Notre Dame University Bangladesh

Department of Computer Science and Engineering

Rubrics (Assignment/Presentation/Viva Voce/Lab Test/Viva Voce)

Assignment Rubric

Category (Assignment
Scoring Criteria Points Score
Rubric)

Best (4 marks): i. Demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the topic.

ii. Presents accurate, relevant, and comprehensive information.
iii. Integrates advanced concepts beyond the basic requirements.
iv. Provides profound analysis and critical thinking.
Moderate (2-3 i. Shows a solid to good understanding of the topic.
Content marks): ii. Presents mostly accurate and relevant information.
iii. Addresses the basic requirements of the assignment with varying levels
(4 marks) of depth.

Poor (1 mark or i. Shows a limited or inadequate understanding of the topic.

below): ii. Presents mostly inaccurate or irrelevant information.
iii. Fails to address the basic requirements of the assignment.

Organization Best (3 marks): i. Well-organized with a highly logical structure.

ii. Clear introduction, body, and conclusion.
(3 marks) iii. Smooth and seamless transitions between ideas and sections.

Moderate (2 marks): i. Mostly well-organized with a clear structure.

ii. Introduction, body, and conclusion are present.
iii. Transitions between ideas and sections are satisfactory.
 Poor (1 mark or i. Organization is unclear or lacking.
below): ii. Introduction, body, and conclusion are unclear or missing.
iii. Transitions between ideas and sections are weak or absent.

Best (3 marks): i. Assignment is submitted well before the deadline.

ii. Demonstrates exemplary commitment to timely completion.
Timely Submission
i. Assignment is submitted by the deadline.
(3 marks) Moderate (2 marks): ii. Shows punctuality and adherence to timelines.

Poor (1 mark or i. Assignment is submitted slightly after the deadline.

ii. Demonstrates some punctuality concerns.
below): Assignment is significantly overdue and fails to meet submission deadlines.

Presentation Rubric

Point
Category (Presentation Rubric) Scoring Criteria Score
s

Content Knowledge (4 marks) i. Demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the topic.

ii. Content is accurate, comprehensive, and well-researched.
Best (4 marks):
iii. Effectively addresses complex questions and provides insightful
responses.

Moderate (2-3 marks): i. Shows a solid to good understanding of the topic.

ii. Content is mostly accurate and relevant.
iii. Addresses basic questions with varying levels of depth.
 Poor (1 mark or i. Demonstrates a limited or inadequate understanding of the topic.
below): ii. Content is mostly inaccurate or irrelevant.
iii. Fails to address basic questions.
Best (3 marks): i. Highly organized and follows a logical structure.
ii. Clear introduction, body, and conclusion.
iii. Smooth transitions between ideas and sections.
iv. Demonstrates exceptional effort and engagement.
Moderate (2 marks): i. Mostly well-organized with a clear structure.
Effort/Organization (3 marks) ii. Introduction, body, and conclusion are present.
iii. Transitions between ideas and sections are satisfactory.
iv. Shows a good level of effort and organization.
Poor (1 mark or i. Organization is unclear or lacking.
below): ii. Introduction, body, and conclusion are unclear or missing.
iii. Transitions between ideas and sections are weak or absent.
iv. Demonstrates limited effort and organization.

Best (3 marks): i. Presentation is well-paced, and time is managed effectively.

ii. Allotted time for each section is respected.
iii. Q&A session is well-handled without exceeding the time limit.

i. Presentation is mostly well-paced, with some minor deviations.

Moderate (2 marks):
Time Management ii. Allotted time for each section is generally respected.
iii. Q&A session is handled within a reasonable time frame.
Poor (1 mark or i. Presentation lacks effective time management.
below): ii. Significant deviations from the allotted time for each section.
iii. Q&A session is poorly managed, exceeding the time limit.

VIVA VOCE Rubric

Category (Viva Voce Rubric) Scoring Criteria Points Score

Best (4 marks): i. Demonstrates exceptional critical thinking skills.

ii. Provides insightful analysis, evaluates information, and draws well-supported
conclusions.
iii. Responds to challenging questions with depth and creativity.
Moderate (2-3 i. Shows solid to good critical thinking skills.
Critical Thinking (4 marks) ii. Analyzes information and draws reasonable conclusions.
marks):
iii. Responds to questions with a satisfactory level of depth.

i. Demonstrates limited or inadequate critical thinking.

Poor (1 mark or
ii. Struggles to analyze information or draw meaningful conclusions.
below): iii. Responds poorly to questions, lacking depth of thought.

Best (3 marks): i. Demonstrates an exceptional depth of knowledge in the subject.

ii. Responds to questions with detailed and comprehensive information.
iii. Shows a high level of expertise.

