Rubric for Assessment of Final Presentations in CSE Capstone Design Courses

This is outdated; please go here.

This Rubric is intended to help the CSE program evaluate the extent to which various intended outcomes of the capstone courses are achieved and help identify possible improvements to the program. Visitors to the Capstone Showcase session are requested to complete a separate copy of this rubric for each CSE project poster that they spend time examining and, especially, the ones for which they interact with one or more of the team members and/or listen to the team member(s) explaining aspects of the project or answering questions about the project. Please leave the completed rubrics in the CSE Rubrics box near the front of the room. Thanks!
(More complete details about the CSE capstone courses are available at http://web.cse.ohio-state.edu/~neelam/abet/DIRASSMNT/capstoneFinalPres.pdf.)

Each CSE capstone project is evaluated along six dimensions below. The first four are concerned with the quality of the design/implementation work that the particular capstone team has engaged in during the semester. The fifth dimension concerns how well the individual students in the team came together to perform as a cohesive project team. The sixth dimension evaluates the effectiveness of the poster as well as the responses provided by the team members to questions from the visitors to the Capstone Showcase session in communicating the essential problem that the project undertook to solve, the approaches it tried and rejected/adopted, the design the team ultimately adopted and the rationale for it, as well as the lessons learned that might be of value in their own future careers as well as help future capstone project teams. (It may be worth noting that the last dimension, effectiveness of communication, is the most critical one as far as the Showcase is concerned because most visitors will not know anything about any (or most) of the capstone projects before the Showcase; whatever they will learn about any of the projects will be whatever they can get from the respective posters and from listening to the team members address any of the visitors and answer any questions. Nevertheless, the expectation is that the poster, by itself, given that the team would have had several days to work on it and would have benefited from feedback from the instructor on early drafts of it, will provide sufficient information about the project as to enable the Showcase visitors to arrive at informed assessments of the other five dimensions as well.)

Each dimension is assigned a score of 1 through 4, these values representing increasing degrees of achievement in the particular dimension, as described in the table below in the rows corresponding to the various dimensions. Visitors to the Showcase should enter, in the last column, the scores that, in their opinion, the particular team should be assigned, along each of the six dimensions. The overall total score will be obtained by simply adding together the scores corresponding to the six dimensions. If the visitor completing the form has any specific comments related to any of the six dimensions, they may be entered in the line immediately below the particular dimension.

Code of CSE capstone project being evaluated (to be filled in by a member of the project team before giving the form to the visitor): ________________________

   1 2 3 4 Points
assigned

Problem formulation Poorly formulated; not clear what the original requirements from the project sponsor were or how they relate to the formulation presented by the team, e.g., whether the scope was revised substantially, etc.; not clear what the team thought were the main aspects of the problem that their project would need to focus on. The problem formulation that the team settled on was mostly clear although it was not clear how exactly it related to the sponsor's original requirements and/or what changes in the scope the team had decided on and why; the team's poster/ presentation clarified the main aspects of the problem that the team decided to focus on but not the rationale behind its decisions. Satisfactory formulation of the problem; the relation between the sponsor's original requirements and the formulation settled on by the team was clear; the changes in the scope, if any, were clearly listed but not always fully justified. What the team considered to be the main aspects of the problem that their project would need to focus on was mostly clear with occasional gaps. Excellent formulation of the problem; the relation between the sponsor's original requirements and the formulation settled on by the team was clearly spelled out on the poster and in comments by the team members; the changes in the scope, if any, were clearly listed and justified. Both the poster and the team members' comments/responses to questions made clear what aspects of the problem that their project would focus and why.

Comments:

Design approach Poor/careless design; the team does not seem to have even minimally explored alternative approaches, let alone consider issues related to using resources in an optimal fashion. The team has paid some attention to a handful of alternative design approaches but has not gone through a careful analysis of the alternatives or evaluated their advantages and disadvantages; instead, the team apparently settled on its particular approach on the basis of superficial comparisons/gut feeling. The team has carefully considered a suitable set of alternative design approaches; it has considered the resource requirements associated with the various approaches before settling on its specific design although not all trade-offs seem to have been thorougly analyzed. The team has thoroughly considered and evaluated most or all of the reasonable design approaches; it has done a careful analysis of the resource requirements of each approach, the trade-offs that each would imply, and sought the sponsor's input where appropriate before settling on its final choice.

Comments:

Implementation** (including efficiency considerations, adherence to relevant standards, etc.) The implementation seems to have been put together without taking account of even basic considerations related to memory and runtime requirements; there does not seem to have been any consideration given to how the system might (fail to) scale up to deal with increasing demand for services, etc. Team does not seem to have followed any standard approaches/ processes such as agile. The team has paid a limited amount of attention to performance considerations; the team has tried to follow a standard (agile/ waterfall/ ...) process to the design and implementation but not consistently. The team has paid careful attention to several performance factors; it has also considered how the implementation might scale up to deal with increased demand for services; the team adopted and, for the most part, followed a standard (agile/ waterfall/ ...) process to its design and implementation tasks. The team has paid meticulous attention to all key performance factors; it has also thoroughly evaluated how the implementation might scale up to deal with increased demand for services and ensured that the design and implementation can evolve in reasonable ways to cater to future changes in demand for services. The team has evidently applied important lessons from several key courses in the curriculum to ensure that the system performs reliably even under stress. The team adopted a standard process from the start and consistently followed the relevant steps at each stage of the the design and implementation of the project; the team kept the sponsor involved at all appropriate times in the design and implementation of the system.

**Note: Occasionally, a CSE capstone project may start at a point where the sponsor is unclear about the basic requirements of the system to be designed/implemented or the sponsor may want to make substantial revisions in the requirements midway through the semester. As a result, not every CSE capstone project will have a complete implementation. If this project does not have a complete implementation, in evaluating this dimension, please do so on the basis of briefly discussing, with the team, their implementation plans and ideas.

Comments:

Other factors (use of professional tools, security, reliability, ethical considerations and, more generally, impact on society) The team has tried to get a design and implementation that meets minimal functional requirements with little or no attention paid factors such as reliability or impact of the system on society; the team has made no (or only minimal) use of relevant professional design or development tools. The team has made some use of common professional tools discussed in earlier courses in its design and development activities; but did not make any attempt to research additional tools or systems that might be specifically suited to this particular project. The team has made a basic effort to ensure reliability and basic security properties of the system but has mostly ignored more general issues related to ethical considerations or to the potential impact on society of projects/systems of this kind. The team has made good use of appropriate professional tools and systems, going beyond the ones discussed in earlier courses, in its design and development activities. It has made a reasonable attempt to consider the impact on society of its system, especially in some extreme situations; it has included, in its documentation of the system, some essential warnings about some of the potential harm that the system might cause in such situations. The system has been designed to be reliable and secure under normal operation as well as under stress. The team has made excellent use of the most appropriate professional tools, systems and processes, identified by careful research of a variety of sources. It has carefully analyzed the design and implementation of its system to identify potential security holes under normal use as well as under abnormal situations; and built into the system facilities to deal with the ones that can be reasonably handled and appropriately documented the others. The team has carefully analyzed the ethical issues that the system might raise and its overall impact on society. The team has also considered the implications of various aspects of the ACM/IEEE Code as it applies to this system and appropriately discussed the relevant questions with the project sponsor.

Comments:

Effectiveness as a project team The team seemed rather disfunctional with individual team members blaming each other for problems encountered in the project. Team spirit seemed entirely lacking; if anything, the members seemed glad that the semester had come to an end and they would no longer have to work with the other members of the team! The team seemed to function at a minimal level of effectiveness. The project seems to have been broken up into separate pieces with each member working on his/her own piece without much concern for how it might impact the other members' work. During the poster session, individual team members responded when another team member asks him/her a direct question but otherwise did not attempt to help other team members address audience questions. Generally effective team. Individual members were interested in presenting an overall positive picture of the team and the team's work during the semester. Individual members had a general idea of what the other team members had done as part of the project. Very effective team. Individual members were not only interested in highlighting the project's design details and how it achieved its main goals but also in describing, at the appropriate level of detail, how various members of the team contributed to specific aspects of the project. The team members responded to questions from visitors to the session very effectively, seamlessly handing over the conversation from one member to another to deal with various aspects of the question.

Comments:

Communication effectiveness The team's poster was ineffective at conveying essential aspects of the project such as the intended scope, the design rationale, the specific implementation choices that the team made, and the main lessons learned from the project. The team members were rather ineffective in communicating with the visitors; even basic questions about the project were answered only partially. The team's poster was more or less effective at conveying the main aspects of the project including the intended scope and the design/ implementation choices made by the team (although not necessarily the rationale behind those choices). Some of the main lessons learned were also listed. The team responded appropriately to specific questions about specific aspects of the project. However, the responses to questions about the rationale behind some of the team's decisions or why the team had not made certain other choices were not always clear. Well-designed poster that effectively conveyed all the important aspects of the project including the original scope, changes made as the team went through the project, the design and implementation choices made by the team and the process used by the team. The poster also provided the rationale behind the choices made by the team at various points and summarized the important lessons learned. The team responded appropriately to questions at various levels of detail about various aspects of the project although visitors somewhat lacking in technical background related to the project may have found both the poster and the team's responses to questions somewhat unclear. A model of effective communication! The poster was extremely well-designed with careful attention to the items included in the poster and the level of detail presented so that the visitor got an excellent overview of all of the important aspects of the project without being overwhelmed by details; the poster effectively integrated elements that visitors with limited technical backround could relate to with mention of key technical factors that would appeal to those directly involved with this type of project. The graphics, the layout etc. were all done to excellent effect. The team's responses to questions from the visitors perfectly complemented the poster. In answering the questions, the team included just the right level and type of detail no matter whether the question concerned the implementation detail, possible future evolution of the project, or any other aspect.

Comments:

Total:

