TFE assessment criteria
TFE assessment criteria
The table below lists the TFE assessment criteria and the quality indicators associated with each grade band.
| Criterion | 9 - 10 | 7 - 8 | 5 - 6 | 0 - 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall assessment - 40% |
High coherence and clarity between objectives and results. Use of critical thinking. High originality and innovation. Correlation between theory and practice. |
Significant coherence and clarity between objectives and results. Significant originality and innovation. Some results may be applicable in practice. |
Acceptable coherence and clarity between objectives and results. Acceptable originality and innovation. Unrealistic practical applications. |
Undefined objectives and inconsistency with the results. Little originality and innovation. Insufficient ideas to be put into practice. |
| Theoretical foundations - 10% | Convincing theoretical foundations. Clear presentation of the advances achieved. | Acceptable theoretical foundations. Acceptable arguments about the advances achieved. | Correct theoretical foundations. Little information about the advances achieved. | Lack of theoretical foundations. The work does not contribute to scientific progress or knowledge. |
| Method - 10% | Methodology fully suited to the subject. Methodologies well applied. Perfect analytical coherence and link between results and conclusions. | Notable suitability of the methodology to the subject. Acceptable methodologies. Reasoned interpretation of results. Coherent conclusions. | Correct suitability of the methodology to the subject. Correct methodologies. Superficial analysis of results. Correct but incomplete conclusions. | No suitability of the methodology to the subject. Incorrect methodologies. Insufficient analysis of results. Poor conclusions. |
| Formal aspects - 10% |
Clarity and precision in the structure of the work. Very correct writing. Correctly referenced bibliography. |
Clarity and order in the structure of the work. Fairly correct writing. Correctly referenced bibliography. |
Acceptable structure and writing. Acceptable bibliography. | Imprecise structure of the work. No bibliography. |
| Defence of the work - 30% |
Very good communication skills. Very good slides. Keeps to the allotted time. |
Good communication skills. Good slides. Keeps to the allotted time. |
Adequate communication skills. Adequate slides. Mostly keeps to the allotted time. |
Poor communication skills. Illegible and/or poorly structured slides. Does not keep to the allotted time. |
Guidelines for assessing the use of generative AI in TFEs
This section sets out guidance for examination board members when assessing final projects (TFEs) in which generative artificial intelligence tools have been used.
The aim is not to determine whether AI has been used, but to ensure that students retain intellectual authorship, technical judgement and an understanding of the content expected of an engineer.
Formal compliance
- Students must explicitly declare the AI tools used and the sections of the work where they were used.
- AI must be listed as a methodological resource, and cannot appear as a bibliographic source or as an author of the work.
Academic and technical rigour
- In the state of the art, AI may be used as a structuring aid, but sources must be verifiable, up to date and correctly cited.
- In the analysis of results, AI may support data processing, but conclusions must be original, coherent and directly linked to the objectives of the TFE.
- The overall coherence of the document and the consistency between methodology, results and conclusions will be assessed.
The oral defence is the main instrument for validating understanding and authorship of the work.
Indicators of authorship and understanding:
- Ability to explain the work process and the decisions taken.
- Consistency between the written report and the oral defence.
- Identification and justification of errors, limitations or assumptions.
- Command of the technical concepts used.
- Ability to reason when faced with unprepared questions.
Criteria for the board's actions:
- Ask open questions (why, how, what would happen if…) adapted to the content of the TFE.
- Ask for justification of relevant technical decisions (models, parameters, alternatives considered).
- Pose variations of the problem to assess the transfer of knowledge.
- Request simplified explanations to check deep understanding.
- Explore the limitations of the work and possible lines of improvement.
If the student has used AI as a support tool (programming, assisted writing, exploration of cases), with their own critical analysis and added value, the final grade will be determined by the published TFE Assessment Guidelines.
If the student has used AI for essential content without sufficient validation, with inconsistencies or a lack of technical judgement, or has concealed the use of AI, this will be considered a serious deficiency and may mean that the TFE does not meet the minimum requirements to be assessed favourably.
Share: