Judging Criteria
How Projects Are Scored
Each criterion is scored on a scale of 1 to 5. Select a category below to view its full rubric.
- 1 · Needs work
- 2 · Limited
- 3 · Adequate
- 4 · Strong
- 5 · Exceptional
| Criteria | 1 Point | 2 Points | 3 Points | 4 Points | 5 Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01. Originality / Creativity | The project lacks originality and creativity, relying heavily on existing solutions. | Limited creativity with minimal innovative elements. | Some creative features, but the overall project lacks uniqueness. | Demonstrates creativity with a few original elements. | Exceptional originality and creativity are evident throughout the project. |
| 02. Practicality | The solution is impractical and lacks real-world application. | Limited practicality; the solution has minimal usefulness. | The project is somewhat practical but may have some usability issues. | Practical with a good balance of usability and functionality. | Highly practical, demonstrating a clear understanding of user needs. |
| 03. UI / UX | The user interface is confusing, and the user experience is severely compromised. | UI/UX needs improvement; navigation is not intuitive. | Acceptable UI/UX, but some aspects could be more user-friendly. | Well-designed UI/UX with good user interaction principles. | Exceptional UI/UX, creating a seamless and enjoyable user |
| 04. Functionality | The program lacks essential functionality and has numerous bugs. | Limited functionality with significant bugs or errors. | Basic functionality is present, but there are noticeable issues. | Good functionality with minor bugs that do not hinder performance. | The project demonstrates flawless functionality with no observable issues. |
| 05. Technical Skills | Little evidence of technical skills; the project seems beyond the student's abilities. | Basic technical skills demonstrated; significant room for improvement. | Competent technical skills; meets the expected standard. | Strong technical skills displayed with advanced techniques. | Exceptional technical skills; the student demonstrates mastery of programming concepts. |
| 06. Oral Presentation | Incoherent presentation; lacks structure and clarity. | Presentation is somewhat disorganized and difficult to follow. | Adequate presentation with clear communication but may lack enthusiasm. | Engaging and well-structured presentation; effectively conveys key points. | Exceptional oral presentation with enthusiasm, clarity, and strong engagement. |
| 07. Documentation | Little to no documentation provided; lacks necessary details. | Minimal documentation; insufficient details to understand the project. | Adequate documentation with some room for improvement. | Comprehensive documentation that effectively explains the project. | Exceptional documentation, providing thorough and clear insights into the project. |
| 08. The Stand Design | The stand lacks visual appeal and fails to showcase the project effectively. | Limited effort in stand design; does not attract attention. | Adequate stand design with some elements that showcase the project. | Well-designed stand that effectively highlights the project's key features. | Exceptional stand design, visually appealing, and enhances the overall presentation. |
| 09. Responsible AI Usage | AI use (if any) is opaque or improper (no credits; licensing/privacy ignored). | Minimal citation; limited oversight; unclear value added by AI. | Cited tools/models and prompts; human review present; generally appropriate. | Transparent, well-justified AI use with editing/validation and compliance. | Exemplary: ethical, transparent AI integration that elevates the product with reproducible process. |
| Criteria | 1 Point | 2 Points | 3 Points | 4 Points | 5 Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01. Originality / Creativity | The project lacks originality and creativity, resembling common solutions. | Limited creativity with minimal innovative elements. | Some creative features, but the overall project lacks uniqueness. | Demonstrates creativity with a few original elements. | Exceptional originality and creativity are evident throughout the project. |
| 02. Difficulty / Complexity | The project is overly simplistic and lacks complexity. | Limited complexity; the project needs more advanced elements. | The project demonstrates an acceptable level of difficulty and complexity. | Good complexity with a balance between simplicity and sophistication. | Exceptionally challenging and complex; goes beyond standard expectations. |
| 03. Usability (Interface) | The user interface is confusing or non-existent, hindering usability. | Limited usability; the interface needs improvement. | Acceptable usability, but some aspects could be more user-friendly. | Well-designed interface with good user interaction principles. | Exceptional usability, creating a seamless and enjoyable user experience. |
| 04. Functionality | The project lacks essential functionality and has numerous issues. | Limited functionality with significant bugs or errors. | Basic functionality is present, but there are noticeable issues. | Good functionality with minor bugs that do not hinder performance. | The project demonstrates flawless functionality with no observable issues. |