	1	2	3	4	Points assigned
Problem formulation	Poorly formulated; not clear what the original requirements from the project sponsor were or how they relate to the formulation presented by the team, e.g., whether the scope was revised substantially, etc.; not clear what the team thought were the main aspects of the problem that their project would need to focus on.	The problem formulation that the team settled on was mostly clear although it was not clear how exactly it related to the sponsor's original requirements and/or what changes in the scope the team had decided on and why; the team's poster/ presentation clarified the main aspects of the problem that the team decided to focus on but not the rationale behind its decisions.	Satisfactory formulation of the problem; the relation between the sponsor's original requirements and the formulation settled on by the team was clear; the changes in the scope, if any, were clearly listed but not always fully justified. What the team considered to be the main aspects of the problem that their project would need to focus on was mostly clear with occasional gaps.	Excellent formulation of the problem; the relation between the sponsor's original requirements and the formulation settled on by the team was clearly spelled out on the poster and in comments by the team members; the changes in the scope, if any, were clearly listed and justified. Both the poster and the team members' comments/responses to questions made clear what aspects of the problem that their project would focus and why.
Comments:
Design approach	Poor/careless design; the team does not seem to have even minimally explored alternative approaches, let alone consider issues related to using resources in an optimal fashion.	The team has paid some attention to a handful of alternative design approaches but has not gone through a careful analysis of the alternatives or evaluated their advantages and disadvantages; instead, the team apparently settled on its particular approach on the basis of superficial comparisons/gut feeling.	The team has carefully considered a suitable set of alternative design approaches; it has considered the resource requirements associated with the various approaches before settling on its specific design although not all trade-offs seem to have been thorougly analyzed.	The team has thoroughly considered and evaluated most or all of the reasonable design approaches; it has done a careful analysis of the resource requirements of each approach, the trade-offs that each would imply, and sought the sponsor's input where appropriate before settling on its final choice.
Comments:
Implementation** (including efficiency considerations, adherence to relevant standards, etc.)	The implementation seems to have been put together without taking account of even basic considerations related to memory and runtime requirements; there does not seem to have been any consideration given to how the system might (fail to) scale up to deal with increasing demand for services, etc. Team does not seem to have followed any standard approaches/ processes such as agile.	The team has paid a limited amount of attention to performance considerations; the team has tried to follow a standard (agile/ waterfall/ ...) process to the design and implementation but not consistently.	The team has paid careful attention to several performance factors; it has also considered how the implementation might scale up to deal with increased demand for services; the team adopted and, for the most part, followed a standard (agile/ waterfall/ ...) process to its design and implementation tasks.	The team has paid meticulous attention to all key performance factors; it has also thoroughly evaluated how the implementation might scale up to deal with increased demand for services and ensured that the design and implementation can evolve in reasonable ways to cater to future changes in demand for services. The team has evidently applied important lessons from several key courses in the curriculum to ensure that the system performs reliably even under stress. The team adopted a standard process from the start and consistently followed the relevant steps at each stage of the the design and implementation of the project; the team kept the sponsor involved at all appropriate times in the design and implementation of the system.
**Note: Occasionally, a CSE capstone project may start at a point where the sponsor is unclear about the basic requirements of the system to be designed/implemented or the sponsor may want to make substantial revisions in the requirements midway through the semester. As a result, not every CSE capstone project will have a complete implementation. If this project does not have a complete implementation, in evaluating this dimension, please do so on the basis of briefly discussing, with the team, their implementation plans and ideas.
Comments:
Other factors (use of professional tools, security, reliability, ethical considerations and, more generally, impact on society)	The team has tried to get a design and implementation that meets minimal functional requirements with little or no attention paid factors such as reliability or impact of the system on society; the team has made no (or only minimal) use of relevant professional design or development tools.	The team has made some use of common professional tools discussed in earlier courses in its design and development activities; but did not make any attempt to research additional tools or systems that might be specifically suited to this particular project. The team has made a basic effort to ensure reliability and basic security properties of the system but has mostly ignored more general issues related to ethical considerations or to the potential impact on society of projects/systems of this kind.	The team has made good use of appropriate professional tools and systems, going beyond the ones discussed in earlier courses, in its design and development activities. It has made a reasonable attempt to consider the impact on society of its system, especially in some extreme situations; it has included, in its documentation of the system, some essential warnings about some of the potential harm that the system might cause in such situations. The system has been designed to be reliable and secure under normal operation as well as under stress.	The team has made excellent use of the most appropriate professional tools, systems and processes, identified by careful research of a variety of sources. It has carefully analyzed the design and implementation of its system to identify potential security holes under normal use as well as under abnormal situations; and built into the system facilities to deal with the ones that can be reasonably handled and appropriately documented the others. The team has carefully analyzed the ethical issues that the system might raise and its overall impact on society. The team has also considered the implications of various aspects of the ACM/IEEE Code as it applies to this system and appropriately discussed the relevant questions with the project sponsor.
Comments:
Effectiveness as a project team	The team seemed rather disfunctional with individual team members blaming each other for problems encountered in the project. Team spirit seemed entirely lacking; if anything, the members seemed glad that the semester had come to an end and they would no longer have to work with the other members of the team!	The team seemed to function at a minimal level of effectiveness. The project seems to have been broken up into separate pieces with each member working on his/her own piece without much concern for how it might impact the other members' work. During the poster session, individual team members responded when another team member asks him/her a direct question but otherwise did not attempt to help other team members address audience questions.	Generally effective team. Individual members were interested in presenting an overall positive picture of the team and the team's work during the semester. Individual members had a general idea of what the other team members had done as part of the project.	Very effective team. Individual members were not only interested in highlighting the project's design details and how it achieved its main goals but also in describing, at the appropriate level of detail, how various members of the team contributed to specific aspects of the project. The team members responded to questions from visitors to the session very effectively, seamlessly handing over the conversation from one member to another to deal with various aspects of the question.
Comments:
Communication effectiveness	The team's poster was ineffective at conveying essential aspects of the project such as the intended scope, the design rationale, the specific implementation choices that the team made, and the main lessons learned from the project. The team members were rather ineffective in communicating with the visitors; even basic questions about the project were answered only partially.	The team's poster was more or less effective at conveying the main aspects of the project including the intended scope and the design/ implementation choices made by the team (although not necessarily the rationale behind those choices). Some of the main lessons learned were also listed. The team responded appropriately to specific questions about specific aspects of the project. However, the responses to questions about the rationale behind some of the team's decisions or why the team had not made certain other choices were not always clear.	Well-designed poster that effectively conveyed all the important aspects of the project including the original scope, changes made as the team went through the project, the design and implementation choices made by the team and the process used by the team. The poster also provided the rationale behind the choices made by the team at various points and summarized the important lessons learned. The team responded appropriately to questions at various levels of detail about various aspects of the project although visitors somewhat lacking in technical background related to the project may have found both the poster and the team's responses to questions somewhat unclear.	A model of effective communication! The poster was extremely well-designed with careful attention to the items included in the poster and the level of detail presented so that the visitor got an excellent overview of all of the important aspects of the project without being overwhelmed by details; the poster effectively integrated elements that visitors with limited technical backround could relate to with mention of key technical factors that would appeal to those directly involved with this type of project. The graphics, the layout etc. were all done to excellent effect. The team's responses to questions from the visitors perfectly complemented the poster. In answering the questions, the team included just the right level and type of detail no matter whether the question concerned the implementation detail, possible future evolution of the project, or any other aspect.
Comments:
Total:

Maybe the following should be omitted?:
Evaluator's name: __________________________________________
Date of evaluation: __________________________________________