0403EE · YEAR 4 · 7 EC — FIELD EXPERT ASSESSMENT RECORD

Student / ID:
Team / project:
Assessment opportunity / date:
Portfolio submission reference on university Connect:
Submitted version / evidence index:
Assessor:

1. ACCESS AND EVIDENCE
Portfolio and attachments received:
Links accessible / unavailable items and clarification requested:
Starting point and course-period work identified:
Individual contribution established by:
Prompt/output/correction and test records checked:
Explanation or demonstration requested / observed:
Unverified claims and limitations:

2. COMPONENT DECISIONS
For EACH component, record:
- Evidence IDs and observations (distinguish student reports from your own checks).
- Applicable supplied university descriptor/band.
- Mark out of 10 and why the evidence supports that mark within the band.
- Strength, gap, improvement needed, and any unresolved evidence.

Active Participation — 15%
Attendance/contribution records checked:
Band / mark / reason:
Feedback:

Digital Presence — 30%
Website journey observed (steps, version and outcome):
Google Analytics evidence checked:
Social setup / dated activity evidence checked:
Band / mark / reason:
Feedback:

Digital Advertising — 20%
Campaign platforms and setup evidence checked:
Audience / targeting / creative:
Dated optimisation evidence and observations:
Band / mark / reason:
Feedback:

Experimentation — 35%
Own-account/action evidence checked against supplied criteria:
Student explanation, actual versus simulated activity and limitations:
Band / mark / reason:
Feedback:

3. RESULT
Participation mark × 0.15:
Digital Presence mark × 0.30:
Digital Advertising mark × 0.20:
Experimentation mark × 0.35:
Weighted total before institutional rounding:
Each component >= 5.5? Record separately:
Final result / pending items:
Applicable reassessment instructions and deadline:

Use the institution's confirmed rounding and reassessment rules. Missing marks remain pending; a higher average does not compensate for a component below 5.5. Do not substitute link points, quest points, AI practice/Utility scores or Design scores for official marks. Do not convert an automated technical audit /100 into a university grade /10.

4. FEEDBACK AND REVIEW
Evidence-based strengths:
Priority gaps and required improvements:
Clarifications / moderation / student response:
Date result communicated through the university system: