SOCRATIVE

ASSIGNMENT

Session overview:

1. Assignment Aim
2. Assignment Objectives
3. Report overview
4. Recommended division of workload
5. Tutorials
6. Peer to peer review
7. Support
8. General Feedback on the 2016 Assignment
9. Questions
TUTORIALS

Tutorials will be held in the Melbourne School of Design building

Attendance record will be kept – Tutorials will start promptly

THURSDAY FRIDAY
1:30pm – 4:30pm 11am-12:30 & 1.30pm-3.30pm

1. Overview of the assignment 1. Assignment Q & A

2. Group agreement 2. Activity 1 (Brainstorming)
3. Activity 1 Lunch
4. Tour of MSD building 3. Assignment workshop (2hrs)
5. Group work and/or GD episode on rating tools 4. Critique of 2016 work

Record (on sheet) any questions about assignment

with your tutor before the end of the tutorial Rooms are booked until 5pm if your group want extra
time together – Tutor to leave at 3.30pm

Groups Room Tutor

01 – 05 Redmond Barry 615 Ash Buchanan
06 – 10 Redmond Barry 616 Elena Pereyra
11 – 15 Redmond Barry 516 Judy Bush
16 – 20 MSD 137 Pippa Soccio
TUTORIAL 1

The aim:

To produce a report about the design

and application of a custom rating tool
for assessing how ‘sustainable’ a new or
existing (refurbished) development is.

The tool must be unique and

currently not available on the market.

LOGISTICS
Group project: requires collaboration
Interdisciplinary teams
5 members (pre-allocated)
Masters level subject: 50% mark

Note: Individual student contribution will be

subject to peer-to-peer assessment, which
may effect individual student marks.

Due Monday 31st October at 10am

Electronic copy (Turnitin)
Hard copy submitted to Engineering
Time will be given in the tutorial
30min individual consultation per group
TUTORIAL 1

The objectives:

Learn (through research) about the range of different green building rating tools on the market

Learn about how rating tools work and the process of undertaking an evaluation

To think critically about the different approaches/criteria used to ‘assess’ sustainability

To work successfully with different disciplines (The T Professional model)

To learn about how sustainability criteria/credits can be applied within the built environment

To learn about what evidence is required to demonstrate success application of sustainability criteria/credits within
the built environment

To produce a cohesive and professional body of work

ASSIGNMENT

Consultancy style report: 3 parts

1. TOOL DEVELOPMENT: 2. DESIGN STAGE:

3. EVALUATION STAGE:

**Important Note**
You are not designing
a building. Instead you are
designing a rating system,
and are to demonstrate your
understanding of how
it might be applied to a
building.
TUTORIAL 1

1. TOOL 2. APPLICATION 3. EVALUATION

DEVELOPMENT (TO DESIGN) (EVIDENCE)

Describe (citing existing rating tools) how a Describe (citing existing rating tools) what types
Describe how your rating tool works (what is its
design team might apply the tool’s criteria of evidence can be used to demonstrate that
relationship back to your group’s definition of
(i.e. specific credits) to a development. the tool’s criteria have been met.
sustainability)

Describe with example, the type of development

your rating tool applies to (giving examples)
including the climate zone

Describe any unique features of that development

(i.e. services, functional or spatial requirements)

Justify the ‘stage’ which the assessment applies

to (i.e. design, at completion, post-occupancy)

Describe the range of criteria that your tool uses

to assess ‘sustainability’ (according to type of
development and definition of sustainability)

Describe how each criteria is weighted according

to your group’s definition of sustainability
 TUTORIAL 1

1. TOOL 2. APPLICATION 3. EVALUATION

DEVELOPMENT (TO DESIGN) (EVIDENCE)

Examples of how credit can be applied Examples of evidence required

‘Criteria’

‘Credits’

‘References’
(Look beyond
Green Star)
Refer to Assignment Q & A slides
Assignment Roadmap Group number: Date/time of individual
We define sustainability as:
consultation with Tutor:

Using the following criteria: The number of available

Our rating tool will be used to assess points and/or percentage The following rules apply to any project
the following type of project: (Identify btw 5 and 8 criteria) requesting a rating using our tool: (i.e. minimum
assigned to each criteria:
(residential, commercial, health, period of occupancy, size of project, mandatory
hospitality etc.) training, type of site, allocation of facilities, etc.)
Indoor Environment points %
Quality
Energy points %
Water points %
In what climate zone/location:
(temperate, tropical, arid, etc.)

- points %

- points %

- points %
This project has the following unique
spatial requirements, services and/or
user functions: (lecture theatre, large
- points %
HVAC, exhaust, learning… etc.)

- points %
Total number of points (Total points)
awarded by rating tool:
100 %
The name of our rating tool is:

The ‘sustainability’ of the project will The different levels of sustainability awarded by the rating tool are:
be assessed at the following stage: (It is recommended that you identify between 3-5 levels)
(design, as built, post occupancy etc.)

points points points points points

 Project logistics (Assign who will be
Assignment Roadmap responsible for each section and timeline)

Section: Person/s: First Draft:

Brainstorm with your group about what the individual credits are for each of your tool’s criteria and who will be responsible for this section
(The number of lines is not indicative of the number of credits required (more or less okay). The credits listed are examples only) Executive
Summary
(1 mark)
Indoor Environment Energy Water -
Quality Report
Access to daylight HVAC Potable Introduction
Ventilation rates Embodied energy (2 marks)
Green house gas emissions
Description of
how tool works
(2 marks)

Justification of
tool stage (1 mark)

Description of
Building type and
unique features
( 1 mark)

Discussion of
Tool criteria
(5 marks)
Responsible: Responsible: Responsible: Responsible:
Justification of
criteria weighting
according to
Sustainability
definition (5 marks)

Summary of how
each credit relates ALL
to project and may
be applied and
Issues related to
HVAC, IEQ, Water
(15 marks)

Summary of
evidence required ALL
for each credit to
be awarded and
Issued related to
GHG emissions and
embodied energy
(10 marks)
Responsible: Responsible: Responsible: Responsible:
Conclusion
(2 marks)
ASSIGNMENT

Recommended division of workload:

1. TOOL DEVELOPMENT: 2. DESIGN STAGE

How your new tool works (what is How a design team might meet the
the evaluation framework?) tool’s criteria within the building
typology defined,
The type of building which your new
tool applies to (giving examples) 3. EVALUATION STAGE
The types of evidence required by a
Any unique features of that building Green Star assessor to award points
typology (i.e. type of services or for each criterion and calculate a
specific areas required) rating.
The ‘stage’ which the assessment
applies to (i.e. design, at completion,
post-occupancy)

The range of criteria that your tool

uses to assess ‘sustainability’

How each criteria is weighted

according to the evaluation
framework

~ 3000 words per student

ASSIGNMENT

Recommended division of workload:

In the tutorial this week… In the four weeks following…

1. TOOL DEVELOPMENT: 15 marks 2. DESIGN STAGE 15 marks
How your new tool works (what is How a design team might meet the
the evaluation framework?) tool’s criteria within the building
typology defined,
The type of building which your new
tool applies to (giving examples) 3. EVALUATION STAGE 10 marks
The types of evidence required by a
Any unique features of that building Green Star assessor to award points
typology (i.e. type of services or for each criterion and calculate a
specific areas required) rating.
The ‘stage’ which the assessment
applies to (i.e. design, at completion, NOTE: Remaining 10 marks are for:
post-occupancy) - Report structure
- Integration of research
The range of criteria that your tool
uses to assess ‘sustainability’

How each criteria is weighted

according to the evaluation Dialogue
framework

All involved Design stage Evaluation stage

ASSIGNMENT

Recommended division of workload:

During the lectures… Note down…

1. TOOL DEVELOPMENT:
How your new tool works (what is
the evaluation framework?)
The type of building which your new
tool applies to (giving examples)
What tools are the lecturers referring to?
What are the strengths and weakness of
these tools?
The criteria being used by these tools?

Any unique features of that building What aspects of sustainability are the
typology (i.e. type of services or lectures talking about?
specific areas required)
Bring these observations to tutorial…
The ‘stage’ which the assessment
applies to (i.e. design, at completion,
post-occupancy) The lecture program and
having contact with these
The range of criteria that your tool
experts is your best resource
uses to assess ‘sustainability’
this week!
How each criteria is weighted
according to the evaluation So ask questions…
framework
ASSIGNMENT
ASSIGNMENT

Support:

On Thursday inform your tutor of all the questions you have about the assignment… these will be
answered on Friday in the first hour (all tutorial groups will be given the same Q&A presentation)

Post questions to the LMS under ‘Assignment’.

Pippa will answer the questions on the LMS on Monday to Friday between 9am and 10am

30min face to face group meeting with Pippa between October 5th and 23rd in Baldwin Spencer
Student lounge. After hours appointments available. (Doodle schedule to be circulated).

All assignments will be reviewed through Turnitin to for academic integrity.

Refer to readings on the LMS.

NOTE:
Do not email assignment questions to Pippa. Use the LMS.
If you experience any group dynamic problems, email these to Pippa, as soon as any issues arise.
TUTORIAL 1

Peer to Peer Review

In tutorial 1, every group will

record the three criteria they will
use at the end of the semester to
review one another’s performance.

Your group agreement must be

signed by all group members
present and involved in setting the
criteria; and submitted to your tutor
at the end of Thursday’s tutorial.

A digital copy of the agreement will

be emailed to your group. Your
group will be given the opportunity
to amend the agreement when
they meet face to face with tutor
(scheduled 30min) to discuss the
assignment and group progress.
TUTORIAL 1
Peer to Peer Review
1.2
EXAMPLE 1: 8. Excellent: Consistently went above and beyond -
Positive experience tutored teammates, carried more than her/his fair share of
the load

7. Very good: Consistently did what she/he was supposed

to do, very well prepared and cooperative

6. Satisfactory: Usually did what she/he was supposed to

Very good Satisfactory do, acceptably prepared and cooperative

ADJUSTMENT FACTOR
5. Ordinary: Often did what she/he was supposed to do,
minimally prepared and cooperative
Very good
4. Marginal: Sometimes failed to show up or complete
assignments, rarely prepared
Excellent Very good
3. Deficient: Often failed to show up or complete
assignments, rarely prepared
Adjustment
Factor = 1.1
2. Unsatisfactory: Consistently failed to show up or
complete assignments, unprepared
Group assignment mark = 40/50 (H1)
1. Superficial: Practically no participation
Your individual assignment mark
calculated using 40 x 1.1 = 44/50 (H1+) 0. No show: No participation at all

0
TUTORIALS
Peer to Peer Review
1.2
EXAMPLE 2: 8. Excellent: Consistently went above and beyond -
Negative experience tutored teammates, carried more than her/his fair share of
the load

7. Very good: Consistently did what she/he was supposed

to do, very well prepared and cooperative

6. Satisfactory: Usually did what she/he was supposed to

Ordinary Deficient do, acceptably prepared and cooperative

ADJUSTMENT FACTOR
5. Ordinary: Often did what she/he was supposed to do,
minimally prepared and cooperative
Very good
4. Marginal: Sometimes failed to show up or complete
assignments, rarely prepared
Unsatisfactory Marginal
3. Deficient: Often failed to show up or complete
assignments, rarely prepared
Adjustment
Factor = 0.6
2. Unsatisfactory: Consistently failed to show up or
complete assignments, unprepared
Group assignment mark = 40/50 (H1)
1. Superficial: Practically no participation
Your individual assignment mark
calculated using 40 x 0.6 = 24/50 (P) 0. No show: No participation at all

0
ASSIGNMENT
ASSIGNMENT

2016 General feedback

The overall quality of the assignments was very high, with an impressive variety
of different ideas and approaches to rating tools.

Please note that in the marking strategy, half marks were not awarded.

Note that some of the images were very pixelated, making these hard to read.
Groups were not penalised, but pixelated images did make the report seem less
professional.

For reports of this size (some up to 70 pages!), a single bulldog clip is not
adequate for holding the report together. Use blinding or staples. Groups were
not penalised, but it did make the report seem less professional.

Points were not awarded for the use of sub-headings, but I will note how these
helped with the communication of your ideas/content, which is particularly
important in large reports.
ASSIGNMENT

REPORT STRUCTURE:

The executive summary is a ‘summary’ of the report. It should quickly

communicate to the reader: What did your group set out to do? How was it
done? What were your major findings? It should be a concise but informative
piece of writing. Groups that went over one page were penalised.

To achieve full marks in the introduction it was necessary to state the objective
of the report and provide an outline of the report structure. In a large report, the
reader needs to understand the logic of the report (how have you structured it?)
The report structure is not the contents page.

To achieve full marks in the conclusion, it was necessary to restate the report
objective and outline how the objective was met. Many groups provided
conclusions that were too brief, which standalone contained an inadequate level
of detail. Many of the groups that were particularly successful, used their
conclusion to outline the limitations of their tool, or areas for further
development.
ASSIGNMENT

APPLICATION OF RESEARCH:

Half the marks (2) were awarded for citing the research, while the other half (2)
were awarded for evidence in the report of groups critically engaging with what
the research stated.

Critical engagement means using your understanding of the topic to relate the
research to appropriate points and critique it. For example, some of the
literature might be “old” (i.e. if it was published 30 years ago, it might no longer
be as relevant, or have been superseded….) or it may relate to a different context
(locality/building type). If this was the case, then discuss it.

It should be noted that in research, any statement that is not ‘common

knowledge’ requires a reference, otherwise it is an opinion. Many of the reports
expressed more opinion than research. In research, this reduces your credibility.
ASSIGNMENT

CITATION:
The marking was very strict. To gain the full mark you needed to:

Use a consistent referencing style. Harvard was preferred, but APA was also
acceptable.

Cite all sources correctly. Please note that the “quotes” require a page
number. If no page number was supplied you lost the point.

All figures in the report needed to be referenced, with a caption descripting what
it is of. Note the caption should include the source.

All sources cited in text were required to be listed in the references (some were
missing...)

The reference list needed to be in alphabetic order

All online sources needed to include the date they were accessed.
ASSIGNMENT

DISCUSSION OF TOOL:

Overall, this was the section of the report where groups lost the most points. I
cannot stress the importance of clearly communicating the concept for the rating
tool. The most common mistakes that groups were penalised for:

Using the Report Introduction or Executive Summary to introduce the tool and
describe how it works. Generally speaking, this was not appropriate. Instead it
was confusing, particularly as the report then went directly into the
design/application stage (making it appear as if a whole chunk of the report was
missing!)

No definition of sustainability was provided

No discussion or inadequate detail about how the group’s definition of

sustainability relates to the rating tool criteria

Inadequate detail about the criteria was weighted (why is IEQ worth 20%??)
ASSIGNMENT

DISCUSSION OF TOOL:

Inadequate description about the purpose of the tool

No discussion about the stage of the tool’s assessment. It was not enough to just
state what the stage was. It was expected that the assignment should describe
why that choice was significant. (Why POE? Why Design?)

Some of the weighting systems were unnecessarily complicated

Your group’s tool was not different enough from existing tools. In the face-to-face
meetings I cautioned your group if I felt this was a risk. Some of the groups did
not articulate clearly why their tool was unique and needed a customised version
and then provided too little detail about the points of difference.

Under ‘description of unique features’ it was not adequate to just list the spaces.
Your group needed to describe why this spaces were unique to the chosen
building typology.
ASSIGNMENT

APPLICATION OF TOOL:

Overall, this was the section was very well done, with the research involving
existing tools thoroughly demonstrated. Groups were penalised for the following
reasons:

The choice of evidence did not relate to the stage of the assessment.

Some groups recommended evidence that would not exist for the stage of the
assessment. For example, at the design stage it would be impossible for owners
to produce their electricity bill. This is evidence required post occupancy.

The choice of reference material was not appropriate (i.e Groups chose to
reference existing tools that were not consistent with their concept).

Citing standards that were inappropriate for concept

Inadequate detail – particularly in categories where there exists a lot of

information (i.e. NABERS tool and IEQ in commercial office spaces.
TUTORIALS

Tutorials will be held in the Melbourne School of Design building

Attendance record will be kept – Tutorials will start promptly

THURSDAY FRIDAY
1:30pm – 4:30pm 11am-12:30 & 1.30pm-3.30pm

1. Overview of the assignment 1. Assignment Q & A

2. Group agreement 2. Activity 1 (Brainstorming)
3. Activity 1 Lunch
4. Tour of MSD building 3. Assignment workshop (2hrs)
5. Group work and/or GD episode on rating tools 4. Critique of 2016 work

Record (on sheet) any questions about assignment

with your tutor before the end of the tutorial Rooms are booked until 5pm if your group want extra
time together – Tutor to leave at 3.30pm

Groups Room Tutor

01 – 05 Redmond Barry 615 Ash Buchanan
06 – 10 Redmond Barry 616 Elena Pereyra
11 – 15 Redmond Barry 516 Judy Bush
16 – 20 MSD 137 Pippa Soccio