.  ||  Good presentation.   Demonstrate very good insight.  ||  Demonstrate good   insight  ||  Outstanding presentation of extreme high quality. In-depth insight  ||
 * ** 8. Design of scale model (3D-model) **
 * Peer assessment taken into account ** || ** /10 **  ||  ** 7+ **  ||  ** 6 **  ||  ** 5 **  ||  ** 4 **  ||
 * ^  ||^   ||  Very creative, inspirational. Good sturdy material used. Many extras included in model.  ||  Creative, inspirational. Sturdy material used. Some extras included in model.  ||  Hint of creativity. Model is somewhat sturdy  ||  Not very creative. Model is barely sturdy.  ||
 * ** 9. Evaluation of old versus new design **
 * (Rational) ** || ** /10 **  ||  ** 7+ **  ||  ** 6 **  ||  ** 5 **  ||  ** 4 **  ||
 * ^  ||^   ||  Excellent, relevant and concise. Very logical presentation  ||  Good, ordered presentation. Mostly logical.  ||  Some order of information. Almost logical   presentation  ||  Little or no order of information.   Unordered presentation.  ||
 * ** 10. Evidence of reflection ** || ** /10 **  ||  ** 7+ **  ||  ** 6 **  ||  ** 5 **  ||  ** 4 **  ||
 * ^  ||^   ||  Excellent. Thought deeply about project and learned a lot.  ||  Evidence of thoughtful consideration. Learned much from the project  ||  Evidence of reasonable consideration. Learned somewhat from the project.  ||  Inadequately considered. Learned very little from the project  ||
 * ** 10. References ** || ** /5 **  ||  ** 4+ **  ||  ** 3 **  ||  ** 2 **  ||  ** 1 **  ||
 * ^  ||^   ||  Excellent referencing. Perfect format of in-text references and list of references.  ||  Good referencing. Mostly correct format of in-text references and list of references  ||  Adequate referencing. Some correct format of in-text references and list of references  ||  No in-text referencing and /or list of references.   Plagiarism  ||
 * ** T O T A L : ** ||||||||||  ** /75 **  ||
 * ** PERCENTAGE : ** ||||||||||  ** % **  ||
 * ** COMMENTS : ** |||||||||| ** DUE DATE : 30 MAY 2012 (FINAL) ** ||
 * ^  |||||||||| ** LECTURER : **** H. ARRIES ** ||
 * ^  |||||||||| ** SIGNED : ** ||
 * ^  |||||||||| ** DATE : ** ||

Name of peer reviewer: A ARNOLD Comments: Assessment mirrors real world experience. The theory (calculationss) is well blended with the practical (design). Lecturer used different assessment mehods ( peer, self and face to face ) as well as teaching methods ( groupwork, presentations.etc) Recommendations: It is suggested that lecturer use seperate assessment tools(rubrics) for the formative and summative assessment. Lecturer could add more outcomes information in the level descriptors (criteria) on the rubric.

=Changes implemented after peer review=