PROJECT REPORT

ON
“AUTOMATED TEACHER EVALUATION SYSTEM”

SUBMITTED BY

PRAJAKTA KHANDAGALE

NITIN MANKANI

RAJAT PANDE

UNDER THE GUIDENCE OF

PROF.RASHMI JOLHE

DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

DATTA MEGHE COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

SECTOR -3, AIROLI, NAVI MUMBAI- 400 708, (M.S.), INDIA

2018-2019
 PROJECT REPORT
ON
AUTOMATED TEACHER EVALUATION SYSTEM
SUBMITTED TO THE

UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Proposed to be submitted in the partial fulfillment of requirement for the

Degree of Bachelor of Engineering in Information Technology

Submitted by

PRAJAKTA KHANDAGALE

NITIN MANKANI

RAJAT PANDE

UNDER THE GUIDENCE OF

PROF. RASHMI JOLHE

DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

DATTA MEGHE COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

SECTOR -3, AIROLI, NAVI MUMBAI- 400 708, (M.S.), INDIA

2018-2019

[2]
 DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE

We wish to declare that the work embodied in this project report entitled “Automated Teacher
Evaluation System” forms our own contribution to the project work carried out under the
guidance of Mrs. Rashmi Jolhe Ass. Prof. , Department Of Information Technology, Datta
Meghe College Of Engineering, Airoli, Navi Mumbai, affiliated to University Of Mumbai.

This work is carried out, written, compiled and submitted by us for the award of degree of
Bachelor of Engineering in Information Technology at the University of Mumbai. This work has
not been submitted for any other degree of this University or any other University.

Mumbai ––––––––––––––––––––––

Date: Signature of candidate

––––––––––––––––––––––

Signature of candidate

––––––––––––––––––––––

Signature of candidate

[3]
 Datta Meghe College of Engineering
(AICTE & Govt. of Maharashtra Recognized, Affiliated to University of Mumbai)

Department of Information Technology

CERTIFICATE

Date:

This is to certify that, the project work embodied in this report entitled, “Automated Teacher
Evaluation System” submitted by Prajakta Khandagale, Nitin Mankani, Rajat Pande for the award
of Bachelor of Engineering (B.E.) degree in the subject of Information Technology, is a work
carried out by them under my guidance and supervision within the institute. The work described
in this project report is carried out by the concerned student/s and has not been submitted for the
award of any other degree of the University of Mumbai.

Further, it is certify that the student/s was regular during the academic year and has worked under
the guidance of concerned faculty until the submission of this project work at the Datta Meghe
College of Engineering.

Signature of the Guide Signature of Head of Department Signature of Principal

College seal

[4]
 DATTA MEGHE COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
Plot no 98, Cidco, Sector-3 Post Box No.15 Airoli, Navi Mumbai-400708

CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
Project Entitled: “Automated Teacher Evaluation System”
SUBMITTED BY

PRAJAKTA KHANDAGALE

NITIN MANKANI

RAJAT PANDE

In the partial fulfillment of the degree of B.E in “INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGY” is approved.

Guide(s): Examiner(s):
1. Internal: _________ 1. Internal: __________

2. External: __________

Principal HOD

[5]
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER NO. TITLE OF CHAPTER PAGE

NUMBER

CHAPTER 0 Acknowledgement 8

Abstract 9

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview 10
1.2 Background 11
1.3 Problem Statement 12
1.4 Objective and Purpose 12
1.5 Period of the project 13
1.6 Scope of the project 13
1.7 Project Specifications 14
1.8 Feasibility Study 15

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Existing Systems and Drawbacks 17

CHPTER 3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Tools and Technologies 18

3.2 Activity Diagram 19
3.3 DFD 20
3.4 Sequence Diagram 21
3.5 Use Case Diagram 22

CHAPTER 4 IMPLEMENTATION

4.1 Coding 23

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1 Data Collection 30

5.2 Screen Shots 31

[6]
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION

6.1 Conclusion 34
6.2 Limitation 34

CHAPTER 7 REFERENCES 35

[7]
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We, the undersigned, have a great pleasure in giving our sincere thanks to those people who have
contributed their valuable time in helping us to achieve the success in our project work.

We are indebted and thankful to our project guide Mrs. Rashmi Jolhe to whom we owe her
piece of knowledge for her valuable and timely guidance, co-operation, encouragement and time
spent for this project work. We also like to thanks to our IT staff for providing us sufficient
information, which helped us to complete our project successfully. We extend our sincerity
appreciation to all our professors from DATTA MEGHE COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING for
their valuable inside and tip during the designing of the project. Their contributions have been
valuable in so many ways that we find it difficult to acknowledge of them individual.

