Rubric for KP/IM FYP
| Criteria | 0 - 100 |
| SPMP | Observing student idea and writing skill in SPMP preparation in week 7th |
| SRS | Observing student idea and writing skill in SRS preparation in week 7th |
| SDD | Observing student idea and writing skill in SDD preparation in week 7th |
| Criteria | 2.5 | 2 | 1.5 | 1 | 0.5 | 0 |
| Meeting Frequencies | >=5 | =4 | =3 | =2 | =1 | =0 |
| Criteria | 0-100 |
| Project Monitoring | Identified and corrected all problems encountered during SPMP, SDD and SRS preparation with innovative way. |
| Criteria | 100-71 | 70-31 | 30-11 | 10-0 |
| Front End (User Interface) | Create consistent styles and formats across multiple documents/objects on web pages/system FOR AT LEAST ONE MODULE (INCLUDING HOMEPAGE AND LOGIN) | Create consistent styles and formats across multiple documents/objects on web pages/system for AT LEAST HOMEPAGE & LOGIN MODULES | Create inconsistent styles and formats across multiple documents/objects on web pages/system | Unable to develop front-end system (or GUI) |
| Back End (Business Logic/Research Framework) | Develop code that follows business logic/research framework to support MORE THAN 20% of desired system functionalities (AT LEAST PARTIALLY OF ONE BUSINESS PROCESS) | Develop code that follows business logic/research framework but supports LESS THAN 20% of desired system functionalities (AT LEAST LOGIN MODULE) | Fail to develop code following the business logic/research framework and/or without using structure programming techniques. | Not implemented at all |
| Database/API (Communication between Front-end - Back-end - e.i: CRUD) | Establish MORE THAN 20% communication between the front-end and the back-end of the system | Establish LESS THAN 20% communication between the front-end and the back-end of the system | Unable to establish communication between the front-end and back-end | Not implemented at all |
| Criteria | 2.5 | 2.18 | 1.87 | 1.56 | 0 |
| Meeting Frequencies | >=8 meeting frequencies | 7 meeting frequencies | 6 meeting frequencies | 5 meeting frequencies | less than 5 meeting frequencies |
| Criteria | 4 | 3 - 3.99 | 2-2.99 | 1 - 1.99 | 0 - 0.99 |
| Project Execution | 100% Done | 75% - 99% Done | 50%-74% Done | 25%-49% Done | 0% -24% Done |
| Project Monitoring | Identified and corrected all problems encountered during project execution with innovative way.(100%) | Identified and corrected all problems encountered during project execution.(75%-99%) | Identified and corrected most problems encountered during project execution.(50%-74%) | Identified most problems encountered during project execution but did not correct them.(25%-49%) | Unable to identify or correct problems encountered during project execution.(0%-24%) |
| Criteria | 0 - 100 |
| Front End (User Interface) | Do all the corrections suggested by the panel during presentation |
| Back End (Business Logic/Research Framework) | Do all the corrections suggested by the panel during presentation |
| Database/API (Communication between Front-end - Back-end - e.i: CRUD) | Do all the corrections suggested by the panel during presentation |
| Criteria | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Complete SPMP | All items are included | Missing 1 - 2 items | Missing 3 - Items | Missing more than 5 items | Missing all items |
| Understanding on SPMP | Detailed and clear description demonstrates understanding and depth of insight about the proposed project./td> | Detailed description but minor weaknesses in showing the depth of insight/understanding of the proposed project. | The explanation is not very detailed or thorough due to lack of understanding of the proposed project. | Not enough details are given because some items in the SPMP are missing. | No basis for judgment due to missing all items in SPMP |
| Complete SRS: Functional Requirement, Non Functional Requiremet, Use Case Diagram, Activity Diagram, Sequence Diagram | All items are included | Missing 1 item | Missing 2-3 items | Missing more than 4-5 items or can't even read the slide because too small | Missing all items |
| Understanding on SRS | Detailed and clear explanation demonstrates the depth of insight/understanding of the requirements. | Clear explanation but minor weaknesses in showing the depth of insight/understanding of the requirements. | Explanation not very detailed or thorough due to major flaws of the requirements | Not enough details are given because most items in SRS are missing / or it is difficult to follow because the diagrams are difficult to read. | No basis for judgment due to missing all items in SRS |
| Complete SDD | All items are included | Missing 1 item | Missing 2 items | Can't even read the slide because too small | Missing all item |
| Undertanding SDD | Detailed and clear explanation demonstrates the depth of insight/understanding of the SDD. | Clear explanation but minor weaknesses in showing the depth of insight/understanding of the SDD. | Explanation not very detailed or thorough due to major flaws of the requirements that affected the SDD. | Not enough details are given and it is difficult to follow because the diagrams are difficult to read. | No basis for judgment due to missing all items in SDD |