| 05. Technical Skills | Little evidence of technical skills; the project seems beyond the student's abilities. | Basic technical skills demonstrated; significant room for improvement. | Competent technical skills; meets the expected standard. | Strong technical skills displayed with advanced techniques. | Exceptional technical skills; the student demonstrates mastery of hardware control concepts. |
| 06. Oral Presentation | Incoherent presentation; lacks structure and clarity. | Presentation is somewhat disorganized and difficult to follow. | Adequate presentation with clear communication but may lack enthusiasm. | Engaging and well-structured presentation; effectively conveys key points. | Exceptional oral presentation with enthusiasm, clarity, and strong engagement. |
| 07. Documentation | Little to no documentation provided; lacks necessary details. | Minimal documentation; insufficient details to understand the project. | Adequate documentation with some room for improvement. | Comprehensive documentation that effectively explains the project. | Exceptional documentation, providing thorough and clear insights into the project. |
| 08. The Stand Design | The stand lacks visual appeal and fails to showcase the project effectively. | Limited effort in stand design; does not attract attention. | Adequate stand design with some elements that showcase the project. | Well-designed stand that effectively highlights the project's key features. | Exceptional stand design, visually appealing, and enhances the overall presentation. |
| 09. Responsible AI Usage | AI use (if any) is opaque or improper (no credits; licensing/privacy ignored). | Minimal citation; limited oversight; unclear value added by AI. | Cited tools/models and prompts; human review present; generally appropriate. | Transparent, well-justified AI use with editing/validation and compliance. | Exemplary: ethical, transparent AI integration that elevates the product with reproducible process. |
| Criteria | 1 Point | 2 Points | 3 Points | 4 Points | 5 Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01. Originality / Creativity | The artwork lacks originality and creativity, resembling common themes. | Limited creativity with minimal innovative elements. | Some creative features, but the overall artwork lacks uniqueness. | Demonstrates creativity with a few original elements. | Exceptional originality and creativity are evident throughout the artwork. |
| 02. Visual Impact | The artwork lacks visual appeal and fails to captivate the viewer. | Limited visual impact; the artwork needs more compelling elements. | The artwork has some visual appeal but lacks overall impact. | Good visual impact with a balance between elements. | Exceptional visual impact; the artwork is visually striking and memorable. |
| 03. Message & Idea | The artwork lacks a clear message or idea, making it difficult to interpret. | Limited message or idea; the concept needs more development. | The artwork conveys a message or idea, but it could be more clearly defined. | Good incorporation of message and idea with room for refinement. | Exceptional integration of a clear and thought-provoking message or idea. |
| 04. Technical Skills | Little evidence of technical skills; the artwork seems beyond the student's abilities. | Basic technical skills demonstrated; significant room for improvement. | Competent technical skills; meets the expected standard. | Strong technical skills displayed with advanced techniques. | Exceptional technical skills; the student demonstrates mastery of digital art concepts. |
| 05. Oral Presentation | Incoherent presentation; lacks structure and clarity. | Presentation is somewhat disorganized and difficult to follow. | Adequate presentation with clear communication but may lack enthusiasm. | Engaging and well-structured presentation; effectively conveys key points. | Exceptional oral presentation with enthusiasm, clarity, and strong engagement. |
| 06. Documentation | Little to no documentation provided; lacks necessary details. | Minimal documentation; insufficient details to understand the artwork. | Adequate documentation with some room for improvement. | Comprehensive documentation that effectively explains the creative process. | Exceptional documentation, providing thorough and clear insights into the artwork's creation. |
| 07. The Stand Design | The stand lacks visual appeal and fails to showcase the project effectively. | Limited effort in stand design; does not attract attention. | Adequate stand design with some elements that showcase the project. | Well-designed stand that effectively highlights the project's key features. | Exceptional stand design, visually appealing, and enhances the overall presentation. |
| 08. Responsible AI Usage | AI use (if any) is opaque or improper (no credits; licensing/privacy ignored). | Minimal citation; limited oversight; unclear value added by AI. | Cited tools/models and prompts; human review present; generally appropriate. | Transparent, well-justified AI use with editing/validation and compliance. | Exemplary: ethical, transparent AI integration that elevates the product with reproducible process. |
| 09. Narrative Structure & Story Flow | Disjointed; poor pacing; hard to follow. | Uneven flow; confusing transitions or continuity issues. | Coherent structure; pacing mostly works; minor issues. | Well-paced, purposeful scenes or beats; effective transitions. | Expert flow (linear or branching) that sustains engagement throughout. |