We are also grateful to our HOD Mr. Satish Devane for extending our help and last but not the
least; we wish to thank all our friends and well-wishers who are directly or indirectly linked with
the project work.

[8]
 ABSTRACT

Automated Teacher Evaluation System will give effortless gathering and more accurate data
analysis of teacher evaluation in lesser time. This system is paperless process in which the
evaluator (students, co-teacher and supervisor) will use the computer to evaluate the teacher
instead of manual process.

Its purpose is to let your teacher knows the effectiveness of the class in teaching the intended
material and value in facilitating your learning using automated teacher evaluation system for it
is designed to identify teacher strength and weaknesses.

But with the rapid growth of students nowadays, manual evaluation is causing hard
time to the dean or principal to collect all the results of said evaluation that’s why
automated teacher evaluation system is being proposed.

To secure the system we will be using PHP Framework that includes security features
and form validation.

[9]
1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 OVERVIEW

Teacher’s evaluation is widely understood to the most effective tool to improve the quality of
instruction in schools/colleges. Timely and accurate information is useful in virtually every stage
of the decision making process. Problem are identified when information reveals that some
aspects of performance can be place in the hands of decision makers, the sooner problems can be
corrected, lessening the potentially undesirable or costly consequences to the organization.

Administrator: the administrators of the institution can now focus on studying the performance
of individual teachers to identify their strengths, potentials, and weaknesses that are based on a
valid and reliable faculty performance record and effectively use the data in merit pay and
promotion decisions. This system will help the person in-charge to lessen their time spent in
processing, encoding, and computing the evaluation.

Student: the system provides the students with the freedom of expressing their appreciation and
recognition of good faculty members and a means to convey their sentiment and concerns about
their non-performing faculty members without the restrictions of time and space.

Faculty: the system will provide an instant result of the evaluation to the faculty that will help
them improve their teaching methodologies. The system will provide a score for every category
of the evaluation and displays the strong and weak points of the faculty.

[10]
1.2 BACKGROUND

Taking feedback of teachers from students in schools/colleges is an important activity of any

educational institute. Traditionally teachers’ feedback evaluation system is a questionnaire based
system where a pre-designed questionnaire form is given to each student. The form may have 5
or more questions and students assign a grade to each question for every teacher according to the
predefined measuring scale. On the basis of responses of all students, it is determined how much
a teacher is able to contribute in his/her course. The main problem of questionnaire based system
is that higher authorities identify the key points of a teacher and form question set on the basis of
their personal experiences without taking into account students’ view.

Due to this, traditional questionnaire based system becomes very restricted as students can give
their views for only those questions which are mentioned in the questionnaire. A teacher despite
having a good command over the subject may have some vital social merits/demerits which may
affect the thinking of students either in a positive way or in a negative way. Every teacher has its
own way of delivering lectures and students can easily identify the qualities/features of any
teacher. For instance, the way a teacher introduces a new topic, his/her gesture in the class,
writing skills, the method of answering questions, the knowledge of subject, etc may be more
important to a student than the actual contents covered by the teacher to complete the course.
Therefore, instead of taking pre-defined aspects, it will be more meaningful to extract the
relevant features of a teacher from students’ feedback.

To measure the effectiveness of a teacher to the satisfaction of every student, we are proposing
an aspect based sentiment evaluation system. In the proposed system, we collect student
feedback in the form of running text. Using linguistic features and machine learning techniques,
in the first phase, important aspects of teachers are identified from the collected feedbacks and
then for those aspects, the students’ views are processed to find out the sentiments of students as
either “positive” or “negative” about every teacher for all the important aspects extracted from
the data itself. This evaluation model overcomes the problems of traditional feedback system and
it also allows the administration to make use of the information about each teacher on a variety
of aspects for assigning important responsibilities to them. During the aspect identification
process, the system chooses the vital aspects by grading each aspect on the basis of feedback of
students. Aspect detection and evaluation of each aspect for every faculty allows an institute to
use this information for effective utilization of its people leading to better growth.

[11]
1.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT

Automated teacher evaluation system can rate their faculty on basis of questions provided by
administration and also student can give their comment and feedback to that particular faculty. In
admin side admin can add or delete faculty and student. Admin can add the list of questions and
decide the performance of faculty. Teaching performance evaluation is a necessary step in
ensuring good instruction. Traditionally teaching performance evaluation is used as a tool to
apprise faculty on how they are doing their job. Performance is defined as a set of outcomes
produce during a certain period of time, and does not refer to the traits, personal characteristics
or competencies of the performer.

Teacher’s evaluation is widely understood to the most effective tool to improve the quality of
instruction in colleges. Timely and accurate information is useful in virtually every stage of the
decision-making process. Problem are identified when information reveals that some aspect of
performance can be place in the hands of decision makers.

1.4 OBJECTIVE AND PURPOSE

 To reduce time spent in administering of questionnaire to respondents.
 To secure the results of faculty evaluation.
 To generate accurate results.
 To produce on time reports.
 To convert the manual process of faculty evaluation into a computerized faculty
evaluation system.

[12]
1.5 PERIOD OF THE PROJECT

Fig 1

1.6 SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

 The evaluation system will be customized by the user of how the form will look to satisfy
the evaluation process of the college.

 The evaluation form will contain three sections consisting of (a) profile, (b) performance
rating and (c) comments or feedback of the employee.

 The System Administrator will be granted authorization to overlook these evaluation

forms by adding, updating and removing the students as well as teachers records from the
system as well as monitoring the users of the system.

 The system will be used in public and can be used in multiple platforms like
smartphones, PCs, and tablet.

 The System Administrator, Head of the Department and the Dean or Principal will have
authorization in the summarized data form.

[13]
1.7 PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS

SOFTWARE SPECIFICATIONS:

 Windows 7 or higher
 XAMPP Server
 Notepad++
 My SQL 5.6.

HARDWARE SPECIFICATIONS:

 i3 Processor Based Computer or higher

 Memory: 1 GB RAM
 Hard Drive: 50 GB
 Monitor
 Internet Connection

ENVIRONMENT SPECIFICATIONS:
 Programming Language which we use PHP, HTML, and CSS
 Sentiment analysis using PHP

[14]
1.8 FEASIBILITY STUDY

A. Operational Feasibility:

Proposed projects are of course beneficial only if they can be turned into information
systems that will meet the organization’s operating requirements. Simply stated, this test
of feasibility asks if the system will work when developed and installed. Here are
questions that will help test the operational feasibility of a project:

Is there sufficient support for the project from the management and from users? If the
current system is well liked and used to extent that persons will not see reasons for a
charge, there may be resistance.

B. Technical Feasibility:

It determines if the system can be implemented using the current technology. This system
has been developed using HTML and PHP as frontend and MY SQL as backend. We
had earlier worked with HTML, PHP and MY SQL Database so we are familiar with
both the things which made us easy to do program.

C. Implementation Feasibility:

This project can easily be made available without much consideration of the hardware
and software. The only required at the applicant’s side is updated the information of
students as well as teachers for giving feedback, which are a no difficult issue for admin.
A database server is required to set up at the admin side. After setting up the project, even
the administrator can also rate the teacher. Admin can also add, delete and update the
information of students as well as teachers.

[15]
D. Economic Feasibility

It involved estimating benefits and costs. These benefits and cost may be tangible or
intangible. Tangible benefits may include deceasing salary costs(by automating manual
procedures),preventing costly but frequent errors, sending bill earlier in the month, and
increasing control over inventory levels. Such benefits may directly estimate in rupees
without much trouble. Tangible cost is easily estimated

• The cost to conduct a full system investigation

• The cost of hardware and software for the class of application being considered

E. Behavioural Feasibility

The system working is quite easy to use by students and teachers also. User requires no
special training to operate the system. The project would be beneficial because it enhanced
the performance of college. All behavioural aspects are considered carefully and it can be
concluded that the project is behaviourally feasible. The proposed system is very effective
and it does not cause any harm.

[16]
2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Author Title Year Finding

A Ramaprasad On the definition of 1983 Lack the definition of the

feedback. Behavioural concept of feedback in
Science management theory, dealing
with communication networks
and decision processes in
living systems at the
organizational level.
Assessing Writing devoted an
Elliot, S. & C. The impact of MY 2004 entire issue to investigating
Mikulas Access! Use on student writing assessment with
automated scoring systems,
writing performance: A calling for studies to address
technology overview the impact of computer-
generated feedback on the
and four studies. quality of writing.

Karen Buhian Automated Faculty 2015 Reduction of time spent in

Evaluation System administrating of
questionnaire to
respondents. Security of
faculty evaluation.

