Print12.8 Grading Rubric for the Final Proposal
In EME 807, the course project activities will account for 50% of the total course grade. 30% of those 50 will be distributed over the preliminary submissions (topic description, outline, and technical review). The other 20% of the total 50 will be assigned to the final report, which will be graded independently as a final document. The following grading rubric will be used for grading the final report (based on 100 pt. scale):
| Grading Criteria | Low Grade (pt. range) | Medium Grade (pt. range) | High Grade (pt. range) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title Page (total 5 pts.) | 0-3 pts No title page / No SDG / Title does not reflect the topic of the proposal. |
4 pts Title needs to be more descriptive. |
5 pts Title is descriptive, page includes SDG icons, author's name, class number. |
| Executive Summary (total 5 pts.) | 0-2 pts No executive summary / Summary is vague or does not present the topic well. |
3-4 pts Executive summary is similar to introduction, and does not present any findings / Summary is too short or too long |
5 pts Executive summary is descriptive and serves as a snapshot of the entire project / 1 page length. |
| Introduction (total 10 pts.) | 0-3 pts No introduction section / Introduction does not provide a clear reference to the technology to be assessed or goals of the implementation / References are missing. |
4-7 pts Introduction sets the context for the project, but the motivation and goals need to be better defined / Need a stronger argument for the "why" question |
8-10 pts Introduction clearly describes motivation and goals for technology implementation / Connection is made to the local sustainability goals as well as UN SDG / Sources are properly cited. |
| Implementation Scenario (total 10 pts.) | 0-3 pts No separate section describing implementation scenario/ It is unclear where (location) and how the project would be implemented. |
4-7 pts The scenario may need to clarify the steps for implementation / additional information may be needed for the "where" and "how" questions / stakeholders are not clearly defined. |
8-10 pts Implementation scenario is clear regarding the project scale, stakeholders, and resources. It is tied to a specific locale and takes into account the local need or the problem identified in the introduction. |
| Technical Background (total 10 pts.) | 0-3 pts Description of the technology is missing or poorly presents the underlying principles / Reader is unable to understand how the technology works. |
4-7 pts Acceptable presentation of the purpose of the assessed technology / Some technical aspects may need to be illustrated or supported by references / Section may be too long and information is excessive. |
8-10 pts Very clear presentation of the technical principles and the purpose of the assessed technology, supported by sufficient technical data / Appropriate graphics are included. |
| Environmental Impact Assessment (total 10 pts.) | 0-3 pts Environmental impact assessment is too general and does not use any metrics. |
4-7 pts Assessment is adequate but misses important metrics to show the technology impact / Metrics are defined, but no data shown for a real case scenario / Comparison to the baseline technology should be used where appropriate. |
8-10 pts Environmental impact assessment clearly defines metrics and taps into real-life data. Both positive and negative impacts are taken into consideration. The assessment has a clear reference to a baseline. |
| Economic Assessment (total 10 pts.) | 0-3 pts Economic viability or role of the technology is not well defined or not applied to any specific practical or hypothetical case / Cost information is not presented. |
4-7 pts Basic economic analysis is presented / Assessment is too generic and misses some local specifics / Comparison to the baseline should be further discussed. |
8-10 pts Economic analysis uses several metrics to justify the project at a certain locale / Both direct costs and environmental costs are compared for the proposed implementation and the baseline. |
| Social and Broader Impacts (total 10 pts.) | 0-3 pts Social impacts are not explicitly discussed / Broader impacts are identified but need more supporting data. |
4-7 pts Social impacts are discussed, but may not be linked to the specific case scenario at a locale / Metrics should be used more to compare the proposed scenario to the baseline. |
8-10 pts Both positive impacts and barriers are identified in the assessment / Broader (systemic) impacts are discussed, and interconnections between the societal, environmental, and economic values are well demonstrated. |
| Conclusion (total 10 pts.) | 0-3 pts Conclusion is absent or is not very well related to the assessment presented / Conclusion contradicts the assessment results. |
4-7 pts Proper conclusion is presented, although it ignores some key points and outcomes of the presented assessment / Recommendation for the technology implementation is poorly justified or undecisive |
8-10 pts Conclusion statement is rooted in the preformed analysis, provides strong closure to the proposal, and includes a clear recommendation for the project. |
| Style and Presentation (total 10 pts.) | 0-3 pts Text is difficult to read, confusing, or poorly organized / Some sections are missing / Goals of the project are not logically connected to the assessment / Text formatting and graphic quality issues. |
4-7 pts The proposal is logically organized and easy to navigate / Goals are clearly stated and tied to the proposed ideas / The argument presented may not sufficiently conclusive or deep to justify the proposal / Technical edits are recommended to improve the quality of text and graphics. |
8-10 pts The proposal provides a strong case supported by assessment results / The text is logically organized and contains all the required sections / Visual graphic tools are properly used to enhance delivery / The proposal is sized appropriately and is not overloaded. |
| References (total 10 pts.) | 0-3 pts Too few information sources are used / Lack of citations makes the assessment speculative / Random formatting / Missing credits. |
4-7 pts References are provided in the text and are in correspondence to the list / Some missing citations and credits / Reference format should be improved or unified for better presentation. |
8-10 pts A variety of sources searched to support the assessment / Citations and credits are included for all graphics and data sources / Citations are properly formatted according to the APA style. |
| Graphics (extra credit up to 3 pts.) | Inclusion of originally prepared graphics – plots, flow diagrams, tables - to organize data and to improve the delivery of the proposed ideas is highly encouraged. Clarity of visual tools makes difference in evaluation of reports and proposals and helps communicate information to stakeholders at all levels. | ||