Undergraduate Course Outline - UNSW Engineering · STUDYING A UG COURSE IN MINING ENGINEERING AT UNSW ..... 20 . Document Management: Filename: CourseOutline_MINE4440_S1_2016.docx

MINE4440Mining Research Project I Semester One, 2016

Undergraduate Course Outline

Associate Professor Paul Hagan E: [email protected]

CONTENTS

1. INFORMATION ABOUT THE COURSE……………...………………………………………….……..2

2. AIMS, LEANING OUTCOMES AND GRADUATE ATTRIBUTES ................................................. 4

3. REFERENCE RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 6

4. COURSE CONTENT AND LEARNING ACTIVITIES ..................................................................... 7

5. COURSE ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................. 8

6. ASSESSMENT CRITERIA .......................................................................................................... 11

7. STUDYING A UG COURSE IN MINING ENGINEERING AT UNSW .......................................... 20

Document Management: Filename: CourseOutline_MINE4440_S1_2016.docx Date last update: 8 Feb 2016 Changes made by: Paul Hagan/ Jennifer KING Revision number: V3.7

MINE 4440: Mining Research Project 1 1 | P a g e

1. INFORMATION ABOUT THE COURSE

Course Code: MINE4440 Semester: S1, 2016 Level: UG Units/Credits 6 UOC Course Name: Mining Research Project 1

Course Convenor: Associate Professor Paul Hagan

Contact Details School of Mining Engineering Old Main Building, Rm 159G

EMAIL: [email protected],Phone: +61 2 9385 5998

Contact times Contact times are scheduled for:

• Tuesday 2:00pm – 5:00pm, CivEng 101 (primary lecture period)• [Monday 12:00pm – 2:00pm, Ainsworth 102 (alternate lecture period)]

1.1. Course Description

This is the first of two courses that run over consecutive semesters with the principle objective of managing a major research project. This is an individual student project, not a group project.

The course is intended to develop the capability and requisite skills of an engineer to build the foundation of knowledge related to a particular industry-related problem. This foundation provides a basis on which to design a solution that is robust and safe, cost effective and appropriate to the end-user.

The thesis provides an opportunity for the student to bring together engineering principles learned over their previous years of study and apply these principles to innovatively solve problems such as the development of a specific design, process and/or the investigation of a hypothesis. Thesis projects must be complex, open-ended problems that allow room for student creativity, and the acquisition, analysis and interpretation of results. There must be multiple possible solutions or conclusions at the outset and sufficient complexity to require a degree of project planning from the student. The thesis requires the student to formulate problems in engineering terms, manage an engineering project and find solutions by applying engineering methods. Students also develop their ability to work in a research and development environment.

It is essential that this foundation reflects not only established thinking and practices but equally important, it should account for divergent and newly developing views as well as any limitations or weaknesses that underpin current understanding. The quality of the engineering solution is therefore a function of the quality and timing to complete this investigation; an investigation that forms part of a process known as research.

The course is only offered in the first semester of each academic year. Commencement of the second course in the series, MINE4450 Mining Research Project II, can only be undertaken after the student has satisfactorily completed all requirements of MINE4440 Mining Research Project I.

1.2. Course Completion

Course completion requires: • submission of all assessment items; failure to submit one or more assessment items will result

in the award of an Unsatisfactory Failure (UF) grade for the Course. • submission of Project Plan Agreement (PPA) to the Course Convenor. The student must

make an appointment with the Project Supervisor to discuss the outcomes and any changes required to the Project Plan and after agreement have the form signed-off by both the student’s Project Supervisor and the School Laboratory Manager. The final course results will be withheld and a grade of Results Withheld (or WD) will be returned until the completed form is submitted. This grade will remain until the start of Semester 2 when the grade will be changed to Unsatisfactory Failure (UF).

As a consequence of either or both circumstances, the student will be ineligible to undertake the second course MINE4450 Mining Research Project II.


mailto:[email protected]

1.3. Assumed Knowledge

This course assumes that a student: • is currently enrolled in the Mining Engineering single degree program or a Mining Engineering

double degree program at UNSW; and • has satisfactorily completed all the courses in Stages 1 to 3 of the Mining Engineering single

degree program or equivalent in the Mining Engineering double degree program and is in the final Stage/Year of the program; and

• has successfully completed MINE3430 Mining Systems; and • has a sound knowledge of mining terms and systems and has had previous exposure to mining

operations through industry employment and/or field trips.


2. AIMS, LEARNING OUTCOMES AND GRADUATE ATTRIBUTES 2.1. Course Aims

The course involves the student selecting a minerals related industry research project, undertaking background reading and preparing a report that incorporates a critique of the current state of knowledge related to the project topic and a detailed project plan. To assist the student to achieve the project milestone, a series of workshops will be conducted over the course of the semester. If the student has satisfactorily completed all activities and assessment items then by the end of the semester, the student will be in a commanding position to begin the investigative/experimental phase of the project from day one in the following semester. Quite often the project plan highlights certain constraints and tasks with long lead times such as gathering material, assembling instrumentation, constructing apparatus and/or data collection from a mine-site. As a consequence of drafting the schedule for the remainder of the project, students quite often realise how much time can be saved by undertaking at least some minor tasks such as arranging to get test samples or other materials during the mid-year recess. Other students go further and commit some time to undertaking the bulk of the test work during the mid-year recess leaving some contingency should any unplanned major issue arise and thereby ensure on-time completion.

2.2. Learning Outcomes

At the conclusion of this course, students should be able to (numbers in brackets refer to elements in the BE (Hons) Program listed in following section):

1. Develop a design or a process or investigate a hypothesis following industry and professional engineering standards. (7, 8, 9, 10)

2. Critically reflect on a specialist body of knowledge related to their thesis topic. (3) 3. Apply scientific and engineering methods to solve an engineering problem. (7) 4. Analyse data objectively using quantitative and mathematical methods. (2, 7, 8) 5. Demonstrate oral and written communication in professional and lay domains. (12)

2.3. BE (Hons) Program Learning Outcomes

1. Comprehensive, theory based understanding of the underpinning natural and physical sciences and the engineering fundamentals applicable to the engineering discipline.

2. Conceptual understanding of the mathematics, numerical analysis, statistics, and computer and information sciences which underpin the engineering discipline.

3. In-depth understanding of specialist bodies of knowledge within the engineering discipline. 4. Discernment of knowledge development and research directions within the engineering

discipline. 5. Knowledge of engineering design practice and contextual factors impacting the engineering

discipline. 6. Understanding of the scope, principles, norms, accountabilities and bounds of sustainable

engineering practice in the specific discipline. 7. Application of established engineering methods to complex engineering problem solving. 8. Fluent application of engineering techniques, tools and resources. 9. Application of systematic engineering synthesis and design processes. 10. Application of systematic approaches to the conduct and management of engineering projects. 11. Ethical conduct and professional accountability. 12. Effective oral and written communication in professional and lay domains. 13. Creative, innovative and pro-active demeanour. 14. Professional use and management of information. 15. Orderly management of self, and professional conduct. 16. Effective team membership and team leadership.


2.4. Graduate Attributes

This course will contribute to the development of the following Graduate Attributes: 1. appropriate technical knowledge 2. having advanced problem solving, analysis and synthesis skills with the ability to

tolerate ambiguity 3. ability for engineering design and creativity 4. awareness of opportunities to add value through engineering and the need for

continuous improvement 5. being able to work and communicate effectively across discipline boundaries 6. having HSEC consciousness 7. being active life-long learners.


3. REFERENCE RESOURCES

3.1. Reference Materials

• MEA Report Writing Guide for Mining Engineers. P Hagan and P Mort (Mining Education Australia (MEA)). (Latest edition available for download from the School website or a hardcopy version is available from the UNSW Bookshop)

• Guide to Authors. (Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne) (Available for download from the AusIMM website)

• The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Project Management. G Campbell and S Baker (Alpha: New York)…or its equivalent.

• Style Manual for Authors, Editors and Printers, 2002. 6th edition (John Wiley & Sons) • The Research Project – How to Write It, 2000. R Berry, 4th edition (Routledge: London) • How to Write a Better Thesis, 2002. D Evans and P Gruba (Melbourne University Press:

Melbourne)

3.2. Other Resources

• Learning Guide: Mining Research Project • Student Resource Book: Mining Research Project • EndNote, software package available to UNSW students • ELISE, the on-line study skills tutorial and ELISE Plus. Both tutorials will be useful to students

when preparing the Annotated Bibliography and Project Progress Report assignment submissions. The latter in particular includes a tutorial on EndNote and Refworks. The tutorials can be accessed at www.subjectguides.library.unsw.edu.au/elise

• The Learning Centre. A number of resources are available at the UNSW Learning Centre website to assist students in preparing the various assessment tasks including:

• Guide for Writing Thesis Proposals, available at www.student.unsw.edu.au/thesis-proposals • Honours Thesis Writing for Engineering and Science Students, available

at www.student.unsw.edu.au/honours-thesis-writing-engineering-and-science-students

3.3. Online Resources

Selected readings as well as other supporting material (e.g. course outline and lecture notes will be made available on Moodle.


http://subjectguides.library.unsw.edu.au/elise

https://student.unsw.edu.au/thesis-proposals

https://student.unsw.edu.au/honours-thesis-writing-engineering-and-science-students

4. COURSE CONTENT AND LEARNING ACTIVITIES 4.1. Learning Activities Summary

Week Date starting Project Milestone CONTENT / Tasks

1 29 Feb Course Introduction

• Outline of course objectives, activities and assessment.

• Further consideration of alternate research project topics

2 7 March • Discuss with academics on potential project topics

3 14 March

MILESTONE #1 Project Proposal

Workshop #1. Mechanics of a literature search • Tools and tips on use of library information

databases. • Using EndNote to manage your database

of references. • Refer to ELISE and ELISE plus before

workshop (see earlier section on Resources).

4 21 March

PREP TASK #2.1 Technical Editing

Workshop #2. How to structure a literature survey.

• Bring details of literature search found to date to the workshop.

• Assessment pack distributed in-class

28 March mid-semester recess

4 April non-teaching week

5 11 April PREP TASK #2.2 TECHNICAL EDITING

Workshop #3. Technical editing. • Exercise on technical editing and Peer

Assessment • In-class group marking of assessment

6 18 April MILESTONE #2 Annotated Bibliography

7 25 April Workshop #4. Help!

• How to collate concepts and write the literature review

8 2 May Workshop #5. Project Plan

• What is expected in a project plan, Gantt charts, risk assessment

9 9 May

10 11 May MILESTONE #3 Project Progress Report

11 23 May

12 30 May Consultation and feedback on Progress

• Report with sign-off by Supervisor

6 Jun MILESTONE #4 Project Plan Agreement (PPA)


5. COURSE ASSESSMENT 5.1. Assessment Summary

Assessment of the research project is based on the submissions made at various project milestones over the course of the year. Specific details of the requirements of the project milestones related to each item of assessment are contained in the Learning Guide: Mining Research Project. The range of assessment tasks have been designed to ensure a student can demonstrate they have satisfactorily attained the minimum requirements of the course as defined in the Learning Outcomes of the course and Graduate Attributes of the program. The student is also advised to review the relevant Assessment Criteria before completing each of the assessment items.

Item No. Assessment

Week due

Weighting Learning outcomes

A01 Project Proposal plus self-assessment 3 10% 1

A02 Technical Editing (In class exercise) 5 8% 5

A03 Annotated Bibliography plus self-assessment & peer assessment (750-2000 words)

6 15% 2

A04 Project Progress Report (PPR) plus self-assessment (20-30 pages) 10 60% 1, 2, 3 & 5

A05 On-going Consultation with Supervisor 1-12 5% 5

A06 Project Plan Agreement (PPA) 13 2% 5

5.2. Assessment Requirements

Who • All assessment items must be submitted to the Course Convenor. It must not be submitted

directly to the student’s individual Project Supervisor – this includes the Project Proposal, Annotated Bibliography and Project Progress Report.

When • If not otherwise stated, the default deadline for submission of an assignment is 9:00am on

Monday in the nominated week. If the Monday coincides with a Public Holiday then the due date is the next business day in the nominated week.

• Early submission is required in cases where the student will otherwise be absent on the due date of submission, for example to attend the Student Mining Games, a graduate employment interview etc. – no extensions will be granted.

• Prior to submission, students should read the School Policy on Assignment Submissions which can be viewed at: www.engineering.unsw.edu.au/mining-engineering/what-we-do/about-the-school/school-general-guidelines

• In particular, the student should make sure they have read and understood the: • Declaration of Academic Integrity; • Assignment Submission requirements detailed in the University Policies section of the

Course Outline; and


http://www.engineering.unsw.edu.au/mining-engineering/what-we-do/about-the-school/school-general-guidelines

http://www.engineering.unsw.edu.au/mining-engineering/what-we-do/about-the-school/school-general-guidelines

• School Policy on Assignment Submission available on the School's website (the web address is given in the Course Outline). In particular note the requirement that only PDF documents should be uploaded and the required file naming convention.

Where • Submissions must be made electronically through Turnitin in Moodle unless otherwise stated.

Turnitin is a plagiarism checking service that will retain a copy of the assessment item on its database for the purpose of future plagiarism checking.

What • Submission requirements for all assignments are listed in Sections 4 and 7 of the Course

Learning Guide. • The submission must be:

o a single document in PDF format; and o prepared in the form of a formal report that includes a list of reference sources cited in

the report, prepared in accordance with the report writing standards of the School as contained in the MEA Report Writing Guide for Mining Engineers. A copy can be obtained from the UNSW Bookshop or downloaded from the School webpage.

• Each submission must have appended: o to the front, a signed copy of the Student Declaration Form and Coversheet; and o to the end, a completed self-assessed copy of the Assessment Criteria. Copies of both documents are available for download from Moodle.

• It is strongly recommended when preparing the major assignment; students use the Report Template available from Moodle. Note: as this template already incorporates the required the Student Declaration Form, a student does not need to separately append a signed copy of coversheet to their assignment.

How • The submitted document must be consistent with the following file naming convention:

< FamilyNameInitials_CourseCode_AssignmentNumber.pdf >. • A typical complaint filename would take the following form < SmithPD_MINE4440_A01.pdf >

which elements correspond to: o Family name of student: Smith o Initial(s) of student: PD o Course Code: MINE4440 o Assignment number: A01...as defined in the Course Outline for the assessment task

Project Proposal o File format: PDF document

5.3. Penalties for Non-Compliant Submission

A submission that is non-compliant with the School Policy on Assignment Submission and/or requirements as contained in this Course Outline may not be marked and/or penalty marks subtracted from the assignment mark for non-compliance. Some examples of a non-compliant assignment include that the assignment submission:

• is not a single PDF document. Penalty for non-compliance: assignment not marked. • does not contain a signed copy of the Student Declaration Statement. Penalty for non-

compliance: assignment not marked. • is not fully consistent with the designated file naming convention as listed above and defined

as Item #6 in the School Policy on electronic submission. For example, a file name such as < ProjectProposal.pdf > is NOT compliant. Penalty for non-compliance: 10 marks.

• does not have appended at the end of the assignment a completed self-assessment by the student of the assignment using the official Assessment Criteria template. Penalty for non-compliance: 10 marks.


5.4. Assessment Process

Each student must have a Project Supervisor who is a member of academic staff in the School. In some instances, the Project Supervisor may deem it appropriate to appoint a Project Co-Supervisor who is either an academic from the School or some other School/Faculty/University or, a person from industry. The Project Supervisor is responsible in conjunction with the Course Convenor for assessment of the student’s performance in the research project. In general, it is strongly recommended that a student should arrange to consult with their Project Supervisor on a regular basis to discuss project progress, options and future direction and, issues that may potentially impact performance and/or project completion. The onus is on the student not the Project Supervisor to initiate and hold regular meetings. With frequent communication there is less likelihood that “surprises” will arise which could adversely impact on the successful and timely completion of the project and ensure the various milestones in the project are attained.

5.5. Assignment Attachments

Each assignment submitted for assessment must be attached with:

• an official School Coversheet at the front of the assignment; and • the requisite Assessment Criteria form at the end of the assignment with the self-

assessment completed by the student.

If either or both of these are not attached then the assignment will be deemed non-compliant with the assessment requirements. A non-compliant submission may not be marked and zero marks may be awarded for that assessment item. In any case a minimum 5% of the total marks will be forfeited for that assignment. Depending on the assessment item, grading will be undertaken by the Course Convenor and/or Project Supervisor. In the case of the:

• Project Proposal and Annotated Bibliography, assessment will be undertaken by the Course Convenor and/or Teaching Assistant.

• Project Progress Report assessment will be undertaken by the student’s Project Supervisor and the Course Convenor.

Grading of the Project Progress Report usually involves some or all of the following steps. • A student must submit each assignment item to the Course Convenor who will record the

date of submission. • The Project Report will then be given to the student’s Project Supervisor. • The Project Supervisor will assess the work. A provisional mark will be returned to the

Course Convenor. • The relativity between Supervisors of the provisional mark will be audited. • Provisional marks will be distributed to all Project Supervisors in confidence. Marks will

not be released and the reports are not returned at this stage. • A meeting of all Project Supervisors will discuss relativities. • Penalties will be deducted from the adjusted provisional mark. • The final mark will be released after which reports can be collected from the Project

Supervisor. Note: Do NOT submit any assessment item directly to your Project Supervisor, as a late submission penalty will be applied.


