2

Study board for Health, Technology and Sport Science
Niels Jernes Vej 12
9220 Aalborg Øst
Phone: 9940 8008
Email:
www.smh.aau.dk

Statement concerning failed project examination

Student:

Project unit:

Examination date:

Short statement accounting for why the student’s performance is not considered to have accomplished the aim of the project:

The assessment of NN is based on an overall evaluation of the project report submitted, the oral presentation of the project work at the examination and the student’s answers to questions during the examination.

The project report is considered to be (consider the level of the report as basis for the exam – for instance: ”very insufficient”, adequate but suffers from shortages” or similar as basis for assessment of whether the student should follow the project module again, if the report can form the basis of a new examination or if a supplement to the existing report should be made).

In general, NN’s presentation and answers to both open questions and questions for the whole group and direct questions to NN were inadequate compared to fulfilling the learning targets in the curriculum. NN could (for instance to which extent) account for (insert text) in the project work, but the explanation of the project work’s (for instance problem, context, methods, calculations of x, development of y, suggestions to solutions, conclusions) were (to which extent – for instance completely inadequate at -03 and inadequate at 00). (It would be preferable to include examples of questions and answers here)

(If it is considered that preconditions from earlier semesters have influenced the presentation, this would also be relevant information).

Guidance to the student on improvements, which could lead to the student fulfilling the aim of the project:

NN could acquire knowledge (knowledge, skills – or qualifications, if it is all aspects which are insufficient) (within overall text or detailed in bullet point form, if specific parts are insufficient while others are OK) with advantage.

The reexamination is recommended by the main supervisor to take place on the following basis (cf. The Examination Procedures and Policies) (one of the options below should be maintained while the others should be deleted)

Option 1: The student is assessed according to the rules corresponding to the holding of the previous examination on the basis of the original project report.

Option 2: In connection with the future reexamination, as mentioned earlier, substantial inadequacies according to the learning targets in the curriculum have been noticed. Consequently, both supervisor and censor find it necessary that an addition to the existing project report must be handed in before the re-examination. The addition must account for the compliance with (selected or all learning targets – preferably concretised)

Option 3: The supervisor and the censor recommend the student take part in the teaching again and thus contribute to making a new project report before the next attempt to pass the exam.

Date: Supervisor’s signature:

Date: Censor’s/Internal co-examinator’s signature:

Guide to supervisor and censor (to be deleted before the document is sent to the student):

For master thesis always choose option 3.

Please send the completed statement to the study board for Health, Technology and Sports Science by Malene Møller Knudsen () before 8 days from the exam date.

The study board will decide on how the re-examination should take place. The decision is made based on the supervisor’s and censor’s statement and a statement from the student which is collected with a notice of one week at least. The re-examination is scheduled by the study board upon recommendation from the supervisor and the student with a notice of 4 weeks. The notice may be shorter if the student understands and accepts this.

2