**14. Differences in assessment results**

At the end of year students submit an individual project report as part of the Mechanical Design module. A similar report is also submitted for assessment by students on the equivalent module in Automotive Design. This submission consists of a report and a set of technical drawings.

A marking scheme was devised so that half of the available marks for this assignment are allocated to elements of detailed design such as applying tolerances, correct dimensioning, surface finish considerations and manufacturing and materials considerations.

It was noted that there was a difference in performance in this assignment for current student cohort and the previous year's cohort, but this was considered to be inconclusive. The average score between the two cohorts was almost identical to within 0.1%. In Mavromihales and Holmes [4], changes in performance were gauged by comparing the profiles, in terms of tariff points at the entry point to the course, between two groups of consecutive years of entry to undergraduate study. In this case, this was not viable due to changes in the currency of the tariff points. It was therefore not possible to adjust for discrepancy in the levels of qualifications between the control group and the experimental group.

As a separate measure, we also compared the performance of individuals who were in groups that had ranked amongst the top ten finishers in the activity. The overall average of individuals who had ranked amongst the top ten finishing groups was significantly higher with overall individual scores of nearly 8 percentage points higher (69.7% as compared to 62%). Results were also compared with another cohort of students who participated in the same activity but as part of a similar 'sister' module, in Automotive Design. Results in performance were unsurprisingly similar in that the top-scoring half of groups accounted for a 10% improvement in students' individual scores for the end of year individual detailed design project. This was accomplished despite the fact that groups were made up of mixed ability students in the ABL activity. This raises a question as to whether the students who ranked amongst the top 10 in the activity were more motivated and would have scored better individually in any case, or whether participation in the gamification activity had assisted them to achieve better results, individually. However, it is evident that students who had performed outside the top 10 ranking groups had an absent member during one activity session which clearly hindered the group performance. Other possible underlying issues of weaker performing groups in the activity will be explored and discussed later and addressed as part of future work.