6. Assessment Criteria

The following assessment criteria provide a framework for students when preparing major assignments in the course as well as a guideline for assessors when marking an assignment. The student is advised to review the relevant framework before undertaking their assignment. The criteria listed for each item of assessment and the descriptions contained therein are not intended to be prescriptive nor is it an exhaustive list. Rather it should be viewed as a framework to guide the student as to the type of information and depth of coverage that is expected to be evident in a submission for assessment; the framework illustrates for example what would distinguish an excellent achievement from a poor achievement. The student should be cognisant that a range of factors is often being assessed in any one assignment; not just whether the final results are numerically correct. Consideration is given to other relevant elements that contribute to the Learning Outcomes of the course as well as the Graduate Attributes of the overall degree program. The student is cautioned against merely using the assessment criteria as a checklist. When assessing an assignment, elements in the framework will be examined in terms of quality and creativity. Hence ensuring all the listed elements are merely covered in an assignment is often not sufficient in itself and will not automatically lead to full marks being awarded. Other factors such as how the student went about presenting information, how an argument was structured and/or the elements supporting a particular recommendation or outcome are also important. Finally the framework can also be used to provide feedback to a student on their performance in an assignment. Periodically the criteria are reviewed and updated; consequently changes may be made from time to time to the framework to improve its effectiveness in achieving both these objectives. Note: Reference to RWG in the assessment criteria refers to the MEA Report Writing Guide, and GTA to the AusIMM Guide to Authors.


6.1. Research Project Proposal

The assessment criteria and relative weighting that will be used in assessing the Project Proposal is summarised in the following table.

Assessment Criteria – Research Project Proposal

Criteria Excellent Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor nil

Quality of proposal

• proposal contains all essential elements including o well defined

Project Objectives and Expected Outcomes; and

o a clear description of the research elements associated with the project; and

o evidence of preliminary background reading on the topic; and

• in the form of a formal report that was written and presented to a professionally high standard and conformed entirely with RWG in terms of format, structure and style; and,

• all referencing and references were correct and in total accord with AusIMM referencing requirements as defined in the GTA and RWG; and

• total word count was not less than 750 and did not exceed 1500 words.

• proposal contains most essential elements including o a generally well

defined Project Objectives and Expected Outcomes;

o a clear description of the research elements associated with the project;

o evidence of some preliminary background reading on the topic; and

• in the form of a formal report that was well written and presented and conformed entirely with RWG; and,



• proposal contains many essential elements including o a vaguely

defined Project Objectives and Expected Outcomes;

o a description of the research elements;

o little or no evidence of preliminary background reading on the topic; and

• in the form of a formal report that conformed in most respects with RWG with only a few very minor exceptions and

• all referencing and references were correct and in accord with AusIMM referencing requirements as defined in the GTA and RWG with only a few very minor exceptions; and


• proposal lacks many of the essential elements with o poorly defined

Project Objectives and Expected Outcomes;

o poorly defined or incomplete description of the research elements;

o no evidence of preliminary background reading on the topic; and/or

• in the form of a formal report but contained many minor exceptions to RWG; and/or

• many errors in referencing and/or references were not correct and were not in accord with AusIMM referencing requirements as defined in the GTA and RWG; and/or

• total word count was less than 500 words.

• proposal does not contain most of the essential elements with o little/no defined

Project Objectives and Expected Outcomes;

o missing description of the research elements;

o no evidence of preliminary background reading on the topic; and/or

• was not presented in form of a formal report and/or contained major non-conformance issues with RWG; and/or

• majority of referencing and/or references were not correct and were not in accord with AusIMM referencing requirements as defined in the GTA and RWG; and/or

• total word count was less than 250 words.

• no proposal submitted; and/or

• not submitted on time; and/or

• was not consistent with requirements of a formal report in terms of format, structure and style and/or contained major non-conformance issues with RWG; and/or

• missing sections from report; and/or

• no in-text citation in main body of report of information sources used; and/or

• no References section; and/or

• incorrect system of citing references with respect to RWG; and/or

• did not conform with AusIMM referencing requirements as defined in the GTA and RWG; and/or

• did not conform with assignment submission requirements; and/or

• did not have attached an Assignment Coversheet and/or a completed self-assessment form.

10 8.5 8.0 7.5 7.0 5.0 4.5 3.0 2.5 0.5 0


6.2. Annotated Bibliography

The assessment criteria and relative weighting that will be used in assessing the Annotated Bibliography is summarised in the following table.

Assessment Criteria – Annotated Bibliography


Relevance of references to topic

All references were relevant to the topic.

Most references were relevant to the topic.

Many references relevant to the topic with few exceptions,

Only a few references were relevant to the topic.

Majority of references were not relevant to the topic and/or had only a tenuous link to topic.

References had no relevance to the topic.

15 13 12 10 9 8 7 4 3 1 0

Variety of sources

A balanced array of a minimum of five or more reference sources different used (e.g. journals, conference papers, monographs, and websites); and ten references included

A variety of at least four different reference sources used; and ten references included.

Several different references sources of at least three used; and ten references included.

Few different reference sources use; and/or fewer than ten references included.

Very few different sources used; and/or fewer than six references included.

Only the one source used; and/or fewer than five references included.

15 13 12 10 9 8 7 4 3 1 0

Quality of annotations

Excellent discussion with all relevant and significant key points of interest identified.

Good discussion and most key points of interest identified.

Some discussion and some key points of interest identified.

Some discussion but only a few key points of interest identified.

Little discussion or lack of discussion on key points of interest and/or were poorly identified.

No discussion or identification of any key points of interest from the reference.

30 26 25 20 19 15 14 8 7 1 0



Referencing and reporting

• all in-text citations were correct as per the RWG; and

• all sources of information were referenced; and

• all listings in the References section were correct and exactly in total accord with AusIMM referencing requirements as defined in the GTA and RWG; and

• there were no references missing from the References section, and

• in the form of a formal report that was written and presented to a professionally high standard and conformed entirely with RWG in terms of format, structure and style

• majority of in-text citations were correct with only a few minor errors; and

• majority of sources of information were referenced with a few exceptions; and


• there was one reference missing from the References section; and

• in the form of a formal report that was well written and presented and conformed entirely with RWG

• most in-text citations were correct though there are several errors and/or some information is not referenced; and

• all referencing and references were correct and in accord with AusIMM referencing requirements as defined in the GTA and RWG with only a few very minor exceptions; and

• the References section was mostly complete; and

• in the form of a formal report that conformed in most respects with RWG with only a few very minor exceptions

• limited/poor range of references and/or some were not appropriate to the topic; and/or

• many errors with in-text citations; and/or

• too little use of in-text citations and/or many instances of information not being properly referenced to identify source of information; and/or

• many errors in referencing and/or references were not correct and were not in accord with AusIMM referencing requirements as defined in the GTA and RWG; and/or

• the Reference section was incomplete/missing several references; and/or

• in the form of a formal report but contained many minor exceptions to RWG

• too few references and/or most were not appropriate to the topic; and/or

• most in-text citations had errors; and/or

• little use of made of in-text citations to identify source of information; and/or


• there were many references missing from the References section; and/or

• was not presented in form of a formal report and/or contained major non-conformance issues with RWG

• there was no References section; and/or


• no in-text citation in main body of report of information sources used; and/or

• incorrect system of referencing was used; and/or

• incomplete bibliographic details provided for references; and/or

• incorrect system of listing references in the References section; and/or

• did not conform with AusIMM referencing requirements as defined in the GTA and RWG; and/or


• did not have attached an Assignment Coversheet and/or a completed self-assessment form; and/or

• was not consistent with requirements of a formal report in terms of format, structure and style and/or contained major non-conformance issues with RWG

40 36 35 28 27 20 19 12 11 1 0

• all in-text citations

were correct as per the RWG; and



there were no references missing from the References

section


• majority of sources of information were referenced with only a few minor exceptions; and

• all listings in the References section were correct and in total accord with AusIMM referencing requirements as defined in the GTA and RWG; and there was only one

reference missing from the References section

• most in-text citations were correct though there were several minor errors; and

• some information was not referenced; and

• all listings in the References section were correct and in accord with AusIMM referencing requirements as defined in the GTA and RWG with only a few very minor exceptions; and there were only a few

references missing from the References section


• limited/poor range of references and/or not relevant to research topic; and/or

• too little use of in-text citations and/or

• several instances of information not being properly referenced to identify source of information; and/or

• many errors in the References section and/or references were not correct and were not in accord with AusIMM referencing requirements as defined in the GTA and RWG; and/or there were several

references missing from the References section


• most references were not relevant to research topic; and/or

• only a few references cited in the text to identify source of information; and/or

• many instances of information not being properly referenced to identify source of information; and/or


References section was largely incomplete.

• there was no References section and/or

• no in-text citation in main body of report of information sources; and/or

• incorrect system of referencing was used; and/or



• no details provided for References; and/or


did not conform to AusIMM referencing

requirements as defined in the GTA and RWG.


6.3. Project Progress Report

The assessment criteria and relative weighting that will be used in assessing the Project Progress Report is summarised in the following table.

Assessment Criteria – Project Progress Report


Extent and depth of research on topic

• comprehensive range and variety of references sources which are all relevant to the topic area associated with research objectives

• no gaps in references sources

• good broad range of references that are mostly relevant and appropriate to the topic

• all significant references included except for a few minor omissions

• reasonable range of references from different sources

• many significant references were considered with some minor omissions

• limited range of references and/or some that are not appropriate to the topic

• many significant references were missing

• poor range of references and/or many are not appropriate to the topic

• most significant references were missing

• little/no evidence of any research

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Critique and interpretation of the information and, justification of research objectives

• all information has been appropriately critiqued and cross-referenced that demonstrated significant insight into topic

• considered all up-to-date and relevant issues with no gaps in discussion on the topic

• full integration of the appropriate sources e.g. differences in results, critiquing different theories

• research objectives are all clearly defined with each being fully justified and clearly linked to the findings outlined in the literature review

• good evidence of some information being critiqued with some insight into topic and some cross linkage

• most of the relevant information and issues were discussed with few gaps

• most sources are well integrated e.g. differences in results, critiquing different theories

• research objectives are well defined and each are adequately justified by the literature review

• a mixture of critique and paraphrase of information with limited evidence of any significant insight being demonstrated

• many of the major relevant information and issues were discussed

• some effort made to integrate the variety of sources e.g. differences in results, critiquing different theories

• research objectives are adequately defined though they are poorly justified and/or with tenuous links to the literature review

• information has largely been paraphrased with little sight provided

• some relevant information and/or issues were missing and/or inadequately discussed

• limited effort made to integrate the variety of sources e.g. differences in results, critiquing different theories

• research objectives are poorly defined or are poorly justified, – further consideration is required

• little or no interpretation of information

• large amounts of and/or some major relevant information and/or issues were not discussed

• no/little effort made to integrate the variety of sources e.g. differences in results, critiquing different theories

• research objectives are poorly defined and poorly justified – major revision is required

• no critique or interpretation provided

• no discussion of relevant information and/or issues

• no statement and justification of research objectives

30 26 25 20 19 15 14 8 7 1 0

Discussion on tasks, activities and resource requirements with link to research objectives

• contains a comprehensive list of the various tasks and activities that need to be undertaken to achieve the objectives

• detailed list of all required resources (materials and equipment) has been identified

• demonstrated sufficient depth and quality of consideration to the tasks, activities and resources such that there is a high level of confidence the project outcomes can be achieved

• contains all the various major tasks and activities and most of the minor tasks and activities that need to be undertaken to achieve the objectives

• list of required resources (materials and equipment) has been identified

• depth and quality of consideration has addressed most of the major tasks, activities and resources requirements with few minor omissions such that there is good level of confidence the project outcomes can be achieved

• contains a list of many tasks and activities that need to be undertaken to achieve the objectives

• list of some required resources (materials and equipment) has been identified

• depth and quality of consideration has addressed many of the major tasks, activities and resources requirements with some omissions such that there is a reasonable level of confidence the project outcomes can be achieved

• contains some tasks and activities but some important elements were not considered

• incomplete list of the required resources missing many important resources (materials and equipment) has been identified

• many omissions in tasks, activities and/or resources such that there is a low level of confidence the research objectives can be achieved – further consideration is required to this section

• list is largely incomplete with significant gaps evident

• limited list of the required resources (materials and equipment) has been identified

• many major omissions in tasks, activities and/or resources such that there is very low level of confidence that the research objectives can be achieved – major revision required to this section

• no list of tasks, activities and materials provided

• no alignment with achieving the research objectives

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0



Project schedule

• comprehensive schedule of all required activities and events was clearly and neatly indicated

• all project milestones were identified.

