Assessment is a crucial moment of the academic career. At the exam, professors are asked to express, by means of an 30-points scale, their assessment of the students’ work. It can be frustrating to receive a mark that doesn’t meet one’s expectations, but it is always possible to reject the mark and take the exam again on a further session.

Professors exert their necessary and professional independency in assessing their students, taking in consideration the many discipline-related, specific factors. While respecting this autonomy, the Accademia has established some guidelines and rules to make assessment more consistent among different courses.

For more information about the exams, please refer to the Academic Regulations, that is available on MyNABA at this page: Regulations.

The Academy applies a compulsory attendance requirement of 70% of the courses. Students who don’t fulfil this requirement will not be allowed to take the exams on the first session, and will have to wait until the next one. Sometimes, a different exam is planned for non-attending students: these students need to inquire with due advance about the exam requirements for non-attending students.

In compliance with the Italian university system, NABA uses a 30-points scale, where 30 is the highest grade and 18 is the minimum requested to pass the exam. Each exam has its own assessment method, as thoroughly explained in the second part of this Handbook.

The 12 marks between 18 and 30 reflect different outcomes, and can be divided as follows:

• <18 : Fail

• 18-22 : Pass

• 23-25 : Good

• 26-27 : Very Good

• 28-30 : Excellent

A very good mark like 26 or 27 is usually awarded to students who meet all the learning goals, yet don’t exceed expectations. Only when one or more of the expected learning outcomes have been exceeded, an excellent grade is awarded. On the other hand, if some of the expected goals have not been reached, the mark will be between pass and good, depending on the number and severity of faults. If the preparation is obviously faulty in a number of assessment criteria, the exam will be considered as failed.

Upon achievement of the highest mark (30/30), professors have the option to award “lode” (a cum laude grade), that is a special acknowledgement of exceptional outcomes. Many students rightfully aim at top grades and “lode”, yet it is worth keeping in mind that these grades are reserved to outstanding results and are only sparingly awarded to preserve their intrinsic value. In particular, “lode” represent an extraordinary acknowledgement that the professor might decide to award in full autonomy of judgement and for different reasons. For example, it can be awarded to the technical quality of a project, or for the thorough development of a topic. Sometimes out-of-ordinary commitment is rewarded with “lode”, in other cases “lode” can be a prize for an original idea or exercise. “Lode” can also reflect exceptional engagement or self-improvement throughout the course. Such discretionary power doesn’t come from inaccuracy or lack of criteria, but reflects the intrinsically exceptional nature of such an award, that needs to take in consideration extraordinary, sometimes unexpected circumstances that it would be limiting to strictly define.

Given this preliminary remark, it is common practice to only award “lode” upon achievement of top grades, that is when not only all assessment criteria have been met, but when they are consistently and notably exceeded.

Every exam is graded following precise criteria, that depend on the learning objectives of the specific subject and are thoroughly described in the second part of this Handbook. However, some assessment aspects are recurrent, especially but not only in project-based exams. The Accademia has identified seven transversal assessment criteria, that are often used in exams. Not all seven criteria apply to all exams, yet given their diffusion the decision was made to share with professors and students some guidelines for assessment in these areas.

The guidelines are presented in form of a rubric, that is for each criteria the description of a few typical cases defines the different possible situations. As it only aims to define general guidelines, the scenarios depict standard cases and need to be later contextualised and adjusted to each specific case.

• <18 : The context has not been researched or understood. No evidence of personal thoughts. Absence of conceptual and planning perspective.

• 18-22 : Some starting points have been identified, yet their development is missing or just sketched out. The idea comprises only few innovative elements, and their development is very limited.

• 23-25 : The idea shows the development of the initial concept from a personal point of view. The innovation potential has been expressed and contextualised.

• 26-27: Not only the idea is based on a well-defined and understood context, but the suggestions reveal the ability to think up original application scenarios. The creative process is clear and personal. Contemporary and thorough vision of the suggested theme.

• 28-30 : The suggested idea clearly shows the ability to read, understand and further develop the reference context, leading to a personal and original vision. The innovative element is not limited to one aspect of the idea, but permeates a great variety of project and conceptual areas. The creative process has generated a highly innovative project, well-positioned for the short, medium and long period.

• <18 : The research goals are not expressed or are inconsistent. Complete lack of references to support the suggested ideas. The project foundations are confused or not explained.

• 18-22 : Some correct references support part of the project, yet they don’t cover the whole argument. Goals are partially defined. Presence of a suitable design method, yet only partially or superficially documented.

• 23-25 : The majority of the project goals are clear and well-defined. The supporting sources are well selected and cover the majority of the discussed topics. The work method suits the project, and is documented with reasonable clearness.

• 26-27: The project is based on well-contextualised goals, that provide a clear vision of the project purposes. The work shows a thorough analysis of well-selected and suitable sources, consistently used and aimed at supporting the proposed arguments. The selected method suits the project, and is clearly documented by a variety of different supports.

• 28-30 : The project goals have been developed as to reflect the project needs in their whole, with no repetition or overlapping. The selected sources include cases of particular interest, and show the ability to establish connections even between very diverse, apparently unrelated areas. The research covers themes and disciplines that go beyond the main subject, yet keep consistency and suitability within the analysed material. The work method has been specifically devised or developed to suit one or more project phases, and is particularly effective.

• <18 : The presentation is sketchy and faltering. It is necessary to ask many questions as the presentation is not structured, nor organised. No supporting documentation.

• 18-22 : The presentation is rough, yet sufficient. The fundamentals are somehow explained, yet the presentation of relevant topic is incomplete. However, the gaps get filled following to specific questions or requests for clarification. The structure of the presentation is not clearly defined. No supporting material, or, when present, not very relevant to the presentation or not accurate.

• 23-25 : The presentation covers the main aspects of the work, however it is necessary to ask questions in order to round out the explanation or to clarify the occasional obscure passage. The presentation appears to be partially structured, with ellipses or logical/time gaps. However, these are filled by the student who doesn’t need to be prompted. Some supporting material has been created, even though it is a little rough or of non-professional level. Still, it is helpful to understand the presentation.

• 26-27: The presentation is effective and doesn’t leave out any important aspect. In case of team work, all group members take part to the presentation, not always in a balanced manner. Summarizing material is also presented, which proves a thorough preparation of the good-level, faultless presentation.

• 28-30 : The presentation is of professional level. It follows an effective structure and - in case of team work - each member plays a specific role in the communication. Multiple documents support the presentation, that makes use of a great variety of methods. Supporting material has been created (slides, videos, printouts, etc.) It is of professional level and represents an effective support to communication.

• <18 : The project doesn’t reflect the brief or the set goals. Serious faults compromise its quality or fruition. There’s a clear lack of mastery of the fundamental techniques, tools and/or processes.

• 18-22 : The project is close to the brief, but doesn’t fulfil all the requirements. Some evident faults affect the fruition, yet don’t totally compromise it. The general idea still comes across. Some basic techniques have been correctly used, however the quality of the project shows a not always satisfactory technical ability in the use of the work or project tools.

• 23-25 : The project fulfils the majority of the brief requirements, with only slight slips. The general quality of the making is good. Some faults might be present, but they don’t compromise a fine fruition. Good command of the fundamental techniques and of suitable project and methodological tools.

• 26-27: The brief is fulfilled by the project, that is overall of more than fine making. No making faults and, if any, they are so slight as not to affect the general quality of the project. The fundamental techniques have been appropriately used when necessary, which shows the ability to select tools and carry out the project. Work tools have been appropriately used at an advanced level. Occasionally, the project can show particularly complex or advanced solutions.

• 28-30 : The project entirely fulfils the brief requirements and offers further solutions identified through attentive analysis. This shows great care for the customer/final user’s needs. The making is faultless and responds to a precise sense of aesthetic, suited to the kind of project requested. Clearly, the basic techniques have been used with mastery. Also, the full command of advanced techniques and design tools as the result of self-sufficient research and practice comes across, and is always consistent with the context.

• <18 : The language is inappropriate, it might include colloquial expressions, or the standard might be unsuited to the circumstances. The vocabulary choices are often inaccurate or inappropriate and show poor knowledge of the industry lexicon.

• 18-22 : Language and standard have shown inappropriate in more that one instance, or generic terms are used in place of specific terminology suited to the discipline. However, this doesn’t compromise the understanding of the message.

• 23-25 : The language is mainly appropriate, even though occasionally the standard might not be consistent with the situation, or the terms might be inaccurate. Overall, the student shows familiarity with the subject-specific vocabulary.

• 26-27: The language suits the context and the reference industry and a comprehensive understanding of the discipline-specific terminology is shown. This is fully mastered and naturally applied to a suitable language standard.

• 28-30 : The presentation clearly shows a very punctual and appropriate language choice. Words are pondered over and used to convey very specific vocabulary shades. The selected terms are specific when needed, and the student shows the ability to change standard if needs be - while keeping the communication effective.

• <18 : Engagement is rare and the student is obviously poorly prepared. Comments are usually vague or not consistent with the assigned topic. A severe lack of interest is clear and not occasional. In no way the student facilitates or contributes to the general discussion.

• 18-22 : Engagement and preparation levels are unsteady. The constructive engagement into classroom discussions shows enough grounding to make consistent remarks on the assigned topic. The discussion level is average.

• 23-25 : The student shows persevering groundwork and a constructive participation in the discussions. The remarks are correctly contextualised. The general discussion level can sometimes benefit from the presence of the student.

• 26-27: Class engagement is always active, and thorough groundwork is often shown. The student plays an active role in the discussions. The remarks sometimes contribute to the improvement and focussing of the dialogue. The discussion level is often improved by the student’s presence.

• 28-30 : Class engagement is always active, and thorough groundwork is always shown. The student plays an active role in the discussions. The remarks always contribute to the improvement and focussing of the dialogue. The discussion level is constantly improved by the student’s presence.

• <18 : No ability to divide the argumentation into its fundamental parts is shown. The argumentation only shows one point of view over the covered topic, which is very poorly explained. The pieces of information, if any, seem to be unrelated and are not linked within an argument.

• 18-22 : At least at a superficial level, the ability to identify the basic elements of the presentation can be seen. A sole point of view on the covered topic is outlined and is explained with enough clearness. If present, the argumentation can be sketchy. The basic pieces of information are linked within a consistent argument.

• 23-25 : The mastery of the basic elements of the talk and the ability to go in-depth are clearly shown. The student can support an argument from which different points of view emerge. He can summarise the presentation in a general overview, built around both fundamental and secondary arguments.

• 26-27: The individual elements of the presentation are suitably and thoroughly handled. Effective arguments are built around the different points of view that come into play. The synthesis can easily refer to the general presentation, as well as to parts of it.

• 28-30 : Not only the student has full command of the single arguments, but can also integrate them with personal remarks. Different points of view, not necessarily disciplinary, are effortlessly handled. The synthesis is not only created within the talk or the discipline, but is also exhaustively built around the context.

Exams can be of different types, depending on the discipline or on the specific assessment criteria. Each course ends with one or more exams, thoroughly explained in the sessions dedicated to the single courses in the second part of this Handbook.

Oral exams are often used to assess theoretical and expository skills. During the oral exams, usually individual, students have an interview with the professor who asks them questions and explanations, triggers arguments or suggests topics to be analysed and thought over. Oral exams can be the only course assessment or complement other exams, such as exercises or projects.

Some courses, especially the mainly theoretical ones, might end with a written exam. At this kind of exam a theme is assigned to all the attending students, who are then given a certain amount of time to develop it in writing. It could be open questions, multiple choice questions, themes or ideas to be developed, problems to be solved, and so on. Usually, no subsidiary material is allowed at the exam. However, students are invited to check on this with their professors before the examination date.

When the subject is strictly practical, the exam might consist in a practical exercise where the students need to prove their technical and practical skills. For example, students might be requested to use a software programme to develop a project, or to create a staging, or to create drawings or other visual material by hand or using tools, including digital ones. A practical exam can be the same for all the students attending the session, who will develop it individually at the same time (for example when requested to develop a software project in a computer lab), or different for every student, who will be requested to take the exam individually.

Sometimes the exam request can be an exercise. This term usually refers to a text or written material, while for different kinds of outcome the term project is commonly used. As opposed to exams, where the theme is revealed on the examination day, exercises are developed over a longer period of time, sometimes the entire semester. Exercise examples can be: research or short dissertations, critical essays, scripts, scenarios, etc.

Another kind of exercise can require the development of a specific element of a project, with no request for the entire project. This is common in the early stages of the study, when design skills are not fully developed. Project exercises can be mood boards, storyboards, visual research, material research, sketches, etc. Very often, the students are requested to submit their exercises some time before the exam, to enable the professors to correct and, if necessary, discuss them at oral exams.

The completion of comprehensive projects sees the students handle all the phases of the project foundations. The assessment will focus not only on the quality of the finished product, but also on the method applied. Comprehensive projects often follow a brief, assigned by the professor or independently created, that explains the project goals and needs. Fulfilling the brief is a vital criteria of the project assessment. Assessing this kind of projects is often a long, structured process that stretches over the semester and ends with the presentation of the project at the exam. The development of the projects is carried out both during classes and during individual or group study time, and can involve the use of laboratories or specific equipment.

Should the assessment be particularly complex, professors set specific moments for mid-term evaluations, that is before the exam, both to define the progress phases and to focus on few aspects at the time, allowing for a more comprehensive final assessment. Mid-term assessment can be carried out through any of the above mentioned practices, and contributes to the final mark. Sometimes professors choose to calculate the actual average of the mid-term graded exercises, other times they only use the results as indicators of the students’ progress - with no impact on the final mark. You can find more details in each course session or by the professors.