Table 1

[17]
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 TOOLS AND TECHNOLOGIES

PHP:
Hypertext Preprocessor (or simply PHP) is a general purpose programming language originally
designed for web development. PHP originally stood for Personal Home Page, but it now stand
for the recursive intialism.
PHP code may be executed with a command line interface (CLI), embedded into HTML code, or
it can be used in combination with various web template systems, web content management
systems, and web frameworks. PHP code is usually processed by a PHP interpreter implemented
as a module in a web server or as a Common Gateway Interface (CGI) executable. The web
server combines the result of the interpreted and executed PHP code, which may be any type of
data, including images, with the generated web page. PHP can be for many programming task
outside of the web context, such as standalone graphical applications and robotics drone control.

APACHE:
Apache is the most widely used web server software. Developed and maintained by Apache
Software Foundation, Apache is an open source software available for free. It runs on 67% of all
webservers in the world. It is fast, reliable, and secure. It can be highly customized to meet the
needs of many different environments by using extensions and modules. Most WordPress
hosting providers use Apache as their web server software. However, WordPress can run on
other web server software as well.

MYSQL:
MYSQL is an open-source relational database management system (RDBMS). MYSQL is free
and open-source software under the terms of the GNU General Public License, and is also
available under a variety of proprietary licenses. MYSQL is a component of the LAMP web
application software stack, which is an acronym for Linux, Apache, MYSQL, Perl/PHP/Python.
MYSQL is used by many database-driven web applications, including Drupal, Joomla, PHPBB,
and WordPress.

[18]
3.2 ACTIVITY DIAGRAM

Fig 2

[19]
3.2 DFD (DATA FLOW DIAGRAM)

Fig 3

[20]
3.3 SEQUENCE DIAGRAM

Fig 4

[21]
3.4 USE-CASE DIAGRAM

Fig 5

[22]
4. IMPLEMENTATION

4.1 CODING

4.1.1 question.php
<?php

$abc1=mysqli_query($connection,"select * from question")or die ("query 2 incorrect.......");

while(list($question_id,$qname)=mysqli_fetch_array($abc1))

{ ?>

<tr>

<td><?php echo $question_id; ?></td>

<td><?php echo $qname; ?> </td>

<td><input type="radio" name="radio<?php echo $question_id;?>" value="Excellant"

required></td>

<td><input type="radio" name="radio<?php echo $question_id;?>" value="Good"

required></td>

<td><input type="radio" name="radio<?php echo $question_id;?>" value="Satisfactory"

required></td>

<td><input type="radio" name="radio<?php echo $question_id;?>" value="Poor"

required></td>

</tr>

?>

[23]
4.1.2 ShowAssessment.php
<?php

$Question_Eval_Array = array();

$Question_Eval_Count = array();

$questions_query = mysqli_query($connection,"SELECT * FROM `question`");

while($questions = mysqli_fetch_array($questions_query))

//echo $questions['QuestionText'];

$Question_Eval_Array[$questions['QuestionText']] = 0;

$Question_Eval_Count[$questions['QuestionText']] = 0;

$total_eval = "";

$question=mysqli_query($connection,"select
eval_id,QuestionText,eval_ans,question,comments from question inner join evaluation on
evaluation.question = question.QuestionID where tech_id = '".$teacher_id."' AND sub_id
='".$_REQUEST['subject']."' ")or die (mysqli_error($connection));

$comment = null;

$total_score = 0;

$total_rows = 0;

while ( $row_question=mysqli_fetch_array($question)) {

$comment = $row_question['comments'];

switch($row_question['eval_ans'])

[24]
{

case "Excellant":

$Question_Eval_Array[$row_question['QuestionText']] += 4;

$Question_Eval_Count[$row_question['QuestionText']]++;

break;

case "Good":

$Question_Eval_Array[$row_question['QuestionText']] += 3;

$Question_Eval_Count[$row_question['QuestionText']]++;

break;

case "Satisfactory":

$Question_Eval_Array[$row_question['QuestionText']] += 2;

$Question_Eval_Count[$row_question['QuestionText']]++;

break;

case "Poor":

$Question_Eval_Array[$row_question['QuestionText']] += 1;

$Question_Eval_Count[$row_question['QuestionText']]++;

break;

[25]
 }

?>

<table border="1" id="datatable" align="center">

<thead>

<tr>

<th>Questions</th>

<th>Average</th>

<th>Points</th>

</tr>

</thead>

<tbody>

<?php

$questions_query = mysqli_query($connection,"SELECT * FROM `question`");

while($questions = mysqli_fetch_array($questions_query))

$Question = $questions['QuestionText'];

$Avg = ($Question_Eval_Array[$Question] /
$Question_Eval_Count[$Question]);

?>

<tr>

<th><?php echo $Question?></th>

<td><?php echo $Avg;

?>

[26]
<?php

if($Avg >= 4) {

echo "Excellant";

else if($Avg >= 3 && $Avg < 4) {

echo "Good";

else if($Avg >= 2 && $Avg < 3) {

echo "Satisfactory";

else if($Avg >= 1 && $Avg < 2) {

echo "Poor";

?>

[27]
4.1.3 Sentiment-Analysis.php
<?php

if(isset($_POST["data"])) {

// Read the JSON file

$JSONFileContent = file_get_contents("./afinn111.json");

$JSONKeyValuePair = json_decode($JSONFileContent,true);

$Data = $_POST["data"];

if(strlen($Data) > 0) {

//Split the data using regular expression

$Splits = preg_split("/\W/",$Data);

//Initialize score to zero

$Score = 0;

//Loop through the 'String splitted' Data

foreach($Splits as $k)

//Check if the data exists in the Key-Value pair

if(array_key_exists(strtolower($k),$JSONKeyValuePair))

//Sum up the score

$Score += (int)$JSONKeyValuePair[strtolower($k)];

if($Score > 0)

echo "Positive";

[28]
 }

else if($Score < 0)

echo "Negative";

else if($Score == 0)

echo "Neutral";

else echo "Not available (No input)";

else

echo "Not available (No input data)";

?>

[29]
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1 DATA COLLECTION

The main motto of our project is to evaluate teacher on basis of some parameters. The current
database deals with evaluation parameters such as quality of teaching, class control and
command on students, behavior of the teacher in class, honesty and punctuality along with
supporting relations for department, evaluation, student and teacher.

Fig 6

[30]
5.2 SCREENSHOTS

Fig 7

Fig 8

[31]
Fig 9

Fig 10

[32]
Fig 11

[33]
6. CONCLUSION

6.1 CONCLUSION

 Performance evaluation is a continuous and systematic process that helps to the college
for assesses its teachers through comparison to the accepted standards. For the evaluation
to take place correctly there is a need for precise measuring techniques. The evaluation
criteria need to be correctly formulated with the accepted standards, clearly defined and
easy to observe.
 The feedback evaluation ensures objectivity in evaluation, by offering the assesse the
possibility of adjusting their image of their own performance through others’ perspective.
 Another notable difference has to do with the focus of activity; from the students’
perspective a good professor should pay attention to the relationship between professors
and students and offer personalized feedback, while professors believe that the attention
should be focused on the quality of the education process.
 The study also helps increase the objectivity and efficiency in human resources
management inside higher education institutions and the service offered to students.
 Evaluation system serves as an immediate viable alternative to the current paper based
system. It is anticipated that it will continue to serve as an evaluation system for the
Computer Graphics.

6.2 LIMITATIONS

 Only the authorized user can get the access to the system.

 Active internet connection required.

 If data is invalid, then outcome should be wrong.

 They are willing to implement the proposed system. The user or the personnel that will
use of the system does not necessarily need to be a technical expert but must have
academic experience about computer. It is a necessity to have an average functional
literacy and most importantly the user should be dedicated to learn how to use the system.

 System is limited only for college.

[34]
7. REFERENCES
[1] Avery, R., Bryant, W., Mathios, A., Kang, H., and Bell, D. (2006). Electronic Course
Evaluations: Does an Online Delivery System Influence Student Evaluations? The Journal of
Economic Education, (37(1), 21-37. Retrieved October 9, 2006, from Omnifile Full TextMega
Database.

[2] Dommeyer, C., Baum, P., and Hanna, R. (2002 September/October). College Students’
Attitudes Toward Methods of Collecting Teaching Evaluations: In-Class Versus On-Line. Journal
of Education for Business, 78(1), 11. Retrieved September 23, 2006, from Academic Search
Premier.
\
[3] Dommeyer, C., Baum, P., Hanna, R., and Chapman, K. (2004). Gathering faculty teaching
evaluations by in-class and online surveys: their effects on response rates and evaluations.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,

[4]Ha, T., Marsh, J., and Jones, J. (1998). A Web-based System for Teaching Evaluation.
Proceedings annual conference on New Challenges and Innovations in Teaching and Training into
the 21st Century.

[5]Krug, Steve. (2006). Don’t Make Me Think! A Common Sense Approach to Web Usability
(2nd ed.). Berkely, California: New Riders Publishing.

[35]