• all tasks on the project’s critical path were clearly identified and discussed

• schedule appears to be realistic and practical demonstrating detailed level of planning with sufficient allowance given to contingencies such that there is a high level of confidence the project outcomes can be achieved on time

• schedule of activities and events was provided

• all major milestones were identified

• most of the major and minor tasks on the project’s critical path were clearly identified with some discussion

• the schedule is realistic and clearly demonstrates good planning with reasonable allowance to contingencies such that there is good level of confidence the project outcomes can be achieved on time

• reasonable schedule of activities and events was provided

• many major milestones were identified

• many of the tasks on the project’s critical path were identified with a few minor omissions though there was little discussion

• schedule is reasonable with some minor issues such that there is a reasonable level of confidence the project outcomes can be achieved on time

• incomplete schedule of activities and events was presented

• only a few milestones were identified.

• some tasks on the project’s critical path were not identified with many omissions and/or not discussed

• schedule is poorly defined such that there is a low level of confidence the project objectives can be achieved on time – further consideration needs to be given to the schedule

• haphazard schedule of activities and events was presented

• no project milestones were identified

• most tasks on the project’s critical path were not identified and/or with some important omissions and not discussed

• schedule is unrealistic such that there is a very low level of confidence project objectives can be achieved on time – major revision of the schedule is required

• no schedule of tasks and activities provided

• no identification of project milestones

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Risk management plan

• student, in the role of Project Manager, has considered all relevant and potential physical and process hazards associated with the project

• applied an appropriate method to rate the risk of each hazard and ranked these risks to identified major risks

• appropriate and comprehensive set of controls to manage all major risks that will contribute to successful project completion

• student, in the role of Project Manager, has considered most of the relevant and potential physical and process hazards associated with the project

• assigned appropriate rating and ranked the risks

• defined appropriate controls to manage most major risks that will contribute to successful completion

• student, in the role of Project Manager, has considered many of the relevant and potential physical and process hazards associated with the project

• applied simple rating and ranking of the risks

• appropriate controls defined for many of the major risks though lacks appropriate controls in some minor areas

• student, in the role of Project Manager, has considered few of the relevant and potential physical and process hazards associated with the project

• inappropriate rating or ranking the risks

• poorly defined, inadequate and/or incomplete set of controls that do not address some major risks such that there is a low level of confidence the research objectives can be achieved – further consideration in managing the risks is required

• student, in the role of Project Manager, has considered few or none of the relevant and potential physical and process hazards associated with the project

• no rating and ranking of the risks

• very few, inadequate and poorly defined controls such that there is a very low level of confidence project objectives can be achieved – major revision in managing the risks is required

• no risk assessment provided

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Contingency plans

• detailed appropriate and realistic alternate action plans such that there is a high level of confidence the project outcomes can be safely achieved on time and within budget

• reasonably appropriate alternate action plan(s) such that there is good level of confidence the project outcomes can be safely achieved on time and within budget

• some consideration given to some an alternate action plan such that there is a reasonable level of confidence the project outcomes can be safely achieved on time and within budget

• poor/little discussion on appropriate alternate action plan provided – further consideration is required in this section

• unclear/confused/inappropriate and/or incomplete discussion of appropriate alternate action plan – major revision required to this section

• no contingency plans provided

5 4 3 2 1 0



Conclusions

• clear, concise and comprehensive statement of project objectives that reflects state of understanding of topic

• all project management issues relevant have been identified

• good statement of project objectives that reflect current state of understanding of topic

• most of the major project management issues have been considered

• reasonable statement of project objectives that reflect to some degree current state of understanding of topic

• many of project management issues have been considered with some minor omissions

• poorly revised project objectives that does not account for current state of understanding of topic

• inadequate outline of the project management issues

• project objective is ambiguous and/or does not account for current state of understanding of topic

• poorly outlined project management issues

• no concluding remarks about the project objectives and project plan were provided

5 4 3 2 1 0

Referencing

• all in-text citations were correct as per the RWG; and



• there were no references missing from the References section


• majority of sources of information were referenced with only a few minor exceptions; and

• most of listings in the References section were correct and in total accord with AusIMM referencing requirements as defined in the GTA and RWG; and

• there was only one reference missing from the References section

• most in-text citations were correct though there were several minor errors; and/or some information was not referenced; and

• many listings in the References section were correct and in accord with AusIMM referencing requirements as defined in the GTA and RWG with only a few very minor exceptions; and

• there were only a few references missing from the References section


• limited/poor range of references and/or not relevant to research topic; and/or

• too little use of in-text citations and/or

• several instances of information not being properly referenced to identify source of information; and/or

• many errors in the References section and/or references were not correct and were not in accord with AusIMM referencing requirements as defined in the GTA and RWG; and/or

• there were several references missing from the References section


• too few references and/or most references were not relevant to research topic; and/or

• little use of made of in-text citations to identify source of information and/or only a few references cited in the text to identify source of information; and/or

• many instances of information not being properly referenced to identify source of information; and/or

• most of the listings in the References section were incorrect and/or were not in accord with AusIMM referencing requirements as defined in the GTA and RWG; and/or

• there were many references missing from the References section and/or it was largely incomplete.

• there was no References section and/or

• no in-text citation in main body of report of information sources; and/or

• incorrect system of citing references was used; and/or



• no details provided for References; and/or

• did not conform to AusIMM referencing requirements as defined in the GTA and RWG.

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0



Standard of report presentation

• in the form of a formal report that was written and presented to a high professional standard and conformed entirely with RWG; and

• report structure contained all the required sections as required for a formal technical report and was in accord with RWG; and

• structure followed a logical progression; and

• format of report was completely in accord with the report writing conventions as detailed in RWG; and

• use of tables, figures and equations was correct and completely in accord with the RWG with no errors; and

• writing style was appropriate and completely in accord with a formal technical report; and

• no spelling and grammatical errors etc. in report.

• in the form of a formal report that was well written and presented and conformed entirely with RWG; and

• report structure and contained all major elements; and

• format was largely in accord with RWG with only a few minor errors; and

• use of tables, figures and equations was largely correct with only a few minor errors; and

• style was largely appropriate for a technical report with a few minor exceptions; and

• largely free of spelling and grammatical errors.

• in the form of a formal report that conformed in most respects with RWG with only a few very minor exceptions; and

• report structure was mostly correct and/or some minor elements could have been added; and

• format of report was mostly in accord with the RWG though it had some minor errors; and

• use of tables, figures and equations was mostly correct though there were several minor errors; and

• style was appropriate in most instances with some minor errors; and

• several minor spelling and grammatical errors.

• in the form of a formal report but contained many minor exceptions to RWG; and/or

• several issues with report structure and/or many minor errors and/or omissions; and/or

• many issues with format of report as it deviated from RWG; and/or

• several issues with use of tables, figures and/or equations; and/or

• writing style was inappropriate in some instances; and/or

• many instances of spelling and/or grammatical errors.

• was not presented in form of a formal report and/or contained major non-conformance issues with RWG; and/or

• significant issues with report structure and/or many major errors and significant omissions; and/or

• large number of significant major issues in format of report; and/or

• use of tables, figures and/or equations was largely inconsistent with RWG; and/or

• writing style was inappropriate in many instances; and/or

• large number of spelling and/or grammatical errors.

• was not consistent with requirements of a formal report in terms of format, structure and style and/or contained major non-conformance issues with RWG; and/or

• most essential elements of report structure were missing; and/or

• report lacked any apparent logical structure; and/or

• significant amount of information was missing; and/or

• format of report was not in accord with the RWG standards; and/or

• use of tables, figures and/or equations was incorrect; and/or

• inappropriate report writing style; and/or

• major issues /numerous spelling and/or grammar errors; and/or


• did not have attached an Assignment Coversheet and/or a completed self-assessment form

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0


6.4. Consultation with Supervisor

The assessment criteria and weighting that will be used in assessing the quality of the student consultations is summarised in the following table.

Assessment Criteria – Consultation with Supervisor


Quality of consultation

• student maintained regular contact with academic supervisor (at least once a week), and

• clearly demonstrated consistent effort and progress, and

• discussed points that demonstrated student was considering potential issues as well as options to resolve these issues related to project, and

• was able to clearly demonstrate significant initiative and competence that contributed to successful completion of first stage of project

• student maintained regular contact with academic supervisor (at least once a fortnight), and

• demonstrated to a reasonable degree of some effort and progress of project, and

• discussed some issues related to project, and

• demonstrated competence in completing project and was largely self-directed

• student had intermittent contact with academic supervisor (at least once a month), and

• indicated sporadic progress, and

• some initiative in resolving issues

• but had to be largely guided in project by Supervisor

• student had infrequent contact with academic supervisor (e.g. two to four times during semester), and/or

• little evidence to suggest otherwise that the project was not high on agenda and not left until final weeks before submission, and

• little initiative demonstrated nor ownership shown of the project unless directed by Supervisor

• student had very little contact if any with academic supervisor (perhaps only once for the semester), and/or

• little evidence to suggest otherwise that large portion of the project was left till the last minute, and

• lack of any initiative demonstrated nor ownership shown of the project

• lack of any meaningful consultation by student with academic supervisor

5 4 3 2 1 0


7. STUDYING A UG COURSE IN MINING ENGINEERING AT UNSW 7.1. How We Contact You

At times, the School or your lecturers may need to contact you about your course or your enrolment. Your lecturers will use the email function within Moodle or we will contact you on your @student.unsw.edu.au email address. We understand that you may have an existing email account and would prefer for your UNSW emails to be redirected to your preferred account. Please see these instructions on how to redirect your UNSW emails: www.it.unsw.edu.au/students/zmail/redirect_external.html

7.2. How You Can Contact Us

We are always ready to assist you with your inquiries. To ensure your question is directed to the correct person, please use the email address below for: Enrolment or other admin questions regarding your program: [email protected] Course inquiries: these should be directed to the Course Convenor.

7.3. Computing Resources and Internet Access Requirements

UNSW Mining Engineering provides blended learning using the on-line Moodle LMS (Learning Management System). It is essential that you have access to a PC or notebook computer. Mobile devices such as smart phones and tablets may compliment learning, but access to a PC or notebook computer is also required. Note that some specialist engineering software is not available for Mac computers. You can access the School’s computer laboratory in-line with the School laboratory access guidelines and Class bookings. It is recommended that you have regular internet access to participate in forum discussion and group work. To run Moodle most effectively, you should have:

• broadband connection (256 kbit/sec or faster) • Firefox browser • ability to view streaming video (high or low definition UNSW TV options)

More information about system requirements is available at www.student.unsw.edu.au/moodle-system-requirements

7.4. Accessing Course Materials Through Moodle

Course outlines, support materials are uploaded to Moodle, the university standard Learning Management System (LMS). In addition, on-line assignment submissions are made using the assignment dropbox facility provided in Moodle. All enrolled students are automatically included in Moodle for each course. To access these documents and other course resources, please visit: www.moodle.telt.unsw.edu.au

7.5. Assignment Submissions

The School has developed a guideline to help you when submitting a course assignment. Please take a closer look at all these details on our website: www.engineering.unsw.edu.au/mining-engineering/assignment-submission-policy We encourage you to retain a copy of every assignment submitted for assessment for your own record either in hardcopy or electronic form. On a rare occasion, assignments may be mislaid and we


https://www.it.unsw.edu.au/students/zmail/redirect_external.html

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.engineering.unsw.edu.au/mining-engineering/sites/mine/files/uploads/2013%20After%20Hours%20Policy%20Mining%20Engineering.pdf

https://sites.google.com/a/mining.unsw.edu.au/bookings/computer-lab-bookings

http://www.student.unsw.edu.au/moodle-system-requirements

http://www.student.unsw.edu.au/moodle-system-requirements

https://moodle.telt.unsw.edu.au/

http://www.engineering.unsw.edu.au/mining-engineering/assignment-submission-policy

http://www.engineering.unsw.edu.au/mining-engineering/assignment-submission-policy

may contact you to re-submit your assignment.

