A5–Grader’s Comments

1. Teams across both classes did not do as well for A5 as they had previously done with A3 and other assignments.

2. Most teams did not cite images or tables directly on the page – make sure you do this. You may include an optional ‘References’ page but the citation always has to be on the same page you inserted the work.

3. Again, like A3, there were many claims made about systems which were not backed up by evidence or calculations.

4. Most teams forgot to reference the class definition of a system. Some alluded to it, however, when you are asked to make the reference clear, you would be best putting it beyond doubt.

5. A lot of teams missed the basic step of outlining the basic methods of heat transfer used in each system – conduction, convection and radiation.

6. A few teams confused the concept of indoor air quality with that of thermal comfort.

7. Most teams did not mention maximum and minimum parameters and only included typical values.

8. Most teams did not explain or provide comments for the numeric parameters.

9. Some teams mentioned numeric parameters but did not explain the relevance of those parameters or explain what they meant in the context of sizing, or location/placement etc.

10. Most teams were able to describe different uses and applications but often did not state the difference in the characteristics of those systems in different application, or acknowledging that there were any if at all.

11. Most teams attempted the extra credit section in Professor Mitchell’s section.

12. Zero students attempted to complete the extra credit in Professor DaSaro’s section.

13. Overall the submissions were poorly prepared and lacking thought. Students resorted to “just writing anything and hoping to get credit for something.”

14. In Professor DaSaro’s section, it was clear that the students divided the work and did not work in teams. Each section looked like a completely different webpage and/or assignment all together.

15. Poor teamwork is evident in the teamwork evaluations.

16. It is obvious that the students did not pay attention to the assignment criteria.