| Criteria | 1 Point | 2 Points | 3 Points | 4 Points | 5 Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01. Originality / Creativity | The project lacks originality and creativity, relying heavily on existing solutions. | Limited creativity with minimal innovative elements. | Some creative features, but the overall project lacks uniqueness. | Demonstrates creativity with a few original elements. | Exceptional originality and creativity are evident throughout the project. |
| 02. Practicality | The solution is impractical and lacks real-world application. | Limited practicality; the solution has minimal usefulness. | The project is somewhat practical but may have some usability issues. | Practical with a good balance of usability and functionality. | Highly practical, demonstrating a clear understanding of user needs. |
| 03. UI / UX | The user interface is confusing, and the user experience is severely compromised. | UI/UX needs improvement; navigation is not intuitive. | Acceptable UI/UX, but some aspects could be more user-friendly. | Well-designed UI/UX with good user interaction principles. | Exceptional UI/UX, creating a seamless and enjoyable user |
| 04. Functionality | The program lacks essential functionality and has numerous bugs. | Limited functionality with significant bugs or errors. | Basic functionality is present, but there are noticeable issues. | Good functionality with minor bugs that do not hinder performance. | The project demonstrates flawless functionality with no observable issues. |
| 05. Technical Skills | Little evidence of technical skills; the project seems beyond the student's abilities. | Basic technical skills demonstrated; significant room for improvement. | Competent technical skills; meets the expected standard. | Strong technical skills displayed with advanced techniques. | Exceptional technical skills; the student demonstrates mastery of programming concepts. |
| 06. Oral Presentation | Incoherent presentation; lacks structure and clarity. | Presentation is somewhat disorganized and difficult to follow. | Adequate presentation with clear communication but may lack enthusiasm. | Engaging and well-structured presentation; effectively conveys key points. | Exceptional oral presentation with enthusiasm, clarity, and strong engagement. |
| 07. Responsible AI Usage | AI use (if any) is opaque or improper (no credits; licensing/privacy ignored). | Minimal citation; limited oversight; unclear value added by AI. | Cited tools/models and prompts; human review present; generally appropriate. | Transparent, well-justified AI use with editing/validation and compliance. | Exemplary: ethical, transparent AI integration that elevates the product with reproducible process. |
| Criteria | 1 Point | 2 Points | 3 Points | 4 Points | 5 Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01. Originality / Creativity | The artwork lacks originality and creativity, resembling common themes. | Limited creativity with minimal innovative elements. | Some creative features, but the overall artwork lacks uniqueness. | Demonstrates creativity with a few original elements. | Exceptional originality and creativity are evident throughout the artwork. |
| 02. Visual Impact | The artwork lacks visual appeal and fails to captivate the viewer. | Limited visual impact; the artwork needs more compelling elements. | The artwork has some visual appeal but lacks overall impact. | Good visual impact with a balance between elements. | Exceptional visual impact; the artwork is visually striking and memorable. |
| 03. Message & Idea | The artwork lacks a clear message or idea, making it difficult to interpret. | Limited message or idea; the concept needs more development. | The artwork conveys a message or idea, but it could be more clearly defined. | Good incorporation of message and idea with room for refinement. | Exceptional integration of a clear and thought-provoking message or idea. |
| 04. Technical Skills | Little evidence of technical skills; the artwork seems beyond the student's abilities. | Basic technical skills demonstrated; significant room for improvement. | Competent technical skills; meets the expected standard. | Strong technical skills displayed with advanced techniques. | Exceptional technical skills; the student demonstrates mastery of digital art concepts. |
| 05. Oral Presentation | Incoherent presentation; lacks structure and clarity. | Presentation is somewhat disorganized and difficult to follow. | Adequate presentation with clear communication but may lack enthusiasm. | Engaging and well-structured presentation; effectively conveys key points. | Exceptional oral presentation with enthusiasm, clarity, and strong engagement. |
| 06. Responsible AI Usage | AI use (if any) is opaque or improper (no credits; licensing/privacy ignored). | Minimal citation; limited oversight; unclear value added by AI. | Cited tools/models and prompts; human review present; generally appropriate. | Transparent, well-justified AI use with editing/validation and compliance. | Exemplary: ethical, transparent AI integration that elevates the product with reproducible process. |
| 07. Narrative Structure & Story Flow | Disjointed; poor pacing; hard to follow. | Uneven flow; confusing transitions or continuity issues. | Coherent structure; pacing mostly works; minor issues. | Well-paced, purposeful scenes or beats; effective transitions. | Expert flow (linear or branching) that sustains engagement throughout. |