Rubric for Assessment of Final Presentations in CSE Capstone Design Courses

(There are three versions of this rubric; this is the simplified version; here is the detailed one; and here is the basic one.)

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): ________________________

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 (______________)

   1 2 3 4 Points
assigned

Problem formulation Poorly formulated with neither the goals of the sponsor nor what the team decided to focus on being clear. The team's problem formulation was mostly clear; but the relation to the orginal goals and/or changes in the scope were not. Problem formulation was clear as was the relation to the sponsor's goals and changes in scope decided on as part of the project. Excellent problem formulation and identification of relation to the sponsor's original requirements; changes in the scope were clearly explained and justified.

Comments:

Design approach Poor design with no consideration of alternatives. Some attention to a few alternatives but team has not gone through a careful analysis of the alternatives. Team has carefully considered a good set of alternatives, and has considered (but not thoroughly) resource requirements for each before choosing one. The team has thoroughly considered and evaluated most reasonable design alternatives, done a careful analysis of resource requirements and trade-offs of each, and consulted with sponsor sponsor before settling on its final choice.

Comments:

Implementation** (including efficiency considerations, adherence to relevant standards, etc.) Implementation does not account for memory, runtime requirements, scalability issues, etc. Team has not used any standard approach/process (such as agile). Some attention to performance considerations; the team has tried to follow a standard (agile/ waterfall/ ...) process but not consistently. Careful attention to several performance factors as well as scalability issues. The team adopted and, for the most part, followed a standard process in its design and implementation. Meticulous attention to key performance and scalability factors; consideration of the future evolution of the system. Consistent use of a standard process through all stages of design/ implementation, with the sponsor being regularly involved.

**Note: If such factors as major changes in project scope midway through the semester resulted in the project not having a complete implementation, please evaluate this dimension 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) Focus on finishing design/ implementation meeting minimal functional requirements; little attention to reliability, impact of system on society, etc.; no/ minimal use of design or development tools. Some use of basic, common tools from earlier courses. The team has made some effort to ensure reliability and basic security properties but ignored general issues related to impact on society, etc. Good use of professional tools and systems; reasonable consideration of impact on society, especially in some extreme situations; system documentation mentions potential impact of system in such situations. Excellent use of professional tools & processes, identified by careful research. Good assessment of potential security holes under normal/ abnormal use. The team has considered the implications of general ethical issues and relevant aspects of the ACM/IEEE Code.

Comments:

Effectiveness as a project team Dysfunctional team with team members blaming each other for problems encountered in the project. Team spirit seemed entirely lacking. 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 interaction with other members. Team members usually did not help other team members address audience questions even when the situation called for it. Generally effective team. Individual members were interested in presenting an overall positive picture of the team and the team's work during the semester. Very effective team. Individual members not only interested in highlighting the project's design details and how it achieved its main goals but also in describing how each team member contributed. The team responded to questions very effectively, seamlessly handing over the conversation from one member to another.

Comments:

Communication effectiveness Poster ineffective at conveying essential aspects of the project. Team members ineffective in communicating with the visitors; even basic questions were answered only partially. Poster more or less effective at conveying the main aspects of project. The team responded appropriately to specific questions about the project. But the rationale behind some decisions or why other choices were not made was not always clear. Well-designed poster covering all important aspects of project. Poster also provided the rationale behind the choices made and summarized lessons learned. The team responded appropriately to questions about various aspects of the project although visitors lacking in technical background may have been a bit lost. Extremely well-designed poster with careful attention to the items included and the level of detail presented. The poster effectively integrated elements related to basic background related to the project with key technical factors. Graphics, layout etc. all done to excellent effect. Responses to questions perfectly complemented the poster with the team providing the right level and type of detail.

Comments:

Total:

	1	2	3	4	Points assigned
Problem formulation	Poorly formulated with neither the goals of the sponsor nor what the team decided to focus on being clear.	The team's problem formulation was mostly clear; but the relation to the orginal goals and/or changes in the scope were not.	Problem formulation was clear as was the relation to the sponsor's goals and changes in scope decided on as part of the project.	Excellent problem formulation and identification of relation to the sponsor's original requirements; changes in the scope were clearly explained and justified.
Comments:
Design approach	Poor design with no consideration of alternatives.	Some attention to a few alternatives but team has not gone through a careful analysis of the alternatives.	Team has carefully considered a good set of alternatives, and has considered (but not thoroughly) resource requirements for each before choosing one.	The team has thoroughly considered and evaluated most reasonable design alternatives, done a careful analysis of resource requirements and trade-offs of each, and consulted with sponsor sponsor before settling on its final choice.
Comments:
Implementation** (including efficiency considerations, adherence to relevant standards, etc.)	Implementation does not account for memory, runtime requirements, scalability issues, etc. Team has not used any standard approach/process (such as agile).	Some attention to performance considerations; the team has tried to follow a standard (agile/ waterfall/ ...) process but not consistently.	Careful attention to several performance factors as well as scalability issues. The team adopted and, for the most part, followed a standard process in its design and implementation.	Meticulous attention to key performance and scalability factors; consideration of the future evolution of the system. Consistent use of a standard process through all stages of design/ implementation, with the sponsor being regularly involved.
**Note: If such factors as major changes in project scope midway through the semester resulted in the project not having a complete implementation, please evaluate this dimension 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)	Focus on finishing design/ implementation meeting minimal functional requirements; little attention to reliability, impact of system on society, etc.; no/ minimal use of design or development tools.	Some use of basic, common tools from earlier courses. The team has made some effort to ensure reliability and basic security properties but ignored general issues related to impact on society, etc.	Good use of professional tools and systems; reasonable consideration of impact on society, especially in some extreme situations; system documentation mentions potential impact of system in such situations.	Excellent use of professional tools & processes, identified by careful research. Good assessment of potential security holes under normal/ abnormal use. The team has considered the implications of general ethical issues and relevant aspects of the ACM/IEEE Code.
Comments:
Effectiveness as a project team	Dysfunctional team with team members blaming each other for problems encountered in the project. Team spirit seemed entirely lacking.	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 interaction with other members. Team members usually did not help other team members address audience questions even when the situation called for it.	Generally effective team. Individual members were interested in presenting an overall positive picture of the team and the team's work during the semester.	Very effective team. Individual members not only interested in highlighting the project's design details and how it achieved its main goals but also in describing how each team member contributed. The team responded to questions very effectively, seamlessly handing over the conversation from one member to another.
Comments:
Communication effectiveness	Poster ineffective at conveying essential aspects of the project. Team members ineffective in communicating with the visitors; even basic questions were answered only partially.	Poster more or less effective at conveying the main aspects of project. The team responded appropriately to specific questions about the project. But the rationale behind some decisions or why other choices were not made was not always clear.	Well-designed poster covering all important aspects of project. Poster also provided the rationale behind the choices made and summarized lessons learned. The team responded appropriately to questions about various aspects of the project although visitors lacking in technical background may have been a bit lost.	Extremely well-designed poster with careful attention to the items included and the level of detail presented. The poster effectively integrated elements related to basic background related to the project with key technical factors. Graphics, layout etc. all done to excellent effect. Responses to questions perfectly complemented the poster with the team providing the right level and type of detail.
Comments:
Total:

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