Page Comparison

Mentors teams

Dr. Joëlle Bitton / Luke Franzke
Dr. Björn Franke / Clemens Winkler
Dr. Antonio Scarponi / Verena Ziegler
Prof. Jürgen Späth / Mona Neubauer

...

• Thesis Colloquium 
  Each student meets the theory mentors together for a 20-minutes session. The student explain briefly what their findings are (max. 5 min) and then we have a discussion (mentors ask questions) about the work and the process (15 min).
  
  

28 May 2018, 17.00

• Full BA thesis and project documentation (part A and part B) delivered (including updates and rewrites, with final reflection on practice) as a digital copy on the IAD server by 17.00.
  
  

4 June 2018, 14.00 - 18.00

• Visit through Exhibition with mentors
• Please hand in your two hard copies of your thesis to Karin Luginbühl, IAD office room 4C.01, until 17.00.

...

• 14.00

...

• .

...

• Visit through Exhibition with mentors

7 June 2018, 16.00 - 22.00

...

• Practice session for BA Finals
  
  

13 June 2018, 0908.30 - 1516.00, in exhibition space (afterwards discussion for mentors room 5T.07, 16.00 - 17.30)

• BA FinalsFinals 
• Mentors and Jury discussiondiscussion 
  
  

14 June 2018: 10.00 - 16.00, room 4K.22.1

• Final mentors and jury discussion (10.00-12.00)
• Thesis Students feedback session (13.00-16.00)

Anchor
presentations presentations

...

• 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 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 for 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.