Galgotias University School of Computing Science and Engineering.

Evaluation-II Mid-point Review Form

Student(s)
for
the
Group

Name Names
same

Signature

Student 1:
Student 2:
Student 3:
Enrollment
Number(S):
Group no/Batch:
Title of project:
Supervisor:
Notes
This Project Review Form is intended to give a quantitative means of judging a students performance for the research
phase of the dissertation.
The second assessor is required to mark on the scale for each category their assessment of the students performance both
in the research phase of the dissertation and during the review. Comments justifying the given mark should be
provided.
The main objective of the review assessment is to test the students knowledge and understanding of the research they
have undertaken as part of their literature review and domain investigation.
Throughout the review the second assessor is encouraged to provide feedback and recommendations on the further
conduct and direction of the dissertation a summary of the feedback should be recorded on the review form.
Upon completion the form is to be given to Project Co-ordinator through Panel In- charge.
Checklist:

Methodology Selection Criteria

Analysis Report

Data Flow Diagram

Use Case Diagram

Class Diagram

ER Diagram

Activity Diagram

During the review, please assess the students performance in the following areas:
2.1 The student's performance in analysing the problem situation and applying the chosen analysis and/or investigation
techniques in an ethical manner as shown in the supervisory meetings and the project report.
No
analysis
in
evidence

Very
minimal
analysis

Analysis does not use

a proper technique
and or model/
requirements
specification is not
created

Analysis uses
suitable technique.
Minimal model/
requirements
specification is
created.

Analysis is accurate and

good use of the analysis
technique is made. It is well
presented and leads to a
sound well documented
model/ requirements
specification.

Excellent incisive analysis leading to

well defined model/ requirements
specification of high quality that is
fully accurate. Analysis technique is
followed or adapted with
documented adaptations

Completely
professional analysis
and model/
requirements
specification

Comment:
Student 1 (Marks Obtained)
Student 2(Marks Obtained)
Student 3(Marks Obtained)
2.2 The quality of the student's documentation of the appropriate analysis method(s) in terms of depth and scope of analysis,
as shown in the supervisory meetings and in the Project Report.
No analysis
documented

Very Minimal
analysis
documented

Analysis present but

investigation does not
drive analysis or
analysis does not
drive design or
methods used badly
2

Limited analysis
methods chosen
but investigation,
A&D have
logical flow
through

Appropriate methods
chosen documented.
Clear connection
between
investigation,
analysis and design

Effective analysis
used well
throughout with
clear line of
thinking through
the documentation

Excellent methods
description with sound
choice made, adapted
methods to suit
project, fully justified
and connected
thinking

Publishable
design
without
amendment

Comment:
Student 1 (Marks Obtained)
Student 2(Marks Obtained)
Student 3(Marks Obtained)

2.3 The student's performance in working to the requirements specification and applying and documenting the chosen
design
techniques as shown in the supervisory meetings and in the Project Report.
No design
in
evidence

Very
minimal
design

Specification
does not drive
design or design
only nominal
2

Design techniques
used minimally
though correctly
on specification
3

Focus is on specification
and the design follows from
it, using most appropriate
elements of chosen design
technique
4

Outstanding clarity of thought

and documentation in the
development of design from
the specification using and
adapting models appropriately

Professionally organized design

from specification, specification
drives design method. Publishable
approach without amendment

Comment:
Student 1 (Marks Obtained)
Student 2(Marks Obtained)
Student 3(Marks Obtained)
2.4 The quality, appropriateness and accuracy of the student's model, definition and/or requirements specification, as
represented in the Project Report and presentation

No
analysis
in
evidence

Very
minimal
analysis

Requirements
specification is not
created

Minimal model/
requirements
specification is
created.

Analysis is well presented

and leads to a sound well
documented model/
requirements specification.

Excellent incisive analysis leading to

well defined model/ requirements
specification of high quality that is
fully accurate.

Completely model/
requirements
specification

Comment:
Student 1 (Marks Obtained)
Student 2(Marks Obtained)
Student 3(Marks Obtained)

2.5 The quality, appropriateness and accuracy of the student's design which is produced from the model, definition and/or
requirements specification, as represented in the Project Report.
No
design

Nominal
Design
only

Poor design, insufficient

consideration of detail, toplevel only or design not
related to specification or
model

Limited design, or
design not well related
to specification or
model

Appropriate design,
clear and accurate,
satisfactory for the
implementation of the
project.

Excellent design covering all

aspects of the specification,
fully appropriate to the
project, shoeing clear thinking

Publishable design
without amendment

Comment:
Student 1 (Marks Obtained)
Student 2(Marks Obtained)
Student 3(Marks Obtained)
2.6 The extent of the student's understanding and quality of description of the problem area or domain and its relationship to
the student's understanding and quality of description of the system analysis and design process as shown in the
Presentation/Demonstration and report
No
demo /
presn
or no
report

Report shows limited

understanding of the
analysis and design
process

Demo and report showed

insufficient understanding
of the analysis and design
process
2

Sound understanding of
analysis and design shown in
report and/or presentation .

Good and effective

understanding and
quality description of
the full analysis and
design process
4

Outstanding description
and criticism of the
analysis and design
process in sufficient
detail

100%
completely
professional
desc and
criticism

Comment:
Student 1 (Marks Obtained)
Student 2(Marks Obtained)
Student 3(Marks Obtained)

2.7 The student's description/explanation of how he or she carried out the project and what he or she learned from it as
shown at the Presentation/Demonstration.

No Presn/Demo

No presntn or no
demo or student
unable to
articulate project
development

Presntn or demo is
limited, or the student
fails to describe some
major stages in the
project development
2

Timed and prepared

presntn, demo with
student describing
what has been learnt
3

Quality presntn and demo.

Clear and concise
description leaving listeners
with sound understanding of
project and its problems

Excellently planned and

executed presntn and
demo leaving the listeners
in no doubt of the value
of the product

100% completely
professional
presentation and demo.

Comment:
Student 1 (Marks Obtained)
Student 2(Marks Obtained)
Student 3(Marks Obtained)

General Comment (Please supply an overall comment on the students progress thus far).

Signature and Name of Panel Incharge:

Total Mark (out of 40)

Student 1

Signature and Name of Panel Member 1:

Student 2
Signature and Name of Panel Member 2
Student 3
Date:
For office use only:
Date received by award administrator:

Initial: