Lecturer & Peer Assessment

HCI / UX Design Project
Grading Rubric

Criterion-based assessment guide integrating expert evaluation and peer accountability for transparent, defensible grading.

Excellent 90–100%
Good 75–89%
Satisfactory 60–74%
Needs Improvement <60%
Proposal & Research
20%
Ideation & Lo-Fi
20%
Usability Testing
20%
Hi-Fi & Accessibility
25%
Report & Portfolio
15%
Group Score
—
01 Project Proposal and User Research 20% ▼
1a. Innovation and ConceptSub-weight: 7 / 20 pts
Excellent
90–100%
Proposes a genuinely novel interaction technique or interface with a clearly articulated gap in existing solutions. The real-world problem is specific, scoped, and validated with preliminary evidence.
Good
75–89%
Concept addresses a real problem with a meaningful interaction novelty. The gap in existing solutions is identified but may rely partly on assertion rather than evidence.
Satisfactory
60–74%
Concept is functional and well-intentioned but represents an incremental or derivative approach. Novelty claims are not strongly justified.
Needs Improvement
<60%
Concept replicates an existing product without meaningful differentiation. No novel interaction technique is proposed.
1a — Assign level:
or score:
Grader notes — 1a
1b. User Empathy and UnderstandingSub-weight: 7 / 20 pts
Excellent
90–100%
Conducts 4+ interviews with representative users. Empathy maps synthesize dimensions. Personas derived from grouped patterns, not individual profiles.
Good
75–89%
Conducts 3+ interviews. Empathy maps present but may conflate assumptions with data. Personas are plausible and pattern-based.
Satisfactory
60–74%
Fewer than 3 interviews, or unrepresentative participants. Empathy maps shallow. Personas feel assumption-driven.
Needs Improvement
<60%
No user interviews conducted. Personas fictional. Research artifacts appear fabricated.
1b — Assign level:
or score:
Grader notes — 1b
1c. Problem DefinitionSub-weight: 6 / 20 pts
Excellent
90–100%
Journey maps trace experience with emotional arcs. Problem statement follows a testable format. Goals are measurable and grounded.
Good
75–89%
Journey maps mostly accurate. Problem statement is user-centered but contains implicit assumptions.
Satisfactory
60–74%
Journey maps generic. Problem statement is solution-framing. Hypothesis untestable.
Needs Improvement
<60%
No journey maps. Problem statement absent or circular. No user evidence cited.
1c — Assign level:
or score:
Grader notes — 1c
02 Ideation and Low-Fidelity Prototyping 20% ▼
2a. Ideation ProcessSub-weight: 7 / 20 pts
Excellent
90–100%
Audit covers 4+ competitors. HMW questions reframed from research pain points.
Good
75–89%
Audit covers 3+ competitors. HMW questions mostly derived from research.
Satisfactory
60–74%
Audit exists but is superficial. HMW questions feel generic.
Needs Improvement
<60%
No structured audit or HMW questions. Designs lack methodology.
2a — Assign level:
or score:
Grader notes — 2a
2b. Information ArchitectureSub-weight: 6 / 20 pts
Excellent
90–100%
User flows cover primary and edge cases. Sitemap is hierarchically accurate.
Good
75–89%
Flows cover primary paths. Sitemap is consistent with wireframes.
Satisfactory
60–74%
Flows only show happy path. Sitemap exists but doesn't match prototype.
Needs Improvement
<60%
IA artifacts missing, inaccurate, or unrelated to design.
2b — Assign level:
or score:
Grader notes — 2b
2c. WireframingSub-weight: 7 / 20 pts
Excellent
90–100%
Exploratory iteration on paper. Digital lo-fi utilizes standard symbols. Functional navigation.
Good
75–89%
2+ variations per key screen. Digital wireframes mostly standard.
Satisfactory
60–74%
Single concept per screen. Digital wireframes prematurely styled.
Needs Improvement
<60%
No wireframes or screenshot copies of existing apps.
2c — Assign level:
or score:
Grader notes — 2c
03 Usability Testing and Iteration 20% ▼
3a. Testing ExecutionSub-weight: 7 / 20 pts
Excellent
90–100%
Recruits 4–5 target users. Protocol includes think-aloud prompts and detailed notes.
Good
75–89%
Tests with 3–4 users. Protocol structured. Minor gaps in representativeness.
Satisfactory
60–74%
Tests 3 users (some non-target). Protocol informal. Confirmatory testing.
Needs Improvement
<60%
Fewer than 3 users. Anecdotal feedback with no behavioral observations.
3a — Assign level:
or score:
Grader notes — 3a
3b. Synthesizing InsightsSub-weight: 6 / 20 pts
Excellent
90–100%
Affinity diagram with insight statements. P0/P1/P2 uses explicit rationale.
Good
75–89%
Affinity diagram present. Prioritization applied but logic partially implicit.
Satisfactory
60–74%
Broad category labels instead of insights. Prioritization appears arbitrary.
Needs Improvement
<60%
No diagram. P0/P1/P2 absent or misapplied.
3b — Assign level:
or score:
Grader notes — 3b
3c. Design IterationSub-weight: 7 / 20 pts
Excellent
90–100%
All P0/P1 issues addressed. Before/after comparisons map directly to insights.
Good
75–89%
Most P1s addressed. Before/after exists. Rationale provided for major changes.
Satisfactory
60–74%
Some P0s unaddressed. Iteration is cosmetic or difficult to distinguish.
Needs Improvement
<60%
No documented iteration. Prototype ignores testing findings.
3c — Assign level:
or score:
Grader notes — 3c
04 High-Fidelity Prototyping and Accessibility 25% ▼
4a. Visual DesignSub-weight: 9 / 25 pts
Excellent
90–100%
Deliberate scale, consistent hierarchy. Real design system evident in Figma.
Good
75–89%
Hierarchy clear, palette consistent. Minor spacing inconsistencies.
Satisfactory
60–74%
Visually functional but lacks coherent system. Typography inconsistent.
Needs Improvement
<60%
Resembles wireframe with colors. No visual language.
4a — Assign level:
or score:
Grader notes — 4a
4b. Novel InteractionSub-weight: 9 / 25 pts
Excellent
90–100%
Interaction communicated unambiguously. States (error, success) prototyped.
Good
75–89%
Mechanism mostly clear but may require slight verbal explanation.
Satisfactory
60–74%
Partially prototyped. Static screens presented where animation is needed.
Needs Improvement
<60%
No novel interaction prototyped. Presenter relies fully on imagination.
4b — Assign level:
or score:
Grader notes — 4b
4c. AccessibilitySub-weight: 7 / 25 pts
Excellent
90–100%
Identifies ≥3 specific accessibility considerations relevant to target modality and implements them.
Good
75–89%
Identifies 2–3 considerations. Contrast checked. Some gaps acknowledged.
Satisfactory
60–74%
Surface-level generic considerations. No WCAG evidence verified.
Needs Improvement
<60%
Accessibility ignored or fails critical WCAG criteria (e.g., color alone).
4c — Assign level:
or score:
Grader notes — 4c
05 Final Presentation & Report 15% ▼
5a. PresentationSub-weight: 4 / 15 pts
Excellent
90–100%
Coherent narrative. Slides not text-dense. Time managed perfectly.
Good
75–89%
Covers required topics. Delivered with competence. Time managed well.
Satisfactory
60–74%
Slides used as speaker notes. Sections superficial. Exceeds time limit.
Needs Improvement
<60%
Presenter reads verbatim. Design work poorly communicated.
5a — Assign level:
or score:
5b. Project ReportSub-weight: 6 / 15 pts
Excellent
90–100%
HCI frameworks explicitly applied. Failures discussed honestly. Academic writing.
Good
75–89%
Process well-documented. HCI principles present but slightly superficial.
Satisfactory
60–74%
Documentation gaps. Frameworks named but not operationalized.
Needs Improvement
<60%
Informal document. Major sections absent. Reads as a log, not a report.
5b — Assign level:
or score:
5c. Portfolio Case StudySub-weight: 5 / 15 pts
Excellent
90–100%
Communicates rationale, research, and impact. Production-quality visuals.
Good
75–89%
Visuals polished. Covers required elements with minor depth gaps.
Satisfactory
60–74%
Surface-level rationale. Requires significant revision for portfolios.
Needs Improvement
<60%
No distinct artifact, or unannotated screens. No design rationale.
5c — Assign level:
or score:
GROUP SCORE DASHBOARD
S1 (20%)
—
S2 (20%)
—
S3 (20%)
—
S4 (25%)
—
S5 (15%)
—
Overall Grader Feedback
👥 Peer Evaluation Form

Evaluate your team member's contribution to the project. Please ensure you have selected your Group in the header above before submitting. Your responses will influence their final individual grade.

Attended meetings, met internal deadlines, and communicated availability clearly.

Delivered usable, high-quality project components (research, designs, report writing).

Responded to messages, collaborated constructively, and supported other members.

✓ SAVED SUCCESSFULLY
🔒 Lecturer Final Grade Calculation

This dashboard calculates individual grades by applying the Average Peer Score (Multiplier) to the Base Group Score. Formula: Final Grade = Group Score × (Peer Avg / 100).

Select a group from the header to view calculated grades.
Academic integrity note. All user research data and peer evaluations must be retained. Fabricated artifacts will result in a zero for the affected section. Final grades are a composite of Expert Assessed Group Scores and Peer Accountability Multipliers.