Examination and grading

The content of the examinations are derived from the description of study subject (module) goals. The completion of every study subject (module) is followed by the examination. Examinations are either graded or evaluated on pass/fail basis.

The students have to show with oral and written exams that they have the basic knowledge of the subject and are able to understand and analyse general study area, particular research and practical questions shall be classified by the student and solved.

Graded pieces of work are oral examinations, written exams or presentations. The language of the exam is the language of the lecture.

The duration of written exams is minimum 15 minutes per credit point.

The duration of oral examinations is minimum 30 minutes and maximum 90 minutes. The grading of an oral examination is notified to the student as general rule directly after the examination.

Presentations consist of two parts. Normally the presentation of the student should last 20 minutes followed by a scientific conversation about the topic of the presentation. The presentation as well as the scientific conversation proves the ability of the student to work self-employed on a given topic related to the audit field and to deepen the special knowledge.

Students have to register for the examinations until the respective deadlines announced by the responsible faculty. A written withdrawal is permitted until the last regular working day before the examination 0:00 hours.

Criteria of evaluation of students’ achievements are related to the outcomes of the Programme. Correlation of evaluation criteria with study outcomes is characteristic of the entire study programme. The knowledge evaluation system is based on criteria and proportionality. According to this system the level of students’ knowledge is evaluated based on the criteria established in a given study module and each grade corresponds to the achieved study outcomes. Criterion-proportional knowledge assessment system determines whether a student has mastered the level required in accordance with certain criterion. The grade corresponds to the percentage of achieved study outcomes in regards to the level envisaged in the study subject.

The students’ knowledge is evaluated against a ten point grading system with obtained knowledge evaluated in accordance with the ECTS scale. It shall be used for assessment of examinations, course projects, course works, homework and other tasks.

Knowledge is evaluated and reported using VGTU grading and (similarly for TUB) grade equivalents according to the ECTS scale listed in the table below. Bold grades are taken for the transformation of the VGTU grades to the TUB grades.

An examination grade is in principle unsatisfactory (F) if:

  • the student does not attend the exam and doesn’t provide a justifying doctor‘s note;

  • the written test is not delivered until the given deadline;

  • the student uses fotalks without permission during a written examination, or deceives.

Exams rated unsatisfactory (F) may be repeated twice. After the third failure the examination has been failed definitively.

Equivalence of Lithuanian (VGTU), German (TUB) and ECTS grade systems

TUBS

Grade

VGTU Grade

ECTS scale

Grade

Evaluation

Percent of student receiving this grade

1.0

10

A

OUTSTANDING: work performance far above average, nearly no mistakes

10 %

1.3

1.7

9

B

ABOVE AVERAGE: work performed at a standard above average, several minor mistakes identified

25 %

2.0

2.3

8

C

GENERALLY SOUND WORK: strong work but with significant mistakes

30 %

2.7

7

3.0

3.3

6

D

FAIR: good enough but with some essential mistakes

25 %

3.7

5

E

MEETS MINIMUM CRITERIA: work complies with minimum requirements

10 %

4.0

5.0

4

FX

FAIL: it is necessary to apply additional effort

5.0

3, 2, 1

F

FAIL: substantial extra effort is required

Each professor explains to the postgraduate students the structure of the evaluation grade during the first class on a given subject. Study outcomes evaluation grade may consist of the accumulated grade for the tasks performed during the semester as provided for in the study subject module, grade for interim reporting on theoretical problems, and the exam evaluation obtained during the examination session.

The exam is assessed with grade. In order to fully prepare for and sit this exam, session time is scheduled. The exam grade can be composed of three or two parts.

Three-part exam grade consists of the following: student's cumulative grade received during the semester which completed practical tasks envisaged in a study subject (module); grade received for an interim theory examination held during the semester; grade received for the exam held during the session. The grade is based on the following calculation:

E=W1(A1x1 + A2x2 + ... + Anxn ) + W2(B1y1 + B2y2 + ... + Bmym ) + W3(C1z1 + C2z2 + ... + Ckzk)

where: 

E – student’s exam grade;

W1 – assessment weight coefficient of accumulated grades for examinations held during the semester;

W2 – assessment weight coefficient of grade received for an interim examination held during the semester;

W3 – assessment weight coefficient of grade received for the exam held during the session;

  (W1 + W2 + W3 =1.00)

  A1, A2, ..., An – weight coefficients during the semester envisaged to carry out practical tasks (A1 + A2 + ... + An = 1.00 );

 xi – assessment of single task (e.g. x1 – assessment of test; x2 – assessment of homework; x3 – assessment of laboratory work, etc.);

 B1, B2, ..., Bm – assessment weight coefficients of an interim theory’s examination tasks (B1 + B2 + ... + Bm= 1.00);

  yj – assessment of single interim examination task (e.g. y1 – first question assessment of an interim examination; y2 – second question assessment of an interim examination, etc.);

 C1, C2, ..., Ck – weight coefficients of tasks in the exam held during the session (C1 + C2 + ... + Ck = 1.00 );

zj – assessment of single exam task (e.g. z1 – assessment of first question in the session exam; z2 – assessment of second question in the session exam; z3 – assessment of session exam task, etc.).

Two-part exam grade consists of student's cumulative grade received during the semester for completed practical tasks envisaged in a study subject (module) and grade received for the exam held during the session. The grade is based on the following calculation:

E = W1(Ax1 + A2x2 + ... + Anxn) + W3 (C1z1 + C2z2 + ... Ckzk)

where:

E – student’s exam grade;

W1 ‑ assessment weight coefficient of accumulated grades for examinations held during the semester;

W3 – assessment weight coefficient of grade received for the exam held during the session (W1 + W3 = 1.00 );

A1, A2, ..., An – weight coefficients during the semester envisaged to carry out practical tasks (A1 + A2 + An = 1.00);

xi – assessment of single task (e.g. x1 – assessment of test; x2 – assessment of homework; x3 – assessment of laboratory work, etc.);

C1, C2, ..., Ck – weight coefficients of tasks in the exam held during the session (C1 + C2 + Ck = 1.00);

zj – assessment of single exam task (e.g. z1 – assessment of first question in the session exam; z2 – assessment of second question in the session exam; z3 – assessment of session exam task, etc.).

Exam components and their weight coefficient values shall be set by the department responsible for study subject (module). The department shall record knowledge assessment algorithm into the study subject (module) card.

Student’s cumulative grades received during the semester in which they completed practical tasks envisaged in a study subject (module) shall be recognized only if each of the grades meets the minimum requirements.

Having received unsatisfactory assessment of the practical task envisaged in a study subject (module) that does not satisfy minimum requirements, student has a right to retake for it once again during two re-examinations announced by the teacher.

Students who have not performed and reported on tasks prescribed in the study subject module card are not allowed to start the examination.

Completed internships and delivered and defended reports are evaluated on pass/fail basis. Certain internships can be assessed with grade. The grade is based on the following calculation:

A = D1x1 + D2x2 + D3x3

where:

A – student’s grade of internship;

D1 – assessment weight coefficient of internship performance;

D2 – assessment weight coefficient of internship report;

D3 – assessment weight coefficient of internship defence;

(D1 + D2 + D3 = 1.00);

x1, x2, x3 – corresponding internship part’s (performance, report preparation, internship defence) assessment.

Submitted and defended course project and course work is assessed with grade.

Upon announcement of examination and other results postgraduate students are allowed to inspect their achieved results and written work in presence of the professor. Work submitted for evaluation and checked by the professor is not corrected during the inspection. A student who doesn’t agree with the examiners clarifications and arguments can file a written motivated appeal with the head of the Mechatronics and Robotics Department regarding violation of knowledge assessment and/or knowledge evaluation procedures, if the exam is done at VGTU or with the Academic Dean being the head of the examination board for Mechanical Engineering (“Prüfungsausschuss Maschinenbau”) at TUB:

  • Procedure at VGTU: upon receiving an appeal regarding insufficient knowledge evaluation grade, the head of the department calls an Appeal Committee of three department professors. If the appeal is filed because of knowledge evaluation procedure violation, a fourth member is introduced to the Committee, a representative appointed by the student union of the university. The appeal has to be considered no earlier than three days from the day of filing of the appeal but no later than within five work days of the filing. Having listened to the opinions of the student and professor, the Committee makes a decision by voting. The head of the department submits a copy of the report on the meeting of the appeal Committee to the dean of the faculty of the appealing student and to the appealing student.

  • Procedure at TUB: Upon receiving an appeal regarding insufficient knowledge evaluation grade, the head of the examination board for mechanical engineering (academic dean) requests a written justification from the professor. Having listened to the opinions of the student and professor, the examination board makes a decision by voting. The head of the examination board shall submit a copy of the decision to the appealing student.

Examination regulations and procedures of the Joint Study Programme Mechatronics comply with the

set of the documents regulating General Examination at VGTU

and

General Examination Regulations for Bachelor’s, Mater’ s, Diplom and Magister degree programmes at TUB as of 12 September 2013.

See full description of the Joint Study Programme „Mechatronics“ here