7.6. Late Submission of an Assignment

Full marks for an assignment are only possible when an assignment is received by the due date. In fairness to those students who do meet the assignment due date and time, deductions will apply to submissions made after this time. Details on deductions that are automatically applied to late submissions are available on our webpage: www.engineering.unsw.edu.au/mining-engineering/late-submissions We understand that at times you may not be able to submit an assignment on time, and the School will accommodate any fair and reasonable extension. We would recommend you review the UNSW Special Consideration guidelines – see following section. In the case of the Project Progress Report, penalty marks will be applied at the following rate if submitted after the due date: five (5) percentile points of the maximum possible mark for each day or part thereof that the assessment is overdue. For example if a student submitted the Project Progress Report five days after the due date and the unadjusted mark was 68% then the final adjustment mark for the assignment would be 43%; that is the raw mark of 68% less 25 percentile points (5 days @ 5 percentile points per day).

7.7. Special Consideration

You can apply for special consideration through UNSW Student Central when illness or other circumstances interfere with your assessment performance. Sickness, misadventure or other circumstances beyond your control may:

• Prevent you from completing a course requirement, • Keep you from attending an assessable activity, • Stop you submitting assessable work for a course, • Significantly affect your performance in assessable work, be it a formal end-of-semester

examination, a class test, a laboratory test, a seminar presentation or any other form of assessment.

We ask that you please contact the Course Convenor immediately once you have completed the special consideration application, no later than one week from submission. More details on special consideration can be found at: www.student.unsw.edu.au/special-consideration

7.8. Unsatisfactory and/ or Non-completion of course

A student who has not satisfactorily completed all the requirements of MINE4440 Mining Research Project I will not have met the prerequisite requirements and therefore will not be eligible to undertake MINE 4450 Mining Research Project II.

7.9. Course Results

For details on UNSW assessment policy, please visit: www.student.unsw.edu.au/assessment In some instances your final course result may be withheld and not released on the UNSW planned date. This is indicated by a course grade result of either:

• WD – which usually indicates you have not completed one or more items of assessment or there is an issue with one or more assignment; or

• WC – which indicates you have applied for Special Consideration due to illness or misadventure and the course results have not been finalised.

In either event it would be your responsibility to contact the Course Convener as soon as practicable


http://www.engineering.unsw.edu.au/mining-engineering/late-submissions

http://www.engineering.unsw.edu.au/mining-engineering/late-submissions

https://student.unsw.edu.au/central

https://student.unsw.edu.au/special-consideration

https://student.unsw.edu.au/special-consideration

https://student.unsw.edu.au/assessment

but no later than five (5) days after release of the course result. If you don’t contact the convener on time, you may be required to re-submit an assignment or re-sit the final exam and may result in you failing the course. You would also have a NC (course not completed) mark on your transcript and would need to re-enroll in the course.

7.10. Students Needing Additional Support

The Student Equity and Disabilities Unit (SEADU) aims to provide all students with support and professional advice when circumstances may prevent students from achieving a successful university education. Take a look at their webpage: www.studentequity.unsw.edu.au/

7.11. Academic Honesty and Plagiarism

Your lecturer and the University will expect your submitted assignments are truly your own work. UNSW has very clear guidelines on what plagiarism is and how to avoid it. Plagiarism is using the words or ideas of others and presenting them as your own. Plagiarism is a type of intellectual theft. It can take many forms, from deliberate cheating to accidentally copying from a source without acknowledgement. The University has adopted an educative approach to plagiarism and has developed a range of resources to support students. All the details on plagiarism, including some useful resources, can be found at www.student.unsw.edu.au/plagiarism. All Mining Engineering students are required to complete a student declaration for academic integrity which is outlined in the assignment cover sheets. By signing this declaration, you agree that your work is your own original work. If you need some additional support with your writing skills, please contact the Learning Centre or view some of the resources on their website: www.lc.unsw.edu.au/. The Learning Centre is designed to help you improve your academic writing and communication skills. Some students use the Centre services because they are finding their assignments a challenge, others because they want to improve an already successful academic performance.

7.12. Report Writing Guide for Mining Engineers

The School has a report writing guide (RWG) available for all mining engineering students. View this website to download a copy of this guide: www.engineering.unsw.edu.au/mining-engineering//mining-engineering/sites/mine/files/uploads/MEA_ReportWritingGuide_2014_eBook.pdf

7.13. Continual Course Improvement

At the end of each course, all students will have the opportunity to complete a course evaluation form. These anonymous surveys help us understand your views of the course, your lecturers and the course materials. We are continuously improving our courses based on student feedback, and your perspective is valuable. We also encourage all students to share any feedback they have any time during the course – if you have a concern, please contact us immediately.


http://www.studentequity.unsw.edu.au/

https://student.unsw.edu.au/plagiarism

http://www.lc.unsw.edu.au/

http://www.engineering.unsw.edu.au/mining-engineering/mining-engineering/sites/mine/files/uploads/MEA_ReportWritingGuide_2014_eBook.pdf

http://www.engineering.unsw.edu.au/mining-engineering/mining-engineering/sites/mine/files/uploads/MEA_ReportWritingGuide_2014_eBook.pdf

Documents

Undergraduate Course Outline - UNSW Engineering · STUDYING A UG COURSE IN MINING ENGINEERING AT UNSW ..... 20 . Document Management: Filename: CourseOutline_MINE4440_S1_2016.docx