X

Project Evaluation Guidelines & Rubrics

Project Evaluation Guidelines

These are to guidelines for successful completion of the B.Tech. projects in effective and uniform conduction of projects to be carried out by undergraduate students in Semester VII and Semester VIII.  It is expected that these guidelines will help in overall improvement in the quality of B.Tech. Projects along with improvement in the evaluation process. The B.Tech Project is a partial requirement for successful completion of the degree. It can be two types: Projects based on implementation of any application-oriented problem, which will be more or less experimental in nature, and the others will be based on some innovative (research oriented)/ theoretical work.

In order to monitor the overall functioning of the activities related to the B. Tech projects and to have academic bridge among the various groups, it is proposed to create Department Evaluation Committee (DEC).

DEC will comprise the Head of the Department as the Convener along with four senior faculty members of the department. The Head will form the cell by the middle of the odd semester and will inform the Director of the Institute accordingly.

Roles of Department Evaluation Committee (DEC):

  • This committee will be responsible for evaluating the timely progress of the projects and communicating the progress report to the students.
  • At the end of third year second semester (VI semester) the Department Evaluation Committee should float the list of projects to be offered by department.
  • In case it is observed by the DEC that any group of students is not performing well, this committee should take special care to improve their performance by means of counseling them.
  • Project evaluation rubrics can be decided by DEC.

Each project activity must be supervised by the faculty members of the department. These faculty members are termed as Supervisors. There can be at most two supervisors for a B.Tech Project.

It is the responsibility of the Department to provide the Supervisor(s) for each B.Tech Project. Supervisors may be assigned to each project group either by the choice of student groups or by faculty expertise. A faculty member of the department can supervise B.Tech projects only if he/ she is having at least 2 years teaching experience in an engineering college. However, a faculty member not having sufficient teaching experience can be a co-supervisor. An eligible faculty member can supervise at most four B.Tech projects in an academic year. However, as a special case the Director of the institute can permit a faculty member to supervise at most six such projects.

Role of Supervisor is given below:

  • By the middle of third year second semester (VI semester) the supervisor should send the detailed information about the projects to be offered by him/ her to the Department Evaluation Committee.
  • The supervisor must monitor the progress being carried out by the project groups on regular basis. In case it is found that progress is unsatisfactory it should be reported to the Department Evaluation Committee for necessary action.
  • It is expected that the supervisor looks into the project report for desired format before the final submission.

Instructions for students:

  • Students have to select the area of project and report to the concerned supervisor with the idea of project work they want to do within 7 days.
  • A group of minimum 1 and maximum 3 can be formed by students or DEC.
  • A list of final guide allotment as approved by DEC is floated to students.
  • During synopsis presentation, the project can be accepted/rejected. This decision will be taken by DEC.  If rejected, the group must come up with new project idea within 7 days of project being rejected.
  • The group must report to their supervisor twice a month and show/update them with the progress of their work.
  • The group must maintain a record of their meetings along with remarks of their discussion and signature of their supervisor. This record is to be shown in front of DEC at the time of synopsis presentation, progress presentation-I, progress presentation-II and final internal project presentation.
  • A research paper must be presented /published in a conference/journal related to project and need to be shown at the time of final internal project presentation.

Each B.Tech Project has to be carried by a group of students of that Institute. In order to ensure participation of each student, the group size should be preferably at least two but not more than four students. Formation of project groups should be done such that each group has representation of students with varying academic merit from best to average. In case the project is on multi-disciplinary nature, the project group can be formed consisting of the students from other departments. But there must be at least one student from the Department who is offering the project.

Evaluation Procedure:

To ensure proper conduction of each project, progress of each project should be monitored on continuous basis first by the supervisor and than by the Department Evaluation Committee. In order to do so, it is planned to hold four presentations to be made by each project group in each semester.  In Semester VII, the first presentation will be purely synopsis presentation, which will be taken by the Department Evaluation Committee (DEC) in the second week after the institute opens after vacation. The project is assumed to be already selected by the students. In this presentation they are required to show a brief power point presentation describing the main Aim/ Objective of the project, the methodology to be used, the pert chart and the references in not more than 10-15 slides. This presentation shall be made before the respective project supervisor first and on his approval, it should be made before the Department Evaluation Committee. The project is considered to be approved only if it is passed in this presentation. If the presentation is not up to the mark either the Committee will ask the students along with their supervisor to modify the project slightly within a week and present again or change the project (in case the committee finds the project not of sufficient standard or not feasible). In this presentation the DEC is supposed to mark each student/ group based on their project synopsis content, presentation made, queries answered and attendance out of 20 marks (Evaluation is performed according to Project Rubrics).

The Second presentation of this semester will be planned by the DEC after about one month from the first presentation. This presentation will review the progress of the students. Each group will first show their progress to their respective supervisors first and get the brief project report signed from them and present the same before the DEC. The groups are also required to make a power point presentation (not more than 10-15 slides) and present before the DEC. They are also required to clearly state the agenda for the next one month in their presentation. In this presentation the DEC is supposed to mark each student/ group based on their project content, presentation made, project progress, queries answered and attendance out of 15 marks (Evaluation is performed according to Project Rubrics). The DEC shall finalize the marks just after the presentation and these marks should be displayed along with the comments within two days from the date of the presentation.

After about one month from the date of the second presentation, DEC should plan for the Third presentation. It shall be made on the same way as the 2nd presentation was conducted and the groups should be evaluated in the same manner.

Final presentation at the end of seventh semester will be organized by the DEC according to the date given in the project calendar. This presentation will be taken by DEC, all supervisors and co-supervisors present in this presentation. The Committee will review the progress of the students. Each group is required to make a project report showing the complete six-month progress of the project. This report should be brief and should mainly contain the detailed methodology/ algorithms adopted/ studied during the entire semester. This report should be signed by the supervisors and should be submitted to the DEC at least two days before the final presentation. The groups are also required to make a power point presentation (not more than 15-20 slides) and present before the final Committee. In this presentation the DEC is supposed to mark each student/ group based on their project content, presentation made, project progress, queries answered and attendance out of 50 marks (Evaluation is performed according to Project Rubrics).

In the next semester, DEC will announce dates of four presentations in the Departmental Academic Calendar well in advance. First two presentations are to made to understand the progress of the work. They shall be made on the same way as the second presentation conducted in the Semester VII and the groups should be evaluated in the same manner.  Each project group has to prepare the project report and to submit it to the Department after duly certified by the Supervisors at least three days before the final internal presentation.

Final Internal presentation will be taken one week before the date of final external presentation which will be given in the project calendar already by the DEC. This presentation will be made before the DEC, supervisors and co-supervisors should be present in this presentation. All the sessional marks for Semester VIII will be mainly given in this presentation and the marks given in the first two presentations should also be added to make the final score. The final project report should be extensively checked and signed by the supervisors and also by the DEC. The groups are also required to make a final power point presentation and present before the final Committee. This presentation shall demonstrate the complete working project. In this presentation the DEC is supposed to mark each student/ group based on their project content, presentation made, project progress, queries answered and attendance out of 50 marks (Evaluation is performed according to Project Rubrics). The sessional marks of each student shall be decided within two days from the date of final presentation by the DEC.

RUBRICS FOR B. TECH PROJECT EVALUATION

Course Outcomes in project work:

Table 1. Course Outcomes in project work

At the end of successful completion of the project work, students should be able to-
No. Course Outcomes Relationship with PO
CO1 Independently carry out literature survey in identified domain, and consolidate it to formulate a problem statement PO2, PO12
CO2 Apply identified knowledge to solve a complex engineering problem and design a solution, implement and test the proposed solution PO1, PO3
CO3 Use synthesis/modeling to simulate and solve a problem or apply appropriate method of analysis to draw valid conclusions and present, demonstrate, execute final version of project PO4, PO5
CO4 Incorporate the social, environmental and ethical issues effectively into solution of an engineering problem PO6, PO7, PO8
CO5 Contribute effectively as a team member or leader to manage the project timeline PO9, PO11
CO6 Write pertinent project reports and make effective project Presentations PO10

CO-PO mapping of the project work:

Table 2. The correlation between COs and POs/ PSOs for project work

CO/PO PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6 PO7 PO8 PO9 PO10 PO11 PO12 PSO1 PSO2
CO1 3 3 3 3
CO2 3 3 3 3
CO3 3 3 3 3
CO4 3 3 3
CO5 3 3
CO6 3
  AVG 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Internal assessment process of project work:

Table 3. Weightages of project work internal assessment

Review # Agenda Assessment Review Assessment Weightage CO Covered
Review 1 Project Synopsis / Proposal Evaluation Rubric PR1 20% (20) CO1
Review 2 1st Mid-Term Project Evaluation Rubric PR2 & PR6 10% (10) & 5% (05) CO2 & CO5
Review 3 2nd Mid-Term Project Evaluation Rubric PR3 & PR6 10% (10) & 5% (05) CO2 & CO5
Review 4 End Semester Internal Project Evaluation Rubric PR4, PR5 & PR6 20% (20),  10% (10) &  5% (05) CO3, CO4 & CO5
Review 5 Project Report Evaluation Rubric PR7 15% (15) CO6
Total 100% (100)  

Table 4. Evaluation weightages of each CO through the design of rubrics

CO number CO1 CO2 CO3 CO4 CO5 CO6
Marks allotted to the COs through the rubrics (Max. 100) 20 20 20 10 15 15