| Project Output | Complete MORE THAN ONE MODULE with all desired functions are working properly. | Complete ONLY ONE MODULE with all desired functions are working properly. | Complete ONLY ONE MODULE but some desired functions are not supported or malfunctioned. | Prototype system not working at all but little effort has been made | Not implemented at all |
| Criteria | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Delivery | Presentation is interesting, eloquently delivered and with enthusiasm | Audience is able to follow presentation which is delivered well and smoothly | Audience is able to follow presentation which is delivered well but too heavily scripted | Audience has difficulty following presentation and flow of information can be improved | Presentation is not comprehensible by audience |
| Personal Appearance | Student is appropriately dressed, avoids distracting body language during presentation, comforts him/her self professionally throughout the presentation | Student is appropriately dressed, generally acts professionally, but exhibits some minor lapses in body language | Student is reasonably dressed, but some lapses in body language detract from the presentation’s impact | Student is not dressed appropriately for the audience, and some lapses in body language detract from the presentation’s impact | Student is not dressed appropriately for the audience, does not present him/her self in a serious and professional manner |
| Criteria | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Technology Used | Demonstrates ability to use new technology not yet taught in the classroom to solve problems without conceptual or computational errors. | Demonstrates ability to use new technology not yet taught in the classroom to solve problems with few conceptual and/or computational errors. | Demonstrates highly competent in using technology taught in the classroom to solve problems that are almost free of conceptual or computational errors. | Demonstrates average competency in using technology taught in the classroom. | Not competent in using technology taught in the classroom. |
| Criteria | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Intro | Clear project background and realistic objectives for significant problem statement. The scope is properly defined. | Clear project background and objectives but the problem is not significant. Lack of proper scope. | Not solid. Missing 1 item. | Not solid. Only 1-2 items are presented. | Missing |
| Lit. Review | Evidence of a comprehensive knowledge of the previous works relevant to the topic with excellent citations, refencing and use highly credible sources. | Evidence of a sound knowledge of the previous works relevant to the topic with good citations and edequate credible sources. | Evidence of a satisfactory knowledge of the previous works with fairly cited and moderately used of credible sources. | No convincing evidence of an understanding of the previous works, with a very limited selection of relevant sources and poor citations. | Missing |
| Methodology | Thoughtful justification of the chosen methodology and well -defined and detailed of each activity involved in the project for each phase in the methodology. Hardware and software specification is reasonable to develop the project. | Good justification on the chosen methodology and can determine the activities involved in the project for each phase in the methodology. Hardware and software specification is quite reasonable to develop the project. | TThere is no justification for the chosen methodology but can determine the activities involved in the project for each phase in the methodology. Hardware and software specification seems to be incomplete to develop the project. | General information of the methodology is given based on the textbook. | Missing |
| Project Plan | Exceptionally thoughtful and realistic timeline; incorporates all necessary tasks for project completion and matches to chosen software development model. | Thoughtful and realistic timeline; incorporates almost all necessary tasks for project completion but not fully matches to chosen software development model. | Rudimentary timeline; incorporates some necessary tasks for project completion but with less detail and/or unrealistic timeframes | Inadequately developed timeline that does not reflect the necessary tasks or timelines for their completion | Missing |
| Req. Elicitation Techniques | Attempt to include stakeholders to get the requirement by using multiple approriate techniques | Attempt to include stakeholders to get the requirement by using appropriate technique | Attempt to include stakeholders to get the requirement but with inapproriate elicitation technique | No attempt to include stakeholders to get the requirement | Missing |
| System Req. | Extremely clear about what specifically needs to be implemented in a system or product, what actions should be performed by users about this development (functional requirements) and describe exactly how the created system or software product works, what properties and characteristics a particular development has (non-functional requirements). | Both functional and non-functional requirements are present. The requirements generally explain the goal well, with only a few unclear requirements. | Both functional and non-functional requirements are present. Many requirements are unclear and do not explain the goal of the requirement well. | Missing either functional or non-functional requirements. Most of the present requirements do not provide a clear goal for the requirement. | Missing |
| Use Case | Use cases are included. Both the use case diagram and description are present. The use cases accurately represent the main functions of the system including the appropriate actors. Use cases are clear and easy to understand with very few syntactic errors (diagramming errors). | Use cases are included. Both the use case diagram and the description are present. The use cases represent most of the system functionality with only a few missing pieces. The use have a few minor logical problems contributing to some small lack of understanding. The use cases contain a few syntactic errors (diagramming errors) but these do not cause any lack of clarity for the reader. | Use cases are included, but the textual description is missing or does not accurately describe the use case. Some use cases are missing. The use cases are generally unclear. The use cases contain many diagramming errors that slow down the reader. | Use cases are included, but many core functions are missing from the use cases. The textual descriptions are missing or do not add understanding or clarity to the use case. Overall the use cases confuse more than they help. The use cases contain many diagramming errors that cause them to be extremely hard to understand. | Missing |
| Activity Diagram | Activity diagrams shows the procedural flow of all actions in an activity that explains the business – level functions in a clear manner. All notations are correct and well presented. | Activity diagrams shows the procedural flow of all actions in an activity that explains the business – level functions but has minor flaws with the notations and presentation. | Activity diagrams shows the procedural flow of most of the actions but doesn’t clearly explain the business-level functions. | Activity diagram doesn’t show the flow of the actions. | Missing |
| Class Diagram | All classes are mentioned in the diagram with their methods, attributes and relationships are well presented. | All classes are mentioned in the diagram with their methods, attributes and relationships but the layout and presentation is a bit confusing. | Some classes are in the diagram and a lot of missing methods, attributes and relationships missing. | Class diagram shows no relationship between the various classes. | Missing |
| CRUD Matrix | The CRUD is well presented and depicts all the actions (Create, Read, Update, or Delete) the processes perform on data or sources. | Depicts most the actions (Create, Read, Update, or Delete) the processes perform on data or sources. | Depicts some actions (Create, Read, Update, or Delete) the processes perform on data or sources. | The CRUD matrix poor to show the actions Create, Read, Update, or Delete) the processes perform on data or sources. | Missing |
| Sequence Diagram | Depcits all the scenarios from the Use Cases in a clear manner using appropriate arrows. All notations are correct and well presented. | Depicts most of the scenarios properly using appropriate arrows but with a few flaws in notations. | Depicts a few scenarios properly but most of the diagram is confusing and doesn’t make sense. | Very unclear and doesn’t depict any scenario from the Use Cases. | Missing |
| System Architecture | Exceptionally thoughtful and designed with a specific mission or vision in mind. Includes all components of the proposed system and well explained on how they interact with each other, the environment in which they operate, and the principles used to design the software. | Thoughtful system architecture; most components of the proposed system are included. | Rudimentary system architecture. Unclear about how the components of the proposed system interact. | Inadequately designed system architecture. | Missing |
| Normalization | Shows COMPLETE understanding of normalization steps. | Shows GOOD understanding of normalization steps, but still have MINOR details on the concept | Shows MINIMAL understanding of normalization steps. | LITTLE evidence that shows the understanding of normalization steps. | Missing |
| ERD | Exceptionaly good designed of ERD that considers the relationship between all entities and relate them with proper cardinality. COMPLETE understand the basic concepts in ERD. | Good design of ERD that considers the relationship between all entities but some minor inaccuracy of cadinality relationship. Exhibit PARTIAL understanding of the basic concepts in ERD. | Fair design of ERD which exhibit MINIMAL understanding of the basic concepts in ERD. | Poor design of ERD which UNABLE to show understanding of the basic concepts of ERD. | Missing |
