DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE &ENGINEERING

(Institute of Engineering & Technology)

RUBRICS FOR B.TECH PROJECT EVALUATION

Name: Roll No.:

Rubrics Review

Review # Agenda Assessment Max Marks Marks Obtained

Review 1 Allocation of Project Rubric R1 15

Review 2 Progress Review Rubric R2 40

Review 3 Internal Evaluation of Project Rubric R3 45

Guide/Co-Guide
Evaluation by Guide/Co-Guide Rubric R4 50
Review

Total 150
sss
 DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE &ENGINEERING
(Institute of Engineering & Technology)

R1 Rubrics: #Allocation of Project Maximum Marks: 15

Name: Roll NO.
Level of Achievement
Excellent (4) Good (3) Average (2) Poor (1) Score
a. Identification of •Sufficient justification to the •Incomplete justification to the •Only Some objectives of
•All objectives of the
Problem objectives; Methodology to be objectives proposed; Steps are the proposed work are well
proposed problem are well
Domain and followed is specified but mentioned but unclear; without defined; Steps to be
defined; Steps to be
proforma detailing is not done justification to objectives followed to solve the
followed to solve the
submission defined problem are not
defined problem are clearly
(7-8) (5-6) specified properly
specified.
(10)
(9-10) (1-4)
b. Timely On specified time One day Late submission Two-day Late submission Submission after two days
Submission of (4) (3)
(5) (1-2)
Project
Proposal

(5)
 DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE &ENGINEERING
(Institute of Engineering & Technology)

R2:Rubrics #Progress Review Max marks:45

Name: Roll No.
Level of Achievement

Excellent (4) Good (3) Average (2) Poor (1) Score

a. • Detailed and • Sufficient • Adequate • Insufficient
Scope &
Relevance of extensive explanation of the explanation of the explanation of the
the Project
explanation of the purpose and need of purpose and need purpose and need
(5)
purpose and need of the project of the project of the project
the project
• Collects a great deal • Moderate study of •
Explanation of the
• Detailed and specifications and
of information and the existing
extensive the limitations of
good study of the systems; collects
explanation of the some basic the existing
existing systems
specifications and information systems not very
the limitations of (2) satisfactory;
(3)
the existing systems limited
(4) information (1)
b. Literature • Detailed and Extensive • Sufficient resources are • Sufficient resources are • Insufficient material is
Review review utilized and understanding utilized but used and understanding
(15) (15-13) of it is clear (12-9) understanding is not is not clear.
clear (8-5) (4-1)

c. Methodology/ • Appropriate design • Design methodology not • Design methodology • Design methodology
System Design methodology and properly properly justified not defined properly not defined properly
(5) justification • Sufficient division of • Division of problem • Partial division of
• Division of problem into problem into modules and into modules but problem into modules
modules and exceptionally good selection of inappropriate selection and inappropriate
good selection of computing framework of computing framework selection of computing
computing framework (4) framework
(3)
(5) (2-1)
 DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE &ENGINEERING
(Institute of Engineering & Technology)

d. Planning of • Time frame properly • Time frame properly • Time frame properly • Time frame not
Project Work specified and being specified but being specified, but not being properly specified
followed followed partly followed (2-1)
(5) (5) (4) (3)

e. Submission of • Objectives achieved as • Objectives achieved as • Objectives achieved as • Objectives not

Synopsis per time frame per time frame per time frame achieved as per time
• Contents of synopsis are • Contents of synopsis are • Contents of synopsis frame
(10) exceptionally good and appropriate but followed are appropriate but • Contents of synopsis
followed the guidelines the guidelines specified by partially followed the are not appropriate
specified by project project monitoring guidelines specified by And didn’t followed the
monitoring committee to committee to prepare the project monitoring guidelines specified by
prepare the document/synopsis. committee to prepare the project monitoring
document/synopsis. (7-5) document/synopsis. committee to prepare the
(10-8) document/synopsis.
(4-3) (2-1)
 DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE &ENGINEERING
(Institute of Engineering & Technology)

Rubrics #R3: Internal Evaluation of Project Max. Marks: 40

Name: Roll no.
Level of Achievement

Excellent (4) Good (3) Average (2) Poor (1) Score

Problem Exceptionally Good Sufficient understanding Partial understanding of Low/No understanding of

a Understanding understanding of Problem of problem Problem problem
(10) (10-9) (8-6) (5-3) (2-1)

Understanding of Exceptionally good Sufficient understanding Low Understanding of Understanding of

Methodology and understanding of of methodology methodology methodology is not clear
methodology
b relevant Relevant tools are used Relevant tools are used Relevant tools and
tools/technology Relevant tools are used and and understanding is clear but understanding is not technology are not used.
understanding is good (8-6) clear (2-1)
(10) (10-9) (5-3)
c Incorporation of Changes are made as per Changes are made as per All major changes are Suggestions during
Suggestions modifications suggested modifications suggested made as per midterm evaluation are
during midterm evaluation during midterm modifications suggested not incorporated
(5) and new innovations added evaluation and good during midterm
(5) justification evaluation
(4) (3) (1-2)
d Final Review of Submitted complete Partial Submission of Adequate synopsis with Incomplete Submission
Synopsis with synopsis with plagiarism synopsis with plagiarism no plagiarism report with no plagiarism
(Plagiarism Check report. report report.
Report) • Contents of synopsis are • Contents of synopsis Contents of synopsis are • Contents of synopsis
(10) exceptionally good and are appropriate but appropriate but partially are not appropriate
followed the guidelines followed the guidelines followed the guidelines And didn’t followed the
specified by project specified by project specified by project guidelines specified by
monitoring committee to monitoring committee to monitoring committee to project monitoring
prepare the prepare the prepare the committee to prepare
document/synopsis. document/synopsis. document/synopsis the document/synopsis
(3-4) (1-2)
(10-8) (5-7)
c • Contents of presentations • Contents of • Contents of • Contents of
Presentation
are appropriate and well presentations are presentations are presentations are not
delivered appropriate and well appropriate but not well appropriate and not well
(10)
• Proper eye contact with delivered delivered delivered
audience and clear voice • Clear voice with good • Eye contact with only • Poor eye contact with
with good spoken language. spoken language but less few people and unclear audience and unclear
(8-10) eye contact with audience voice voice
(5-7) (3-4) (1-2)
 DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE &ENGINEERING
(Institute of Engineering & Technology)
Name: Roll No.:

Rubrics #R4: Evaluation by Guide/Co-Guide Max Marks:50

Level of Achievement
Excellent (4) Good (3) Average (2) Poor (1) Score
a Technical Knowledge and Extensive Fair knowledge Lacks sufficient Poor
Awareness related to the Project knowledge and and awareness knowledge and knowledge
awareness related related to the awareness and no
(10) to the project project awareness
related to
project
(10-8) (7-5) (4-3) (2-1)
b Understanding of Methodology and Exceptionally good Sufficient Low Understanding
understanding of understanding of of methodology Understanding of
relevant tools/technology (10) methodology methodology methodology is
Relevant tools are not clear
Relevant tools are Relevant tools are used but
used and used and understanding is not Relevant tools
understanding is understanding is clear and technology
good clear are not used.
(4-3)
(10-8) (7-5) (2-1)
c Submission and Compliance (10) Timely Submitted. Delay of a day Suggestion from Suggestion by
Suggestion by from of the time supervisor is not supervisor is
supervisor is of submission incorporated with not included.
incorporated but Suggestion delay of two day Submission
(10-8) from supervisor from of the time with more
is incorporated of submission. than two days
(7-5) (4-3) of delay.
(2-1)

d Regularity and Attendance Reports to the Reports to the Reports to the Irregular and
(10) guide regularly guide very guide but lacks inconsistent in
and consistent in often but not consistency work
work very consistent

(10-8) (7-5) (3-4) (1-2)

 DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE &ENGINEERING
(Institute of Engineering & Technology)

e Originality (Plag Check) 10 <=20 21-25% 26-29% More than

10 9-5 4-1 30% or equal
are not
accepted.