Mentors teams
Dr. Joëlle Bitton / Luke Franzke
Dr. Björn Franke / Clemens Winkler
Dr. Antonio Scarponi / Verena Ziegler
Prof. Jürgen Späth / Mona Neubauer
...
- First slide should feature: Your Name, Project title, School, Department, Mentors, Date
- Second slide is stating in 1-2 short sentences: your project summary (what is it?) and why it’s ground-breaking
- Third slide: describe your project a bit further to explain how it is operating (from a technology perspective or other): what are the interactions within the project, how do users experience it? You can present here as well a very short demo of your project if relevant.
- Related work: in 1-2 slides, present works that are precedents or related.
Related work can pertain to various categories: for instance, related work in technology you’re using, in the aesthetics, in the concept, in literature/science-fiction, in history, in art, in design, etc… It could be many categories, pick the ones that are most relevant to show on your slides and mention up to 1-2 important ones in your oral presentation. Mention how your project pushes the topic further. - Decision-making process
How did you make the decisions you made?
Define the 2-3 key moments in your process. - User-studies
Who are your users, how did you involve them and how their input helped you make decisions for your project? - Reflection
Challenges and pitfalls: what you didn’t manage to do or what you could have done better - Potential impact & future directions
Anchor review review
| review | |
| review |
...
Review and Grading
The official study guidelines of the BA in Design at ZHdK provides broad lines for the diploma evaluation (see § 15).
The BA thesis counts for 22 ECTS points and is graded between letters A-F.
The criteria for the final grade are :
- Project (50%)
Generosity: How the research was conducted with ambition, commitment and responsibilty.
Relevance: Relevance of the topic for the design community, society, design discourse.
Execution: How diligently, creatively, precisely the outcome is showcased.
Academic Position: Evaluating the maturity of the position within the research discourse.
Transversality: Considering the different fields in which the project can have an impact. - Documentation and reflection (25%)
Quality of the process and research
Experimentations conducted
Adequate design tools / Adequate evaluation
Plausibility of the result in regard to the initially formulated research question
- Final presentation (15%)
Ability for Synthesis
Range of Overview given
Addressing questions asked - Mediation via exhibition (10%)
Quality
Precision
The grade is decided after each mentoring team provides their assessment (the student mentors provide a consultory assessment) and a discussion leads to a consensus.
The two external guests provide their assessment for the project itself and the mediation via exhibition.
Additional criteria:
Depending on the angle undertaken for the project, some aspects will be particularly relevant: ie. interface design for apps and platforms, methodology for field studies, evaluation for education services, etc..
Grading details:
A hervorragend (6) = ausgezeichnete, hervorragende Leistung
B sehr gut (5-6) = deutlich überdurchschnittliche Leistung
C gut (5) = insgesamt gute und solide Arbeit
D befriedigend (4-5) = mittelmäßige Arbeit
E ausreichend (4) = Leistungen entsprechen den Mindestanforderungen
FX nicht bestanden (3,5) = es sind Nachbesserungen erforderlich
F klar nicht bestanden (<3,5)
Abstufungen: 3 = ungenügend, 2 = schwach, 1 = sehr schwach bzw. keine Arbeit geleistet – die Arbeit ist zu wiederholen, in der Regel keine Nachbesserung möglich.