Rubric #PR1: Project Synopsis/Proposal Evaluation

Maximum Marks*: 20

LEVELS OF ACHIEVEMENTS
    Excellent (4) Good (3) Average (2) Poor (1-0)
a Topic selection Complete Innovative and useful for society Somewhat innovative and useful for society Useful for society but not innovative Useful for limited group and not innovative
b Problem Definition Exceeds expectation. Identification of the social, environmental and ethical issues of the project problem Extend expectation in some manner Problem and its implications well understood and described both in  viva Meets expectation in some manner. Problem and its implications understood but not well described or presented. Nearly meet expectations Steps to be followed to solve the defined problem are not specified properly
c Literature Survey Purpose and need of the project Outstanding investigation in all aspects. Detailed and extensive explanation of the purpose and need of the project Well-researched project, good depth and thoroughness, sensible planning of research and well referenced throughout. Collects a great deal of information and good study of the existing systems Research is clear and structured. Appropriate coverage is present and referenced. Moderate study of the existing systems; collects some basic information Minimal research or cursory coverage , minimal referencing, Moderate explanation of the purpose and need of the project
d Justification of Project Objectives All objectives of the proposed work are well defined; Steps to be followed to solve the defined problem are clearly specified Good justification to the objectives; Methodology to be followed is specified but detailing is not done Incomplete justification to the objectives proposed; Steps are mentioned but unclear; without justification to objectives Limited information Only Some objectives of the proposed work are defined;
e Project Scheduling & Distribution of Work among Team members Detailed and extensive Scheduling with timelines provided for each phase of project. Work breakdown structure well defined. Good Scheduling of project. Work breakdown structure properly defined. Moderate scheduling of project. Work breakdown insufficient Poor / No Project scheduling done. No Work breakdown structure provided.

                                                            TOTAL MARKS= a+b+c+d+e

Rubric #PR2: 1st Mid-term Project Evaluation

Maximum Marks*: 10

LEVELS OF ACHIEVEMENTS
    Excellent (10-9) Good (8-7) Average (6-5) Poor (4-0)
a. Quality of Software  Requirements Specification Outstanding clarity of thought and documentation in the development of design from the specification using and adapting models appropriately. Excellent incisive analysis leading to well defined model/ requirements specification of high quality that is fully accurate. Focus is on specification and the design follows from it, using most  appropriate elements of chosen design technique. Analysis is well presented and leads to a sound well documented model/ requirements specification. Design techniques used minimally though correctly on specification. Minimal model/ requirements specification is created Very minimal analysis. Very Minimal model/ requirements specification is created
b. Quality, appropriateness and accuracy of Design Excellent design covering all aspects of the specification, fully appropriate to the project, shoeing clear thinking Appropriate design, clear and accurate, satisfactory for the implementation of the project. Limited design, or design not well related to specification or model Very minimal  design

 TOTAL MARKS= (a+b)/2

 Rubric #PR3: 2nd mid Term Project Evaluation

 Maximum Marks*: 10

LEVELS OF ACHIEVEMENTS
    Excellent (10-9) Good (8-7) Average (6-5) Poor (4-0)
a Quality, appropriateness and accuracy of project Implementation Excellent use of software engineering principles and models both at higher and lower levels in implementation from design cycle. Documented use of complex features in the language /package which show quantitatively and qualitatively the improvements gained. An excellent fully operating technically outstanding project. Project fulfils functional requirements  specification exactly with no limitations or failures of any type Very well engineered solution, with evidence that the student has used proven method in transforming design into implementation. Appropriate use of facilities to make implementation more efficient or effective. Effective and efficient  implementation technically with only minor limitations. Project works well with only some minor functional limitations Appropriately engineered implementation which follows from design. Language/package facilities exploited to suggest a functional implementation. Project with some limitations, mostly technically sound. Project essentially works but with some severe functional limitations In sufficient implementation to show competent use of any problem solving methods. Minimal implementation. Poor technical quality with little use of development skills or knowledge in evidence. Project does not work in most parts to requirements specification
b  Quality, appropriateness and accuracy of Testing A quality piece of work giving full coverage of the solution and full program of testing/ evaluation undertaken Extensive and well organized implementation and testing/evaluation documentation Sufficient implementation documentation and testing/evaluation documentation Minimal implementation documentation or testing/evaluation documentation

TOTAL MARKS= (a+b)/2

 Rubric #PR4: End Semester Internal Project Evaluation

Maximum Marks*: 20

LEVELS OF ACHIEVEMENTS
    Excellent (20-16) Good (15-11) Average (10-6) Poor (5-0)
a Quality and accuracy of Software System/Model Excellent design covering all aspects of the specification, fully appropriate to the project, shoeing clear thinking. An excellent  fully operating technically outstanding project. Outstanding clarity of thought and documentation in the development of design from the specification using and adapting models appropriately. A quality piece of work giving full coverage of the solution and full programme of testing/ evaluation undertaken Appropriate design, clear and accurate, satisfactory for the implementation of the project. Very well engineered solution, with evidence that the student has used proven method in transforming design into implementation. Effective and efficient  implementation with only minor limitations. Extensive and well organized implementation and testing/evaluation documentation Design not well related to specification or model. Language/package facilities exploited to suggest a functional implementation. Project with some limitations, mostly technically sound. Project essentially works but with some severe limitations. Sufficient implementation documentation and testing/evaluation documentation Very minimal  design. In sufficient implementation to show competent use of any problem solving methods. Poor technical quality with little use of development skills or knowledge in evidence. Project does not work in most parts to requirements specification. Minimal implementation documentation or testing/evaluation documentation
b Demonstration of  software system /Module  working and Functioning All defined objectives are achieved. Each module working well and properly demonstrated. All modules of project are well integrated and system working is accurate All defined objectives are achieved. Each module working well and properly demonstrated. Integration of all modules not done and system working is not Very satisfactory All defined objectives are achieved. Modules are working well in isolation and properly demonstrate. Modules of project are not properly integrated Only some of the defined objectives are achieved. Modules are not in proper working form that further leads to failure of integrated system

TOTAL MARKS= (a+b)/2

Rubric #PR5

Maximum Marks*: 10

LEVELS OF ACHIEVEMENTS
    Excellent (10-9) Good (8-7) Average (6-5) Poor (4)
a. Identification of the social, environmental and ethical issues of the project problem

Identifying and solving social, environmental and ethical issues

Identifying and solving social, environmental or ethical issues Identifying social, environmental or ethical issues Not able to Identify any issues

 Rubric #PR6 Individual Contribution Evaluation

LEVELS OF ACHIEVEMENTS
    Excellent (5) Good (4) Average (3) Poor (2-0)
a Individual Presentation Excellently planned and executed presentation and demo leaving the listeners in no doubt of the value of the product. Contents of presentations are appropriate and well delivered. Proper eye contact with audience and clear voice with good spoken language Quality presentation and demo.  Clear and concise description leaving listeners with sound understanding of project and its problems. Contents of presentations are appropriate and well delivered. Clear voice with good spoken language but less eye contact with audience Timed and prepared presentation, demo with student describing what has been learnt. Contents of presentations are appropriate but not well delivered. Eye contact with only few people and unclear voice No presentation or no demo or student unable to articulate project development. Contents of presentations are not appropriate and not well delivered. Poor eye contact with audience and unclear voice
b Individual Contribution Excellent Contribution showing his/her dependency in project Good contribution as reflected in overall work Some contribution as reflected in overall work. No Contribution
c To observe the completion of work referring to the original set plan Ahead of the proposed plan In pace with the plan Delayed but can cope up with the lag at their own Interventional help is needed

 TOTAL MARKS= (a+b+c)/3

 Rubric #PR7: Project Report Evaluation

 Maximum Marks*: 15

LEVELS OF ACHIEVEMENTS
    Excellent (15-12) Good (11-8) Average (7-4) Poor (4-0)
a Style, structure and form and the perceived clarity, ‘readability of report Outstanding, comprehensive and clear report,  Fully referenced Effective report using academic language accurately referenced. Acceptable report structure, some referencing, no missing parts, clarity of language Report is unbalanced or unclear, or it is difficult to follow ideas. Major sections missing, or no referencing
b Effectiveness of the project report Accurately referenced, very high standard of presentation aimed at the right level throughout.  Fully referenced. Complete explanation of the key concepts and strong description of the technical requirements of the project Effective technical /business report fully structured, accurately referenced. Complete explanation of the key concepts but in-sufficient description of the technical requirements of the project Adequate report presentation references included. Incomplete explanation of the key concepts and in-sufficient description of the technical requirements of the project Referencing is poor or inconsistent, or lack of illustrative content. Report is unreadable as an English report Inappropriate explanation of the key concepts and poor description of the technical requirements of the project
c Results, Conclusion and Discussion Results are presented in very appropriate manner. Project work is well summarized and concluded. Future extensions in the project are well specified Results are presented in good manner. Project work summary and conclusion not very appropriate. Future extensions in the project are specified Results presented are not much satisfactory. Project work summary and conclusion not very appropriate. Future extensions in the project are not specified Results are not presented properly. Project work is not summarized and concluded. Future extensions in the project are not specified

TOTAL MARKS= (a+b+c)/3

Download Brochure