Searching for a Green Buildings Assignment Question? No problem. Assignmenttask.com is the most trusted assignment writing help provider. They cover various assignments, such as Leadership Assignments, MYOB Assignments, auditing Assignments, and more, with expert and professional writers. They deliver AI-free and customized content with 24/7 live chat support.
Question 1: Individual Report
Each student must prepare an individual written report analysing:
- Introduction to the case
- Indoor environmental quality factors (temperature, humidity, ventilation, lighting, acoustics).
- Key air quality issues and their implications on health, comfort, and
- Strategies for energy efficiency and water conservation in the proposed
- Recommendations supported by evidence, standards, or case
ATTACHMENT
QUESTION 1 (CLO 2)
| *QN/ *NS | CLO | Criteria/ Kriteria | Weight/ Pemberat | Excellent/ Cemerlang | Good/ Baik | Fair/ Sederhana | Poor/ Lemah | Unsatisfactory/ Tidak memuaskan | Max Marks |
| 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | |||||
|
1 |
2 | Introduction on the case study. i. Context & Background. ii. Problem Statement. iii. Objectives & Scope. |
0.5 | Provides comprehensive background on green building, sustainability, and urban context with clear relevance to case. i. Clearly defines the issues (indoor quality, energy, water, sustainability), well-justified. ii. Objectives are precise and measurable. | Provides good background, some relevance to case. i. Identifies main issues, with some justification. ii. Objectives clear but general. | Basic background, limited relevance. i. Mentions issues but lacks clarity or depth. ii. Objectives vague or partially relevant. | Minimal background, weak relevance. i. Issues unclear or superficial. ii.Very weak objectives, limited scope. | No background or irrelevant. |
2 |
| Pengenalan tentang kajian kes. i. Konteks & Latar Belakang. ii. Pernyataan Masalah. iii. Objektif & Skop. | Menyediakan latar belakang komprehensif tentang bangunan hijau, kemampanan dan konteks bandar dengan kaitan yang jelas dengan kes. i. Mentakrifkan isu dengan jelas (kualiti dalaman, tenaga, air, kemampanan), wajar. ii. Objektif adalah tepat dan boleh diukur. | Menyediakan latar belakang yang baik, sedikit kaitan dengan kes. i. Mengenal pasti isu utama, dengan beberapa justifikasi. ii. Objektif jelas tetapi umum. | Latar belakang asas, perkaitan terhad. i. Menyebut isu tetapi kurang jelas atau mendalam. ii. Objektif kabur atau sebahagiannya berkaitan. | Latar belakang minima, perkaitan yang lemah. i. Isu tidak jelas atau cetek. ii. Objektif yang sangat lemah, skop terhad. | Tiada latar belakang atau tidak relevan. |
|
1 |
2 | Analysis of indoor environment & air quality (implications on health, comfort, and productivity). |
1.5 | Comprehensive, critical analysis with evidence & standards. (implications on health, comfort, and productivity) | Analisis yang jelas dengan beberapa bukti. (implikasi pada kesihatan, keselesaan dan produktiviti) | Limited analysis, lacks depth. (implications on health, comfort, and productivity) | Minimal analysis, weak evidence. (implications on health, comfort, and productivity) | No analysis provided. |
6 |
| Analisis persekitaran dalaman & kualiti udara (implikasi pada kesihatan, keselesaan dan produktiviti). | Analisis kritikal yang komprehensif dengan bukti & piawaian (implikasi pada kesihatan, keselesaan dan produktiviti). | Analisis yang jelas dengan beberapa bukti. (implikasi pada kesihatan, keselesaan dan produktiviti) | Analisis terhad, kurang mendalam. (implikasi pada kesihatan, keselesaan dan produktiviti) | Analisis terhad, kurang mendalam. (implikasi pada kesihatan, keselesaan dan produktiviti) | Tiada analisis disediakan. | ||||
|
1 |
2 | Energy & water efficiency strategies. |
1.5 | Innovative, practical & well-supported strategies. | Clear strategies, mostly practical. | Basic strategies, limited examples. | Weak strategies, unrealistic. | No strategies given. |
6 |
| Strategi kecekapan tenaga & air. | Strategi yang inovatif, praktikal & disokong dengan baik. | Strategi yang jelas, kebanyakannya praktikal. | Strategi asas, contoh terhad. | Strategi yang lemah, tidak realistik. | Tiada strategi diberikan. | ||||
|
1 |
2 | Critical thinking & recommendations. |
2.0 | Insightful, strongly justified recommendations. | Logical recommendations with some justification. | Basic recommendations, little support. | Weak recommendations. | Not given. |
8 |
| Pemikiran kritis & cadangan. | Pengesyoran yang berwawasan dan sangat wajar. | Cadangan logik dengan beberapa justifikasi. | Cadangan asas, sedikit sokongan. | Cadangan yang lemah. | Tidak diberi. | ||||
