University of Southampton EPQ videos

Artefact report checklist

 

Assessment Objectives	Supervisor’s record/comments
AO1 Is the purpose of the artefact clearly defined?
Who is the artefact for?
If a piece of writing, who is the target audience?
Is there a plan to evaluate the final product, really important for an artefact – feedback could be gathered to assess its worth and this needs planning.
Is a risk assessment necessary?
AO2 Is there a good research basis for the artefact?
Is research and well referenced?
Secondary sources into e.g., creative writing, or styles of poetry for someone wanting to submit a piece of writing as their artefact must show an analysis of the genre and then demonstrate which aspects have been carried into the artefact itself – selection is important, with reasons explained for choices made.
Are practical resources involved? If so, have they been researched, are there new skills to be acquired, how well were these demonstrated in the manufacture of the product?
Was management of a team of people needed for e.g. a drama project, were the human resources used well?
AO3 What quality is the artefact?
Did the planning work?
Does the report provide a researched underpinning for the production? Some students just provide a commentary on how they made their product and this is not what is wanted here. Some description of how the product was produced is fine, but if it is not supported by serious research it cannot access high top band marks.
AO4 What evidence has been gathered to see if the artefact is fit for purpose? If a performance, is there properly gathered audience feedback? If a children’s story, was it tested on the target age group? If a mechanical device, does it work as planned?
Is there any supporting data for this?
Has the student identified strengths and weaknesses in the product – as well as in the process?
Have they suggested ways it could have been improved?

 

Conclusion: Have clear criteria for fitness for purpose been established?

Has time been built into the planning to allow for ’testing’ of the artefact?

Does the report demonstrate how each and every design decision is based on referenced research?

1. AO1  Is the purpose of the artefact clearly defined? Sometimes a student just wants to make something, e.g. build a bike and is using the EPQ to accredit a hobby. If the purpose was to build a bike to a particular budget or with a specific performance or ecological aim then that would be fine. Just making something because you want one is not appropriate, and would not play well for AO1. Who is the artefact for?  If a piece of writing, who is the target audience?  Is there a plan to evaluate the final product, really important for an artefact – feedback could be gathered to assess its worth and this needs planning. Is a risk assessment necessary?
2. AO2 Is there a good research basis for the artefact? The research needs to be as rigorous and well referenced as for a written report. Secondary sources into e.g. creative writing, or styles of poetry for someone wanting to submit a piece of writing as their artefact must show an analysis of the genre and then demonstrate which aspects have been carried into the artefact itself – selection is important, with reasons explained for choices made.  Are practical resources involved? If so have they been researched, are there new skills to be acquired,             how well were        these demonstrated in the manufacture of the product. Was management of a team of people needed  for e.g. a drama project, were the human resources used well?

3. AO3 . What quality is the artefact? Did the planning work? Does the report provide a researched underpinning g  for the production? The report needs to contain the research and the decisions made. Some students just provide a commentary on how they made their product and this is not what is wanted here. Some description of how the product was produced is fine, but if it is not supported by serious research it cannot access high top band marks. There is no word limit on the report, the suggested minimum is 1000 words but some projects need a lot of justification for choices and this is fine.

3. AO4. What evidence has been gathered to see if the artefact is fit for purpose? If a performance, is there properly gathered audience feedback? If a children’s story, was it tested on the target age group? If a mechanical device, does it work as planned? Is there any supporting data for this? Has the student identifiesd strengths and weaknesses in the product – as well as in the process? Have they suggested ways it could have been improved?