| Data Dictionary | Completely and accurately use of names, definition in entities and attributes - table name is appropriately used in regard of its data elements | Some MINOR inaccurate use of names, definition in entities and attributes - MOST table name is not clear in regard of its data elements | INACCURATE the use of names, definition in entities and attributes - table name DID NOT correlate with its data elements | WRONG the use of names, definition in entities and attributes. Shows NO understanding in identifying the tables based on the project. | Missing |
| UI/UX Design | The design is creating a sense of familiarity and ensuring that everything on a screen makes sense and works in ways that the user expects it to work. Clear understanding of the users, their goals, and how and when they will likely use the product. Clearly defined navigation patterns throughout the product | The design is clear and complete demonstrates understanding of users, their goals, and how and when they might use the product but lack of consistency. | The design is clear but incomplete (certain modules is missing) which still can demonstrates understanding of users, their goals, and how and when they might use the product. | Unclear or poorly designed demonstrates poor understanding of users, their goals, and how and when they might use the product. | Missing |
| Criteria | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Coherent | Structure is clear and effective to the purpose. Transition are effective, allowing ideas to flow | Structure is clear and appropriate to the purpose. Appropriate transition help to link ideas together | Structure is evident with some effort made in using transition to link ideas together | Structure is evident but inappropriate transitions distrupt the progression of ideas | Structure is missing or attempted but not obvious to the reader |
| Spelling, Grammar & Punctuation | No spelling, capitalization, punctuation or grammatical errors | Few spelling, capitalization, punctuation or grammatical errors | Several spelling, capitalization, punctuation or grammatical errors | Many spelling, capitalization, punctuation or grammatical errors | Errors make communication of ideas impossible |
| Criteria | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Format | Meets FSKM FYP Format. Dissertation is neat and correctly organized with professional look. | Meets FSKM FYP Format. Dissertation is neat and correctly organized. | Meets FSKM FYP Format. Dissertation is neat but may have some organization errors | Fails to follow FSKM FYP Format but dissertation is neat. | Fails to follow FSKM FYP Format and neatness of dissertation needs attention |
| Plagiarism | All information are written on his/her own words. Reference page includes all and only cited articles. | Mostly written on their own words. Reference list may leave out some cited article or include one that was not cited. | Mostly written on their own words but some references may not be appropriate for the dissertation. | Some content are copied and with referencing | Substantial content are copied and without any referencing |
| Criteria | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Information Management | Extensively determined the significance or relevance of the information/data needed for the project. Completely and accurately converted information/data from one form to another. | Partially determined the significance or relevance of the information/data needed for the project and converted information/data from one form to another with few errors. | Minimally determined the significance or relevance of the information/data needed for the project and converted information/data from one form to another with some errors. | Minimally determined the significance or relevance of the information/data needed for the project and inaccurately converted information/data from one form to another. | No basis for judgment |
| Criteria | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| BMC | Extensively determined the significance or relevance of the information/data needed for the project. Completely and accurately converted information/data from one form to another. | Partially determined the significance or relevance of the information/data needed for the project and converted information/data from one form to another with few errors. | Minimally determined the significance or relevance of the information/data needed for the project and converted information/data from one form to another with some errors. | Minimally determined the significance or relevance of the information/data needed for the project and inaccurately converted information/data from one form to another. | Missing |
| Product Idea | Well thought out, creative and unique products that are viable to the market. | Creative products that are be viable in the market. | Some thought was put into the minimum viable product idea. | Little to no thought or consideration was put into minimum viable product idea. | No basis for judgment |
| Criteria | 80 - 100 | 50 - 79 | 30 - 49 | 1 - 29 | 0 |
| Front End (User Interface) | Create consistent and remarkably appealing styles and formats across multiple documents on web pages/system and dynamically control the behavior and interaction of user interface (MORE THAN 50% OF THE MODULES) | Create consistent and appealing styles and formats across multiple documents on web pages/system (MORE THAN 30% OF THE MODULES) | Create consistent styles and formats across multiple documents on web pages/system but not appealing | Create inconsistent styles and formats across multiple documents/objects on web pages/system | Unable to develop front-end system (or GUI) |
| Back End (Business Logic/Research Framework) | Develop a code of exceptional quality to perform competently algorithms/data structures to support MORE THAN 50% desired system functionalities/research framework. | Develop code with proper algorithms and data structures to support BETWEEN 30%-50% desired system functionalities/research framework | Develop code that follows business logic/research framework but supports LESS THAN 30% desired system functionalities | Fail to develop code following the business logic/research framework and/or without using structure programming techniques. | Not implemented at all |
| Database/API (Communication between Front-end - Back-end - e.i: CRUD) | Implementing the data model using API connections or any available services to give a user extended features, and establish MORE THAN 50% the communication between the front-end and the back-end of the system | Establish BETWEEN 30%-50% the communication between the front-end and the back-end of the system | Establish LESS THAN 30% communication between the front-end and the back-end of the system | Unable to establish communication between the front-end and back-end | Not implemented at all |
| Criteria | 0-100% |
| Thesis | Observing the progress of thesis preparation and writing skills at 50% completion |
| Criteria | 2.5 | 2 | 1.5 | 1 | 0.5 | 0 |
| Meeting Frequencies | >=5 | =4 | =3 | =2 | =1 | =0 |
| Criteria | 80 - 100 | 50 - 79 | 30 - 49 | 1 - 29 | 0 |
| Project Execution | Completed more than 50% | Completed between 36% - 50% | Completed between 21% - 35% | Completed between 1% - 20% | No Execution |
| Project Monitoring | Identified and corrected all problems encountered during project execution with innovative way. | Identified and corrected all problems encountered during project execution. | Identified and corrected most problems encountered during project execution. | Identified most problems encountered during project execution but did not correct them. | No execution |
| Criteria | 100-71 | 70-31 | 30-11 | 10-0 |
| Front End (User Interface) | Create consistent styles and formats across multiple documents/objects on web pages/system FOR AT LEAST ONE MODULE (INCLUDING HOMEPAGE AND LOGIN) | Create consistent styles and formats across multiple documents/objects on web pages/system for AT LEAST HOMEPAGE & LOGIN MODULES | Create inconsistent styles and formats across multiple documents/objects on web pages/system | Unable to develop front-end system (or GUI) |
| Back End (Business Logic/Research Framework) | Develop code that follows business logic/research framework to support MORE THAN 20% of desired system functionalities (AT LEAST PARTIALLY OF ONE BUSINESS PROCESS) | Develop code that follows business logic/research framework but supports LESS THAN 20% of desired system functionalities (AT LEAST LOGIN MODULE) | Fail to develop code following the business logic/research framework and/or without using structure programming techniques. | Not implemented at all |
| Database/API (Communication between Front-end - Back-end - e.i: CRUD) | Establish MORE THAN 20% communication between the front-end and the back-end of the system | Establish LESS THAN 20% communication between the front-end and the back-end of the system | Unable to establish communication between the front-end and back-end | Not implemented at all |
| Criteria | 2.5 | 2.18 | 1.87 | 1.56 | 0 |
| Meeting Frequencies | >=8 meeting frequencies | 7 meeting frequencies | 6 meeting frequencies | 5 meeting frequencies | less than 5 meeting frequencies |
| Criteria | 4 | 3 - 3.99 | 2-2.99 | 1 - 1.99 | 0 - 0.99 |
| Project Execution | 100% Done | 75% - 99% Done | 50%-74% Done | 25%-49% Done | 0% -24% Done |
| Project Monitoring | Identified and corrected all problems encountered during project execution with innovative way.(100%) | Identified and corrected all problems encountered during project execution.(75%-99%) | Identified and corrected most problems encountered during project execution.(50%-74%) | Identified most problems encountered during project execution but did not correct them.(25%-49%) | Unable to identify or correct problems encountered during project execution.(0%-24%) |
| Criteria | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Content | Provide a clear and describe comprehensively purpose, ideas and evidence that support the project concept | Somewhat clear purpose, ideas and evidence that support the project concept but describe it with moderate detail | Somewhat clear purpose, ideas and evidence that support the project concept but describe with minimal detail | Attempts to define purpose which adequately does not provide ideas and evidence that support the project concept | N/A |