| 1 | 2 | Creativity & innovation. | 1.5 | Highly original & innovative ideas. | Some originality. | Limited originality. | Very little originality. | None | 6 |
| Kreativiti & inovasi. | Idea yang sangat asli dan inovatif. | Beberapa keaslian. | Keaslian terhad. | Keaslian yang sangat sedikit. | Tiada | ||||
|
1 |
2 | Structure, clarity & referencing. |
0.5 | Excellent organisation, academic writing, correct referencing. | Good organisation, minor issues. | Acceptable structure, limited referencing. | Poor structure, weak referencing. | Disorganised, no references. |
2 |
| Struktur, kejelasan & rujukan. | Organisasi yang cemerlang, penulisan akademik, rujukan yang betul. | Organisasi yang baik, isu-isu kecil. | Struktur yang boleh diterima, rujukan terhad. | Struktur yang lemah, rujukan yang lemah. | Tidak teratur, tiada rujukan. | ||||
| Total | 7.5 | 30 | |||||||
*QN = Question Number / *NS = Nombor Soalan
Question 2 (CLO 2)
| *QN/ *NS | CLO | Criteria/ Kriteria | Weight/ Pemberat | Excellent/ Cemerlang | Good/ Baik | Fair/ Sederhana | Poor/ Lemah | Unsatisfactory/ Tidak memuaskan | Max Marks |
| 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | |||||
|
2 |
2 | Quality of Postings |
2.5 | All ten postings/comments are good, appropriate, relevant, meaningful, and respectful | Eight or six of the postings/comments are good, appropriate, relevant, meaningful and respectful | More the two or five of the postings/comments are somewhat good, appropriate, meaningful and respectful | None of the comments are good and relevant. / Comments are short responses that are not substantial nor meaningful. Minimum effort (e.g., “I agree with Tina”) | No postings given as proof of participation in discussion. |
10 |
| Kualiti Posting | Kesemua sepuluh posting/komen adalah baik, sesuai, relevan, bermakna dan berhemah | Lapan atau enam daripada posting/komen adalah baik, sesuai, relevan, bermakna dan berhemah | Lebih dari dua atau lima posting/komen itu agak bagus, sesuai, bermakna dan berhemah | Tiada komen yang baik dan relevan. / Komen hanya respon yang ringkas dan tidak meluas dan tidak bermakna. Usaha minimum. (Cth: “Saya setuju dengan Tina”) |
Tiada posting diberi sebagai bukti penyertaan dalam perbincangan. | ||||
| Total | 2.5 | 10 | |||||||
QUESTION 3 (CLO 3)
| *QN/ *NS | CLO | Criteria/ Kriteria | Weight/ Pemberat | Excellent/ Cemerlang | Good/ Baik | Fair/ Sederhana | Poor/ Lemah | Unsatisfactory/ Tidak memuaskan | Max Marks |
| 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | |||||
|
3 |
3 | Content & accuracy. |
1.5 | Comprehensive, accurate, evidence- based | Accurate, minor gaps | Some accuracy issues | Major inaccuracies | No relevant content |
6 |
| Kandungan & ketepatan. | Komprehensif, tepat, berasaskan bukti | Jurang yang tepat dan kecil | Beberapa isu ketepatan | Ketidaktepatan utama | Tiada kandungan yang berkaitan | ||||
|
3 |
3 | Integration of sustainability principles. |
1.0 | Excellent integration of indoor environment, air, energy, water & site | Good integration, minor gaps | Some integration, limited scope | Weak integration | Not addressed |
4 |
| Integrasi prinsip kelestarian. | Versi BM | Penyepaduan yang baik, jurang kecil | Beberapa penyepaduan, skop terhad | Integrasi yang lemah | Tidak ditujukan | ||||
|
3 |
3 | Creativity & presentation style. |
1.0 | Highly engaging, innovative visuals & delivery | Engaging, good visuals | Acceptable visuals, basic delivery | Weak visuals, poor delivery | No creativity |
4 |
| Kreativiti dan gaya persembahan. | Visual & penyampaian yang sangat menarik dan inovatif | Menarik, visual yang bagus | Visual yang boleh diterima, penyampaian asas | Visual yang lemah, penyampaian yang lemah | Tiada kreativiti | ||||
|
3 |
3 | Teamwork & collaboration. |
0.5 | Excellent collaboration, all members contribute | Good collaboration, most members contribute | Uneven contribution | Minimal collaboration | No collaboration |
2 |
| Kerja berpasukan & kerjasama. | Kerjasama yang sangat baik, semua ahli menyumbang | Kerjasama yang baik, kebanyakan ahli menyumbang | Sumbangan tidak sekata | Kerjasama yang minima | Tiada kerjasama | ||||
|
3 |
3 | Clarity & communication. |
1.0 | Very clear, professional, persuasive | Clear & understandable | Somewhat clear, minor errors | Poor clarity | Not understandable |
4 |
| Kejelasan & komunikasi. | Sangat jelas, profesional, persuasif | Jelas dan boleh difahami | Agak jelas, kesilapan kecil | Kejelasan yang kurang jelas | Tidak boleh difahami | ||||
| Total | 5.0 | 20 | |||||||
*QN = Question Number / *NS = Nombor Soalan