SRT151 construction and structures 1 assignment 2

Assignment 2

Group work:

Assignment 2 is a group assignment. You are to form a group of FOUR people (including yourself) and register yourself as a group, with an identifiable group number, under the SRT151 assignment section, on the Deakin Cloud.

It is your responsibility to find colleagues to form a group, and you should do so with consideration to the mix of qualities and skills each group member may bring to the group assignment effort. You should be aware that selection of colleagues and the management of each other's working styles, levels of motivation and overall contribution is critical to the success of the learning outcomes, and will impact on the assessment grade attracted.

The mark given to each group's assignment submission will accrue equally to all group members,regardless of variations in individual performance or contribution.

Therefore, managing the PROCESS of the assignment will be as important to your success as managing the CONTENT.

Submission time:

Submission is to be in two forms:

  • 1) - REPORT

Failure to submit both the report and/or to deliver the presentation. in the time-frame indicated above, will result in a mark of "0%" being awarded. (Deakin policy late submission penalties apply.)

In situations where students are unable to submit on time, and or to standard, they have the right to apply for extensions or for special consideration. This should be managed formally through the on-line process, or through the student hub. Extensions or special consideration applications need to be well substantiated, and do not necessarily result in passing grades being awarded.

Submission format:

The overall format for the report and presentation submission are:

  • 1) - REPORT - on A4 (digital pdf), to be composed of two parts. Part A is to be the 'team charter.' Part B is to be the comparative analysis of the two case study buildings you are reviewing. Word length is not strictly crucial; but as a guide should not exceed 5,000 words. Supporting documentation should be kept relevant and to a minimum.
  • 2) - PRESENTATION - to be delivered as a single A1 (coloured) sheet, showing key critical points of comparison between your two case study buildings. Around five points should be made, each group member must speak, and the presentation should last about 3 minutes (40 seconds per person) in total.

Assignment content:

Your assignment submission will have two sections: A preliminary section with a 'team charter,' and a main section with the 'building case studies.'


You are to create a contract between all group members in which: 1) all the duties and tasks are identified, 2) a timeline for progress-completion of these various parts is identified, and 3) the person responsible for undertaking each part is identified. This document is primarily intended to serve as a working plan, but also to precisely allocate accountabilities and to serve as evidence in the event of group member non-performance.

You are to minute on-going progress. It is realistic to expect that circumstances and therefore deliverables will change. These changes and variations should be documented, along with on-going member contribution and performance.

Each student should similarly keep a diary of what they are doing and how their interaction with other group members is progressing.

Finally, a précis of actual group member contribution is to be prepared, and this is to be signed off by all group members.

For the final submission the following is required:

  • Original contract of duty and timeline allocations
  • Brief reflective summary of each group member experiences
  • Actual division of work undertaken, with brief explanation of any variation

All this should be contained in about one A4 page; not more.

In the extreme event that a group disintegrates and cannot complete the assignment as a 'team,' two options are open to you:

  • 1) - Certain group members complete the entire assignment alone (doing additional work), with the others 'free-riding.' Here, all group members still get the same mark allocated to the assignment, irrespective of asymmetrical contribution or asymmetrical quality.
  • 2) - Certain group members wish to jettison certain other group members, effectively creating sub-groups. Here, those wishing to go down this path must establish that others are failing to contribute, AS CONTRACTED. This requires evidence be produced well in advance of the submission date that shows that other group members have consistently failed to meet, communicate and deliver as per pre-agreed terms. Those being 'accused' have a right of reply. This option will be closed to students one week before submission (11th September), leaving only the above option available if team work has indeed collapsed. Should this option eventuate, the original group will be broken, with each new group still required to meet the original assignment expectations, and to the original submission dead-line.

Keep in mind what was learned about team-work in the first tutorial. Also keep in mind Deakin's GLO's, in which graduates are expected to demonstrate the skills of being able to work with others professionally (not only friends), overcoming personality, motivational, conflict and power issues, to arrive at a professional outcome.



You are to select two domestic dwellings (houses) for comparison. These are to be drawn from the following:

  • 1) - An identifiable house design from a (local) volume builder
  • 2) - A comparable in size 'architecturally designed,' one-off house

You must choose houses for which you can gain access to drawings and information of sufficient standard in order to complete the assignment. (Both should exist, and not merely be unrealised schemes.)

You are to present a report in which:

  • You will describe the two houses you have selected, justifying your rationale for selecting these two out for comparative analysis.
  • You will provide an overview of the following parameters, making comparisons which highlight both key similarities and differences:
  • Site characteristics
  • Substructure, footings and floor system
  • Wall structural system and enclosure
  • Roof framing system
  • Materials
  • Services
  • Energy (green) strategies
  • You will evaluate theses same parameters, commenting critically on the suitability of each with respect to the solutions each house has adopted:
  • What are the cost, quality time, buildabilty implications?
  • How well do the solutions integrate with each other?
  • What are the implications for aesthetics, function and durability? * Overall, which project is more successful, and WHY?

(If these criteria are not clear to you, you must seek clarification from your tutors.)

In concluding, you should commit to selecting one project as more successful than the other, but more importantly explain your rationale for making your selection.

Inclusion of drawings and photos is encouraged, but only to the extent that they directly contribute topoints being made in the text.

As a guide, the report should be not more than 5,000 words, or of about ten pages. However, what is wanted is not length of prose or voluminous graphics, but rather succinct assessments of the parameters above, augmented by reasoned judgments on the relative merits of each. A good report will not only describe facts, but present critiques and recommendations.


Your presentation will summarizes (verbally and visually) the salient (major) findings contained in your report. As previously mentioned, it should be on A1, presented in the tutorials, with all members contributing, be of about 3 minutes duration, and be powerfully relevant and direct in its findings.

Tutorial schedule for Assignment 2:

Week 6

Assignment clarification; group formation and registration; team charter.

Week 7

Selection of two case study houses; identification of the parameters for investigation; initial comparative assessment of those parameters; report outline.

Week 8

Critical assessment of each parameter; identification of which features of each house are 'more successful' at fulfilling their 'purpose;' overall evaluation.

Week 9

Last minute tidying up before oral presentation.

Week 10

First oral presentation session. Groups to appear and present as per 'sign-up' schedule.

Week 11

Second oral presentation session. Groups to appear and present as per 'sign-up' schedule.

Marking rubric:

The assignment contributes 30% to the total marks awarded in this unit. The breakdown is as follows:

Assignment 2 marks breakdown

Total marks



A - Team charter and reflection


B - Completeness of the description of the parameter components


C - Rigour of the evaluation of the parameter components


D - Comparative analysis of the merits of the two houses


E - Overall report readability, style, formatting & presentation


F - Oral presentation message and clarity

Marks distribution for each item


Descriptive benchmark

0.0 - 2.4%

Fails to fulfil the requirements

2.5 - 2.9%

Requirements present but unclear, ambiguous or mistaken

3.0 - 3.4%

Accurate, but uninsightful or minimally adequate

3.5 - 3.9%

Certain elements insightful, but inconsistently so

4.0 - 4.4%

Insightful, creative and of unique contribution, if still marginally flawed

4.5 - 5.0%

All elements present to a polished, accurate and professional level

In deciphering the marking rubric, keep the following in mind. Passing should be relatively easy; as long as you do what is required. However, a high mark is not an entitlement that can be expected of merely doing the work; it is awarded where the work is of a high standard. If you do not fully understand the buildings you are examining nor can shown that clearly, with genuine insight, then you should not expect a brilliant mark.

Note that the mark range 3.0 - 3.4% (out of 5%) will apply as a benchmark where the work is both complete and accurate. To achieve a higher mark the work must transcend to deliver genuine insights and be of a professional quality.

0.0 - 2.4% (fail) - can be expected where elements are not all fully present

2.5 - 2.9% - indicates elements are present, but in error to a degree that significantly detracts

3.0 - 3.4% - indicates a benchmark standard in which elements are present and adequate

3.5 - 3.9% - indicates some elements are insightful, but overall the work is inconsistently so

4.0 - 4.4% - at this point the work is exemplary, though with minimal flaws or detractions present

4.5 - 5.0% - at this point the work is without fault, as well as being of overall professionally quality



Out of

Criteria description




Team charter and reflection



Completeness of the description of the parameter components



Rigour of the evaluation of the parameter components



Comparative analysis of the merits of the two houses



Overall report readability, style, formatting & presentation



Oral presentation message and clarity


Again, if in doubt about any of this, ask at the tutorials.

Final exam:

As a reminder, the final exam will be made up of short answer questions drawn from the lecture material. While the group assignment may or may not suit certain individuals, be aware that the final exam can trip people up, not only because it is an individual effort, but because it requires students to have digested many hundreds of slides worth of information. Consequently, you are encouraged to not forget to attend and review lectures, even as you proceed with Assignment 2.