Rubric for Senior Design Projects, Winter 2012
CSE 181B
Computer Engineering Program
The Henry Samueli School of Engineering
University of California, Irvine
Computer Science and Engineering Program
The Henry Samueli School of Engineering &
Donald Bren School of Information and Computer Sciences
University of California, Irvine
Purpose: This scoring rubric is to assess how well each senior design project demonstrates the achievement of Student Outcomes*. Student Outcomes describe
what students are expected to know and be able to do by the time of graduation. These relate to the knowledge, skills, and behaviors that students acquire as they
progress through the program.
Directions: For each senior design project, rate each outcome indicator according to the criteria provided, where 4 = Exemplary, 3 = Proficient, 2 = Apprentice,
and 1 = Novice. Please read the description of each criterion carefully before rating the project. Please record your scores in the right-most column. If the
criterion does not apply to this project, please use N/A. At the end of this form, there is room for written comments on the project and on the scoring rubric itself.
Please return the completed scoring sheets to the instructor.
Group Members: _______________________________________________________
Evaluator (print name): _______________________________________________________
Signature: __________________________________________________________________
1 of 3
Outcome Indicator
b1. Students can design and conduct experiments.
(4) Exemplary: Well-designed and conducted experiment; documented in a professional manner
(3) Proficient: Well-designed experiment, with minor exceptions; conducted & documented professionally
(2) Apprentice: Experimental design is adequate, but not outstanding; lacks some controls; information reliable, but not definitive.
(1) Novice:
Poor experimental design; information of little value.
b2. Students can analyze and interpret data.
(4) Exemplary: Appropriate statistical analyses used; results interpreted correctly.
(3) Proficient: Appropriate statistical analysis and interpretation with a few minor exceptions.
(2) Apprentice: Statistical analysis and/or interpretation contain a few serious flaws.
(1) Novice:
Analysis and resultant interpretation are seriously flawed or non-existent.
c1. Students can design and implement a computer-based system to meet desired needs within realistic constraints.
(4) Exemplary: All important project objectives are identified. All constraints are well considered.
(3) Proficient: All important objectives and constraints are considered, but 1 or 2 minor ones are missing.
(2) Apprentice: Most project objectives and constraints are considered, but at least 1 or 2 important ones are missing.
(1) Novice: Most or all important objectives and constraints are not identified.
c2. Students can evaluate a computer-based system to meet desired needs within realistic constraints.
(4) 3 or more alternative solutions are evaluated; each is correctly analyzed for technical feasibility
(3) At least 3 alternative solutions are evaluated; analysis is complete but contains minor procedural errors.
(2) At least 2 alternative solutions are evaluated; analysis contains minor conceptual and/or procedural errors.
(1) Only one solution evaluated; no optimization included; better solutions were available.
d1. Students can function effectively on multidisciplinary teams to agree on common subgoals
(4) Exemplary: Team members cooperate with each other; full agreement.
(3) Proficient: Team members cooperate with each other, in spite of minor disagreement.
(2) Apprentice: Team members cooperate somewhat with each other; significant disagreement damages interactions.
(1) Novice: Team members do not cooperate with each other; disagreement on major subgoals.
d2. Students can function effectively on multidisciplinary teams to clearly define interfaces between multiple system components
(4) Exemplary: The team was able to clearly state all component interfaces.
(3) Proficient: The team was able to clearly state most component interfaces.
(2) Apprentice: The team was not able to clearly state some important component interfaces.
(1) Novice: The team was not able to clearly state most important component interfaces.
e2. Students can analyze a problem, and identify the computing requirements appropriate to its solution.
(4) Exemplary: The team identified and defined all computing requirements that were highly appropriate to the solution.
(3) Proficient: The team identified and defined most computing requirements that solved the problem in a good way.
(2) Apprentice: The team did not identify or define some important computing requirements, and the solution was not efficient.
(1) Novice:
The team did not identify or define any computing requirements, and the solution was ineffective or wrong.
4 3 2 1
N/A
2 of 3
Outcome Indicator
g1. Students can communicate effectively with a range of audiences.
(4) Exemplary: Goals, methods and solutions presented clearly; all technical terms used appropriately
(3) Proficient: Goals, methods and solutions were presented clearly; most technical terms used appropriately.
(2) Apprentice: Presentation of goals, methods and solutions not clear, difficult to follow; some technical terms not used appropriately.
(1) Novice: Presentation of goals, methods and solutions lacking clarity, difficult to follow; most technical terms not used appropriately.
4 3 2 1
N/A
k1. Students can use current techniques, skills, and tools necessary for engineering practice.
(4) Exemplary: Could explain why the technique was used; used it appropriately; results interpreted correctly.
(3) Proficient: Could generally explain why the technique was used; used it appropriately; results interpreted somewhat correctly.
(2) Apprentice: Could barely explain why the technique was used; may have used it inappropriately or interpreted the results incorrectly.
(1) Novice: Could not explain why the technique was used; used it inappropriately; and interpreted the results incorrectly.
k2. Students can use current techniques, skills, and tools necessary for computing practice.
(4) Exemplary: Could explain why the technique was used; used it appropriately; results interpreted correctly.
(3) Proficient: Could generally explain why the technique was used; used it appropriately; results interpreted somewhat correctly.
(2) Apprentice: Could barely explain why the technique was used; may have used it inappropriately or interpreted the results incorrectly.
(1) Novice: Could not explain why the technique was used; used it inappropriately; and interpreted the results incorrectly.
L1. Students can apply mathematical foundations in the modeling and design of computer-based systems in a way that demonstrates
comprehension of the design choice tradeoffs.
(4) Exemplary: Students extensively applied mathematical foundations to evaluate design trade-offs.
(3) Proficient: Students applied some mathematical foundations to evaluate design trade-offs.
(2) Apprentice: Students applied little mathematical foundations to evaluate design trade-offs.
(1) Novice: Students did not apply mathematical foundations to evaluate design trade-offs.
L2. Students can apply algorithmic principles and computer science theory in the modeling and design of computer-based systems in a way
that demonstrates comprehension of the design choice tradeoffs.
(4) Exemplary: Students extensively applied algorithmic principles and computer science theory to evaluate design trade-offs.
(3) Proficient: Students applied some algorithmic principles and computer science theory to evaluate design trade-offs.
(2) Apprentice: Students applied little algorithmic principles and computer science theory to evaluate design trade-offs.
(1) Novice: Students did not apply algorithmic principles and computer science theory to evaluate design trade-offs.
3 of 3