Depth of Knowledge (3 Moderate (2 marks): i. Shows a solid to good depth of knowledge.

marks) ii. Responds to questions with satisfactory information.
iii. Demonstrates a reasonable level of expertise.

Poor (1 mark or i. Demonstrates a limited or inadequate depth of knowledge.

below): ii. Struggles to provide meaningful responses to questions.
iii. Lacks expertise in the subject.

Communication Skills (3 Best (3 marks): i. Communicates ideas with exceptional clarity and precision.
ii. Uses appropriate language and tone.
iii. Responds articulately to questions.
 i. Communicates ideas clearly and effectively.
Moderate (2 marks):
ii. Generally uses appropriate language and tone.
marks iii. Responds coherently to questions.
Poor (1 mark or i. Communication is unclear or lacks precision.
below): ii. Inappropriate language or tone is used.
iii. Struggles to respond coherently to questions.

Lab Test Rubric

Category (Lab Test) Scoring Criteria Points Score

Best iv. Demonstrates a clear understanding of the task, accurately identifying the main
objectives and requirements.
(2 marks): v. Interprets instructions accurately, addressing all components of the task as
specified.
vi. Offers a solid analysis of the task, addressing key points with adequate depth.
Task(s) Understanding Moderate iv. Shows an adequate understanding of the task, with minor misunderstandings or
omissions.
(2 marks) (1.5 marks): v. Mostly interprets instructions correctly, with minor deviations or oversights.
vi. Provides a basic analysis of the task, but lacks depth or fails to explore important
aspects.

Poor iv. Demonstrates some understanding of the task, but with significant gaps or
misconceptions.
(1 mark or v. Misinterprets instructions significantly, leading to irrelevant responses.
below): vi. Offers little analysis of the task, providing irrelevant or no observations.

Collaboration and Teamwork (2 Best v. Consistently contributes effectively to complete the assigned tasks, demonstrating
marks) a clear understanding of the team's objectives.
(2 marks): vi. Communicates clearly and effectively with team members.
 vii. Takes responsibility for assigned tasks and follows through with commitments.

Moderate v. Generally, contributes to group goals, occasionally requiring help from other
members.
(1.5 marks): vi. Communicates adequately with team members, but may need improvement in
clarity or active listening skills.
vii. Generally, fulfills responsibilities and commitments, but may occasionally require
reminders or follow-up to ensure completion.
Poor v. Rarely contributes to complete the assigned tasks.
vi. Communication with team members is unclear or ineffective.
(1 mark or vii. Often fails to fulfill responsibilities or commitments, requiring constant
below): supervision or assistance to complete tasks.

Best iv. Analyzes given information critically and insightfully, drawing meaningful and
realistic interpretations.
(2 marks): v. Demonstrates clear, logical reasoning throughout the analysis, resulting in sound
conclusions.
vi. Provides relevant evidence to support achieved conclusions, demonstrating a deep
understanding of the subject matter.
Moderate iv. Conducts a basic analysis of information, but may overlook complexities or fail to
Critical Thinking and Analysis consider alternative approaches.
(1.5 marks): v. Uses logic inconsistently or with some lapses in reasoning, resulting in unclear or
(2 marks) incomplete conclusions.
vi. Presents limited evidence to support arguments and conclusions, with gaps in
logic or relevance.
Poor iv. Lacks depth or insight while analyzing given information.
v. Displays little to no logical reasoning in the analysis.
(1 mark or vi. Provides little to no evidence to support arguments and conclusions.
below):

Documentation Best i. Demonstrates thorough research and provides accurate and comprehensive
information on the topic.
(2 marks) (2 marks): ii. Information is well-organized, with clear sections, headings, and subheadings.
 iii. All sources are properly cited and referenced according to the required citation
style.
Moderate i. The document contains mostly accurate and complete information, with minor
omissions or oversights.
(1.5 marks): ii. The document is somewhat organized, but the structure may be confusing or lack
clarity and coherence.
iii. Most sources are cited and referenced correctly, with minor errors or
inconsistencies.
Poor i. The document contains significant inaccuracies or lacks essential information
ii. The document lacks organization, making it difficult to follow.
(1 mark or iii. Many sources are cited incorrectly or not referenced at all.
below):

Best i. Demonstrates exceptional proficiency in lab techniques, executing procedures

accurately with minimal supervision.
(2 marks): ii. Designs and executes experiments with precision and thoroughness.
iii. Demonstrates exemplary ethical conduct in the lab, adhering to ethical guidelines
and principles at all times.

Moderate i. Demonstrates basic proficiency in lab techniques, but may require guidance to
Demonstration of Lab Skills & perform procedures correctly.
Ethical Considerations (1.5 marks): ii. Designs and executes experiments adequately, but with some deficiencies in
experimental design or execution
(2 marks) iii. Occasionally demonstrates lapses in ethical conduct, requiring reminders or
guidance.
Poor i. Demonstrates inadequate proficiency in lab techniques, frequently requiring
supervision and making significant errors in procedure execution.
(1 mark or ii. Demonstrates inadequate understanding of experimental design and execution,
below): resulting in unreliable results.
iii. Demonstrates inadequate understanding or disregard for ethical guidelines and
principles.
 Project Rubric

Category (Project Rubric) Scoring Criteria Points Score

Best (2 marks): vii. Demonstrates specific and unambiguous objectives.

viii. The objectives are relevant and attainable.
ix. Provides a clear strategy of how the project will be executed before deadline and
the success of the project will be measured.
Project Objectives & Planning (2
Moderate (1.5 vii. Objectives are well-defined and mostly specific, with some minor ambiguities
marks) viii. Project plan is mostly feasible and realistic, with some minor aspects that may
marks):
require adjustments.
ix. Timeline and milestones are somewhat vague or lack specificity.

Poor (1 mark or vii. Objectives are vague, ambiguous, or poorly defined.

below): viii. Project plan is unrealistic or overly ambitious.
ix. Timeline and milestones are unclear or absent, hindering progress tracking and
accountability.
Best (2 marks): viii. Demonstrates exceptional communication among team members.
ix. Efficiently strategized allocation of tasks among the team members.
x. Active discussions among the team members for fostering ideas and strategies.

Moderate (1.5 viii. Demonstrates moderately effective communication among the team members.
Team Collaboration and ix. Shows a weakly strategized task allocation.
marks):
Communication (2 marks) x. Participates in some team activities and discussions but may be passive or
inconsistent.

Poor (1 mark or viii. Communication is somewhat unclear or lacks transparency.

below): ix. Shows a vague and ambiguous task allocation.
x. Participates in some team activities and discussions but may be passive or
inconsistent.
 Best (3 marks): vii. Shows creativity and innovation in the design, offering unique and thoughtful
solutions.
viii. Solution demonstrates reasonable scalability, with provisions for potential
growth and expansion.
ix. Implementation shows good technical proficiency, employing appropriate
techniques and technologies.
Moderate (2 vii. Presents conventional design solutions with some creativity but lacks innovation.
Design and Implementation (3
marks): viii. Solution has limited scalability, requiring significant modifications to
marks) accommodate growth or expansion.
ix. Implements basic technical solutions but may lack proficiency in advanced
techniques or technologies.
Poor (1 mark or vii. Design lacks creativity and innovation, relying on standard or derivative
below): solutions.
viii. Solution lacks scalability, making it difficult to accommodate any growth or
expansion.
ix. Implementation is technically deficient, with significant errors or limitations.
Best (2 marks): iv. All necessary information is included, covering project objectives,
methodologies, results, and conclusions comprehensively.
v. Provides thorough analysis and discussion of project findings, demonstrating a
deep understanding of the subject matter.
vi. Information is well-organized, with clear sections, headings, and subheadings
that facilitate navigation and comprehension.

Moderate (1.5 iv. Information is somewhat incomplete, lacking coverage of certain project aspects
Documentation and Reporting (2 marks): or details. Some important information may be omitted.
marks) v. Provides basic analysis of project findings, but depth and insight are limited.
Analysis may be superficial or lack detail.
vi. Organization is somewhat confusing, with unclear sections or lack of consistent
headings and subheadings. Structure may impede understanding.
Poor (1 mark or iv. Document is significantly incomplete, missing crucial project information and
below): details essential for understanding.
v. Analysis is minimal or absent, providing little to no insight into project findings
or conclusions.
vi. Document lacks organization, with no clear sections or headings, making it
difficult to follow the flow of information.
 Best (2 marks): iv. Demonstrates an in-depth understanding of the topic, providing insightful
analysis and detailed explanations.
v. Presentation is well-paced, with effective time management that ensures all key
points are covered within the allotted time.
vi. Actively engages the audience through questions, discussions, or interactive
elements, fostering participation and involvement.
Moderate (1.5 iv. Provides basic knowledge of the topic but lacks depth in analysis or explanation.
Presentation (2 marks) marks): v. Presentation is mostly well-paced, but there may be slight deviations from the
allotted time.
vi. Encourages audience interaction, but participation may be somewhat limited.
Poor (1 mark or iv. Demonstrates limited understanding of the topic, with superficial analysis and
below): explanations.
v. Presentation may feel rushed or prolonged at times, with noticeable deviations
from the allotted time.
vi. Attempts to involve the audience but with minimal success in fostering
participation.