CSE/CIS student
non-CSE/CIS student
CSE faculty member
non-CSE faculty member
CS/IT professional
other (______________)
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.)
In the table below, for each of the six dimensions, there is a description of the characteristics related to that dimension that are expected of the capstone team, its work on the project during the semester, the content of the poster prepared by the team, and the interactions between the team members and visitors to the poster session. The visitor to the poster session is asked to consider the following statement for each dimension: "Based on what I saw and heard at the poster session, this project team exhibited, in an exemplary manner, all or most of the characteristics corresponding to this dimension"; and then choose one of "Strongly Agree", "Agree", "Disagree", or "Strongly Disagree". It is admittedly difficult for a visitor to the Capstone Showcase poster session to get more than a very high-level idea of the team's work on the project, how effectively the members worked as a cohesive and effective team on the project, etc. Nevertheless, these assessments are an important part of the CSE program's continuous improvement efforts and we thank the visitors for completing this rubric. 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. Note that I have repeated this paragraph at the start of the table below; I am not sure whether it would be better to have the paragraph here or in the table below; suggestions?
In discussions, among Jeremy Morris, Al Cline, and Neelam Soundarajan,
as this rubric was being developed, it was suggested that the actual rubric
that is given to the visitors to the poster session should omit all this
preliminary material and start with the code of the project being evaluated.
Such a rubric has been prepared and is available
here.
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): ________________________
Information about the person completing this rubric (check all that apply):
CSE/CIS student
non-CSE/CIS student
CSE faculty member
non-CSE faculty member
CS/IT professional
other (______________)
| Below, for each of the six dimensions, there is a description of the corresponding characteristics that are expected of the ideal capstone team and its work. The visitor to the poster session is asked to consider the following statement for each dimension: "Based on what I saw and heard at the poster session, this project team exhibited, in an exemplary manner, all or most of the characteristics corresponding to this dimension"; and then choose one of "Strongly Agree", "Agree", "Disagree", or "Strongly Disagree" (or "Not Applicable" if the item is not relevant to the particular project). 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. These assessments are an important part of the CSE program's continuous improvement efforts and we thank the visitors for completing this rubric. | ||
| Dimension | Characteristics expected of the (ideal) capstone project/team | |
|---|---|---|
| Problem Formulation | The team had come up with a clear formulation of
the problem
based on the sponsor's goals; any changes in the project's scope were clearly
explained and justified.
| |
| Comments:
| ||
| Design Approach | The team has produced a high-quality design that,
for the most part, meets the sponsor's goals; in doing so, the team has
gone through a suitable iterative process considering various alternatives,
including relevant resource (memory, bandwidth etc.) implications.
| |
| Comments:
| ||
| Implementation Approach** | The team has paid careful attention to all key
performance factors that may affect the system. The team has also considered
scalability issues as well as possible evolution of the system to meet
changing needs. The team has, in its implementation (or plans for it), applied
important lessons from key courses in the curriculum; and it has adopted and
consistently followed a standard process.
| |
| **Note: Occasionally, because of the nature of the project or its starting point or changes that the sponsor may decide on midway through the semester or some combination of thereof, it may not be possible for the team to do 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 considerations, impact on society etc.) | The team has effectively used appropriate professional
tools and systems. It has carefully analyzed its design and implementation
to identify potential security holes and documented them. The team has
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 students in this team seem to have worked together very effectively
on all aspects of the project from initial formulation based on the
sponsor's goals/ requirements, through exploring design alternatives, working
on the implementation details, the documentation of the project, through the
preparation of the poster. The students also worked effectively as a team
in responding to questions and comments from visitors to the poster session.
| |
| Comments:
| ||
| Communication Effectiveness | The team has produced a well-designed poster
that pays careful attention to the items included and the level of
detail presented. The poster effectively
integrates elements related to basic background of the project
with key technical factors. Responses to questions perfectly complemented the
poster with the team providing the right level of detail.
| |
| Comments:
| ||
Maybe the following should be omitted?:
Evaluator's name: __________________________________________
Date of evaluation: __________________________________________