Dear Industrial Advisors:
Thank you for volunteering to help evaluate and provide feedback for students of EE499,
our capstone design experience. You will ultimately be asked to provide feedback on 3
documents the student teams will produce:
1. White paper (pre-proposal): General description of project the students intend to
work on.
2. Proposal: A more formal problem statement presenting the relevance of the
project goals with design constraints and performance targets explicitly stated.
3. Final Report: A complete description of the design solution along with an
evaluation based on the original design objectives.
For each report we ask that you rate the categories according to attached rubric and
provide feedback that may help the students improve their project and design skills,
thereby enhancing the quality of their final product and enriching their capstone
experience.
We understand that some projects may not line up with your areas of expertise. In that
case, please do your best to provide general comments and ratings. There will be several
industrial advisors (3 this semester) looking at these reports, and the students will receive
a composite evaluation and comments from all the advisors.
It would be best if you just put your comments directly on the attached rubric and send
them back to us. We will process the information and distribute them to the students for
use in the development and design of their projects.
Enclosed in this packet are the white papers with their rubric sheets. If you have any
questions, please contact us via phone or email (Vijay Singh: vsingh@engr.uky.edu,
Kevin Donohue: donohue@engr.uky.edu, or the course coordinator Larry Hassebrook:
lgh@engr.uky.edu )
Sincerely,
Kevin D. Donohue
Director of Undergraduate Studies
Vijay Singh
Department Chair
Evaluation Rubric for White Paper Assignment (general project/problem description):
Project: IEEE Autonomous Robot
Advisor: Dr. Hank Dietz
Group Members: Brandon Barker and Maraud Gorjian
Please rate the project categories on a scale from 0 to 5 where:
0 – unacceptable
1 – Poor
2 – Acceptable
3 – Good (average work for entry level engineers)
4 – Excellent (top 25% for entry level engineers)
5 – Outstanding (top 5% for entry level engineers)
Category
1. Quality of writing
Rating
2. Appropriate use of figures and
diagrams
3. Clarity of project/problem
description
4. Relevance/importance of
problem/project
5. Feasibility of project’s scope
Provide comments and suggestion that can help the students in writing their formal
proposal and in formulating realistic design constraints: