Project Rubric Scoring Criteria

Presentation

	Exceptional Grade: A to A- Mark: 100% to 86%	Good Grade: B+ to B- Mark: 85% to 70%	Satisfactory Grade: C+ to C- Mark: 69% to 60%	Not Satisfactory Grade: F Mark: 58% to 0%	Total Points
Presentation(10%)	Delivery was professional and fluent. Text, graphics & structure enhanced communication of ideas. Key points were clearly and concisely explained. Managed time very well, dividing time between topics appropriately for their relevance. No spelling, punctuation or grammar errors.	Delivery was clear and professional in nature. Text, graphics & structure sup­ported communication of ideas. Key points were clearly explained. Managed time fairly well, dividing time between topics somewhat appropriately for their relevance. Very few spelling, punctuation or grammar errors.	Delivery was mostly clear and professional. Text, graphics & structure were mostly appropriate. Key points were communicated adequately. Parts of the presentation were rushed, or some topics should have been given more time. Some spelling, punctuation or grammar errors.	Delivery was stilted, awkward or unprofessional. Text, graphics or structure were at times inappropriate or misleading. Key points were at times not clearly presented. Presentation was rushed or too short, or time was poorly balanced between topics. Significant spelling, punctuation or grammar errors.
Project Demo (30%)	Creative demonstration generated enthusiasm for the product. Demonstration effectively conveyed ideas to the audience. Features were very well illustrated, giving a clear sense of the product as a cohesive whole.	Demonstration generated interest in the product. Demonstration effectively conveyed most of the ideas. Almost all features were clearly demonstrated, giving a good idea of the product's capability.	Demonstration held audience's attention. Demonstration effectively conveyed main ideas. Core features were fairly clearly demonstrated, giving a general idea of the product's capability.	Demonstration failed to capture the interest of the audience. Demonstration summarized a few of the main ideas or was unclear. Few features were demonstrated, or the product's capabilities were not clearly presented.
Technical Solution (30%)	Presentation gave a clear impression of a high quality software deliverable. Underlying logic was clearly articulated and easy to follow. Diagrams or analyses enhanced and clarified presentation of ideas.	Presentation gave an impression of a good quality software deliverable. Underlying logic was articulated and generally easy to follow. Diagrams or analyses were consistent with text and commentary.	Presentation gave an impression of a software deliverable of adequate quality. In a small number of areas, the underlying logic or flow of ideas were difficult to follow. Diagrams or analyses were occasionally inconsistent with text or commentary.	Presentation gave an impression of a software deliverable of poor quality. Underlying logic was not articulated well or was difficult to follow in several areas. Diagrams or analyses were missing or often inconsistent with text or commentary.

Documentation and Process

	Exceptional Grade: A to A- Mark: 100% to 86%	Good Grade: B+ to B- Mark: 85% to 70%	Satisfactory Grade: C+ to C- Mark: 69% to 60%	Not Satisfactory Grade: F Mark: 58% to 0%	Total Points
Teamwork and Management (10%)	The team worked well together to achieve objectives. Each member contributed in a valuable way to the project. Members demonstrated a high level of mutual respect and collaboration. Appropriate issues and risks were clearly identified and very well managed.	The team worked well together most of the time, with only a few occurrences of communication breakdown or failure to collaborate appropriately, which were resolved quickly. Members mostly contributed in a valuable way to the project. Members were almost always respectful of each other. Appropriate issues and risks were identified and well managed.	The team worked well together most of the time, there were times of communication breakdown or failure to collaborate, but these issues were resolved in a timely manner. Members contributed fairly consistently to the project. Members were mostly respectful of each other. Obvious issues and risks were informally identified and tracked.	The team did not collaborate or communicate well. Some members were inconsistent in their contribution; or worked independently, without regard to objectives or priorities. A lack of respect and regard was frequently noted. Issues and risks were managed too casually or not at all.
Documentation(20%)	Clear, concise and easy to interpret. Content is consistent between each part, providing a holistic understanding of the system. Clearly outlines functionality, providing a clear vision of intended outcomes. Describes a high quality logical structure that is well suited to achieve intended outcomes.	Usually clear and easy to interpret. Content is mostly consistent between each part, providing a good understanding of the system. Describes seemingly complete functionality, providing good overview of system behaviour. Describes a simple and clear logical structure that should at least achieve short-term goals.	Can be understood with some effort but not too complicated. Content is often inconsistent, leading to some confusion about the system. Describes key functionality fairly well, providing general idea of system intent. Describes a moderately simplistic, or slightly complicated, logical structure that should deliver a working prototype.	Difficult to understand due to poor structure or technical errors. Content is usually inconsistent, leading to confusion about the system. Describes minimal or unrelated functionality, giving no clear idea of system intent. Describes an overly simplistic, or overly complicated, logical structure that may not deliver a working prototype.
Total

A passing mark is 60% or higher.

Comments