Capstone projects present a particular challenge to assessment as compared to individual course work. Projects unfold over a year, culminating in a final report, begging the question of (balancing the) assessment of process over product. Projects across an individual department, let alone across the engineering faculty, can differ in content, the balance of depth versus breadth, the balance of research versus application, the balance of design versus implementation, and size of teams. One approach to managing this diversity is the use of broadly interpreted categories and no explicit weighted marking scheme, with the final grade determined by consensus in a department-wide meeting, held privately from the students. While flexibility and the authority of the supervising faculty member is acknowledged and maintained in this approach, the needs of the students are not necessarily best served in this approach. The movement toward learning outcomes, including the CEAB Graduate Attribute Criteria, is providing a well-understood and documented language for established indicators. This paper presents the results of an effort this year to incorporate CEAB graduate attributes into a system of marking rubrics. The goal is to better serve the needs of students with an assessment strategy that is based on explicit expectations and transparency, one which includes all deliverables, and yet still accommodates for diversity in project experiences. The paper will present the compound assessment instrument developed and used on select project teams, as well as the feedback of the students involved in the experience. The work done this year is seen as preliminary and the intent is to invite feedback to move towards broaden the adoption of the assessment instruments within our community.
Development Of High Performance Capstone Project Teams And The Selection Process