1001670_2 - RIVER ENGINEERING AND HYDROELECTRIC PLANT

The assessment consists of an oral examination. The oral examination will take the form of an interview during which the practical exercises and assignments related to the applied topics covered in the course will also be reviewed and discussed.

The oral examination is intended to assess the student's knowledge and understanding of the course contents, as well as their independent judgment, learning skills, and communication abilities.

The final grade will be awarded according to the following criteria:

30–30 cum laude (30L)

The student demonstrates a complete and detailed knowledge of the subject matter: they master the relevant contents, use appropriate technical terminology, identify and explain the main concepts, and incorporate personal insights into their synthesis of the topics. They show an excellent understanding of the subject, clearly distinguishing between primary and supporting ideas, effectively framing key issues, enriching discussion with references to supplementary materials or independent study, and developing interdisciplinary connections. They demonstrate well-established abilities to apply knowledge and analyze results. Their presentation is clear and well-structured, characterized by logical reasoning, maturity, and conciseness.

28–29

The student demonstrates an in-depth knowledge of the subject matter: they master the relevant contents, use appropriate technical terminology, and identify and explain most of the key concepts. They show a solid understanding of the subject, successfully framing most of the main issues, although they may not always clearly distinguish major topics from secondary ones. They discuss topics with references to supplementary materials or independent study. They demonstrate excellent abilities in applying knowledge and analyzing results. Their presentation is clear and well-developed, logical, mature, and concise, despite occasional inaccuracies.

25–27

The student demonstrates a broad knowledge of the subject matter: they are familiar with the relevant contents, although explanations may not always be complete. Technical terminology is generally used appropriately, though not always precisely. They identify key concepts but may not fully or accurately explain them. They demonstrate an adequate understanding of the subject, recognizing important issues but not always framing them comprehensively. They show good ability in applying knowledge. Their presentation is generally clear, though sometimes incomplete, with a schematic organization and occasional fragmentation or repetition of ideas.

22–24

The student demonstrates an acceptable knowledge of the subject matter: they are familiar with most of the contents but exhibit some gaps and confusion regarding certain important, though not fundamental, concepts. They demonstrate an essential understanding of the subject and do not always frame all topics accurately or comprehensively. They show fair ability in applying the fundamental concepts of the discipline. Their presentation is generally correct but lacks a fully coherent and well-defined structure, occasionally including less relevant information.

18–21

The student demonstrates a limited knowledge of the subject matter: they know the most important contents but exhibit numerous gaps. They identify many key concepts but are unable to explain them completely or accurately. Their understanding of the subject is basic, and they encounter difficulties in identifying and contextualizing key issues due to incompleteness or inaccuracies. They show uncertainty in applying the fundamental concepts of the discipline. Their presentation is often unclear and disorganized, characterized by fragmented and repetitive reasoning, and technical terminology is not always used appropriately.

Fail

The student demonstrates a poor and fragmented knowledge of the subject matter: they lack knowledge of the essential contents, exhibit significant gaps, and fail to identify key concepts. They display serious misunderstandings, are unable to answer numerous questions or solve a substantial number of problems, and make significant errors in applying the fundamental concepts of the discipline. Their level of reasoning and articulation concerning the subject matter does not reach the minimum acceptable standard.