| Compliance | Completely fulfilled or exceed the research scope/ project requirements | Fulfilled most of the research scope/ project requirements | Fulfilled some significant portions of the research scope/ project requirements | Fulfilled some of the research scope/ project requirements but significant portions missing | Barely fulfilled the research scope/ project requirements |
| Technicality | All (almost 100%) software/system technical aspect on functionality, usability, accuracy and reliability are being met. | Most (more than 80%) software/system technical aspect on functionality, usability, accuracy and reliability are being met. | Some (more than 50% but less than 80%) software/system technical aspect on functionality, usability, accuracy and reliability are being met. | Some software/system technical aspect on functionality, usability, accuracy and reliability are not being met | Software/system malfunctioning |
| Creativity | The system/software has aesthetic, minimalist design and satisfies the heuristic in its approach of featuring sufficient information which takes care of the evolutionary aspect of the user experience. | The system/software has aesthetic and minamalist design but does not satisfy the heuristic (does not have necessary information) in an easily findable place. | The system/software is less aesthetic and cluttering the users with extra and irrelevant information they might not need. | The system is unattractive at all | Unable to show system GUI |
| Complexity | THREE and MORE business processes that have multiple interconnected links and highly complicated structures. | TWO business processes that have multiple interconnected links and with complicated structures. | TWO business processes with few interconnected links and simple structures. | Only ONE business process with few interconnected links and very simple structures. | Software/system malfunctioning |
| Criteria | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Delivery | Presentation is interesting, eloquently delivered and with enthusiasm | Audience is able to follow presentation which is delivered well and smoothly | Audience is able to follow presentation which is delivered well but too heavily scripted | Audience has difficulty following presentation and flow of information can be improved | Presentation is not comprehensible by audience |
| Personal Appearance | Student is appropriately dressed, avoids distracting body language during presentation, comforts him/her self professionally throughout the presentation | Student is appropriately dressed, generally acts professionally, but exhibits some minor lapses in body language | Student is reasonably dressed, but some lapses in body language detract from the presentation’s impact | Student is not dressed appropriately for the audience, and some lapses in body language detract from the presentation’s impact | Student is not dressed appropriately for the audience, does not present him/her self in a serious and professional manner |
| Criteria | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Technology Used | Demonstrates ability to use new technology not yet taught in the classroom to solve problems without conceptual or computational errors. | Demonstrates ability to use new technology not yet taught in the classroom to solve problems with few conceptual and/or computational errors. | Demonstrates highly competent in using technology taught in the classroom to solve problems that are almost free of conceptual or computational errors. | Demonstrates average competency in using technology taught in the classroom. | Not competent in using technology taught in the classroom. |
| Criteria | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Commercial Potential | Well thought out, creative and unique product that has commercial value and long-term sustainability in the marketplace. | Creative product that is be viable in the market. | Some thought was put into the minimum viable product idea. | Little to no thought or consideration was put into minimum viable product idea. | There is no basis for judgment |
| Target Market | The developed project is exceptionally pleasing and appealing to the target market. | The developed project is quite appealing to the target market. | The developed project is difficult to appeal the target market. | The developed project is exceptionally difficult to appeal the target market. | Students develop project without any idea of the target market. |
| Criteria | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Abstract - Problems/Issues, Aims/Objectives, Methods, Findings/Project Outcomes and Implication/Contribution of Research/Product | Abstract is firmly solid. All main points are presented | Abstract is generally solid. Missing one point. | Abstract is not solid. Only three points are presented | Abstract is not solid. Only one or two points are presented | Missing |
| Chapter 1 - Background, Problem Statements, Problem Solution, Objectives, Scopes | Clear research/project background, objectives and problem solutions that realistic for significant problem statement. The scope is properly defined. | Clear research/project background and objectives but the problem is not significant. Lack of proper scope. | Introduction is not solid. Missing 1 item. | Introduction is not solid. Only 1-2 items are presented. | Missing |
| Chapter 2 - Literature Review | Evidence of a comprehensive knowledge of the previous works relevant to the topic with excellent citations, refencing and use highly credible sources. | Evidence of a sound knowledge of the previous works relevant to the topic with good citations and edequate credible sources. | Evidence of a satisfactory knowledge of the previous works with fairly cited and moderately used of credible sources. | No convincing evidence of an understanding of the previous works, with a very limited selection of relevant sources and poor citations. | Missing |
| Chapter 3 - Methodology , The Chosen Methodology, Project Planning Schedule | Thoughtful justification of the chosen methodology and well -defined and detailed of each activity involved in the project for each phase in the methodology. | Good justification on the chosen methodology and can determine the activities involved in the project for each phase in the methodology. | There is no justification for the chosen methodology but can determine the activities involved in the project for each phase in the methodology. | General information of the methodology is given based on the textbook. | Missing |
| Chapter 4 - Functional Requirements, Non-Functional Requirements, Use Case Diagram, Use Case Description, Activity Diagram, Class Diagram, CRUD Matrix, Sequence Diagram | Complete SR with comprehensive desciption | Complete SR but lack of comprehensive description | Only 3-5 items presented and general description is written | Only 1-2 items presented and general description is written | Missing |
| Chapter 5 - System Design System Architecture, Package Diagram, Database Design (Normalization, ERD, Data Dictionary), UI/UX Design | Complete SD with all designs meet the project requirements. | Complete SD with some designs do not meet the project requirements. | Incomplete SD (missing 1 item) with some designs do not meet the project requirements. | Incomplete SD (missing 2-3 items) with some designs do not meet the project requirements. | Missing |
| Chapter 6 - System Implementation System Hierarchical Menu, System Development, Discussion | Complete system implementation with a clear description to show the achievement of project goals. | Complete system implementation but with unclear description. | Incomplete system implementation and with unclear description. | Incomplete system implementation without description. | Missing |
| Chapter 7 - Conclusion | Conclusion summarizes findings/project outcomes, puts the findings/project outcomes in context, and proposes future directions. | Conclusion summarizes findings/project outcomes but provides no context, may propose future directions but lacks connection to findings/project outcomes. | Conclusion weakly summarizes findings/project outcomes, does not provide context, or does not provide future directions. | Conclusion is vague, wanders, and does not complete the research/project. | Missing |
| Criteria | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Coherent | Structure is clear and effective to the purpose. Transition are effective, allowing ideas to flow | Structure is clear and appropriate to the purpose. Appropriate transition help to link ideas together | Structure is evident with some effort made in using transition to link ideas together | Structure is evident but inappropriate transitions distrupt the progression of ideas | Structure is missing or attempted but not obvious to the reader |
| Spelling, Grammar & Punctuation | No spelling, capitalization, punctuation or grammatical errors | Few spelling, capitalization, punctuation or grammatical errors | Several spelling, capitalization, punctuation or grammatical errors | Many spelling, capitalization, punctuation or grammatical errors | Errors make communication of ideas impossible |
| Criteria | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Format | Meets FSKM FYP Format. Dissertation is neat and correctly organized with professional look. | Meets FSKM FYP Format. Dissertation is neat and correctly organized. | Meets FSKM FYP Format. Dissertation is neat but may have some organization errors | Fails to follow FSKM FYP Format but dissertation is neat. | Fails to follow FSKM FYP Format and neatness of dissertation needs attention |
| Plagiarism | All information are written on his/her own words. Reference page includes all and only cited articles. | Mostly written on their own words. Reference list may leave out some cited article or include one that was not cited. | Mostly written on their own words but some references may not be appropriate for the dissertation. | Some content are copied and with referencing | Substantial content are copied and without any referencing |