Comprehensive evaluation tool for Lesson 12 hands-on AI project
| Criterion | 4 Excellent | 3 Good | 2 Satisfactory | 1 Needs Improvement | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Functionality
(10 points)
|
AI model works consistently and reliably. All features function as intended. Demonstrates robust performance across multiple tests. | AI model works most of the time with minor occasional errors. Core features function properly with rare glitches. | AI model works but with noticeable errors or inconsistencies. Some features may not function fully as intended. | AI model rarely works or has significant functionality issues. Many features do not work properly. | |
|
Accuracy
(10 points)
|
AI achieves 85%+ accuracy. Makes correct predictions consistently. Minimal confusion between categories. Well-trained model. | AI achieves 70-84% accuracy. Usually makes correct predictions. Some category confusion but generally reliable. | AI achieves 55-69% accuracy. Makes correct predictions more often than not but with frequent errors. | AI achieves below 55% accuracy. Frequently makes incorrect predictions. Significant category confusion. | |
|
Training Data Quality
(8 points)
|
100+ high-quality samples per category. Diverse, balanced dataset. Variety in angles, lighting, backgrounds. Excellent data collection practices. | 60-99 samples per category. Good variety and balance. Shows understanding of diverse training data needs. | 30-59 samples per category. Limited variety or slight imbalance. Basic understanding of data collection. | Under 30 samples per category. Poor variety or significant imbalance. Insufficient training data collected. | |
|
Technical Implementation
(7 points)
|
Excellent use of chosen platform. Advanced features implemented. Clean, organized project structure. Shows technical proficiency. | Good platform usage. Core features properly implemented. Organized project. Demonstrates solid technical skills. | Basic platform usage. Required features implemented. Some organization. Shows basic technical understanding. | Poor platform usage. Missing key features. Disorganized project. Limited technical understanding shown. | |
|
Iteration & Testing
(5 points)
|
Multiple iteration cycles documented. Systematic testing approach. Clear improvements made based on results. Excellent problem-solving. | At least one complete iteration cycle. Structured testing conducted. Improvements made. Good problem-solving shown. | Limited iteration. Some testing conducted. Minor improvements attempted. Basic problem-solving approach. | No clear iteration. Minimal testing. Few or no improvements made. Limited problem-solving. |
| Criterion | 4 Excellent | 3 Good | 2 Satisfactory | 1 Needs Improvement | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Clarity & Organization
(7 points)
|
Exceptionally clear and well-organized presentation. Logical flow. All key points covered systematically. Easy to follow. | Clear and organized presentation. Good flow. Most key points covered. Generally easy to follow. | Somewhat organized presentation. Basic flow. Some key points covered. Occasionally hard to follow. | Disorganized presentation. Poor flow. Missing key points. Difficult to follow. | |
|
Technical Explanation
(7 points)
|
Excellent technical explanation. Clear understanding demonstrated. Appropriate vocabulary used. Concepts explained simply and accurately. | Good technical explanation. Solid understanding shown. Mostly appropriate vocabulary. Concepts explained adequately. | Basic technical explanation. Limited understanding shown. Some vocabulary issues. Concepts partially explained. | Poor technical explanation. Little understanding demonstrated. Inappropriate vocabulary. Concepts not clearly explained. | |
|
Live Demonstration
(6 points)
|
Excellent demonstration. Multiple examples shown. AI performance clearly illustrated. Confident handling of demo. Explains results well. | Good demonstration. Adequate examples shown. AI performance illustrated. Handles demo competently. Explains most results. | Basic demonstration. Limited examples. AI performance partially shown. Some demo difficulties. Limited explanation. | Poor or no demonstration. Few/no examples. AI performance not shown. Significant demo problems. Little explanation. | |
|
Delivery & Engagement
(5 points)
|
Confident, enthusiastic delivery. Excellent eye contact. Clear speaking voice. Engages audience effectively. Shows passion for project. | Confident delivery. Good eye contact. Clear voice. Engages audience. Shows interest in project. | Adequate delivery. Some eye contact. Audible voice. Limited audience engagement. Basic enthusiasm. | Weak delivery. Poor eye contact. Unclear voice. No audience engagement. Little enthusiasm shown. |
| Criterion | 4 Excellent | 3 Good | 2 Satisfactory | 1 Needs Improvement | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Planning Documentation
(5 points)
|
Complete, detailed planning worksheet. Clear problem identification. Well-thought-out design decisions. Comprehensive planning evident. | Complete planning worksheet. Clear problem identification. Good design decisions. Solid planning shown. | Mostly complete planning worksheet. Basic problem identification. Some design decisions. Limited planning detail. | Incomplete planning worksheet. Unclear problem identification. Poor design decisions. Minimal planning. | |
|
Testing Documentation
(5 points)
|
Thorough testing checklist completed. Detailed test results recorded. Clear identification of issues and solutions. Excellent documentation. | Complete testing checklist. Good test results recorded. Issues and solutions identified. Solid documentation. | Basic testing checklist completed. Some test results recorded. Limited issue identification. Minimal documentation. | Incomplete testing checklist. Few test results recorded. No issue identification. Poor documentation. | |
|
Reflection & Analysis
(5 points)
|
Thoughtful, detailed reflection. Deep analysis of process and results. Clear learning outcomes identified. Insightful future improvements proposed. | Good reflection. Solid analysis of process. Learning outcomes identified. Reasonable future improvements proposed. | Basic reflection. Limited analysis. Some learning outcomes mentioned. Few future improvements suggested. | Minimal reflection. Little analysis. Unclear learning outcomes. No future improvements proposed. | |
|
Presentation Template
(5 points)
|
All sections completed thoroughly. Clear, detailed responses. Excellent organization. Professional presentation of information. | All sections completed. Clear responses. Good organization. Solid presentation of information. | Most sections completed. Basic responses. Some organization. Adequate presentation of information. | Many sections incomplete. Unclear responses. Poor organization. Weak presentation of information. |
| Criterion | 5 Excellent | 3-4 Good | 2 Satisfactory | 1 Needs Improvement | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Usability & User Experience
(5 points)
|
AI is highly intuitive and easy to use. Excellent user interface. Clear instructions provided. Positive user experience. Professional polish. | AI is easy to use. Good user interface. Instructions provided. Positive user experience. Good polish. | AI is somewhat usable. Basic interface. Limited instructions. Adequate user experience. Some polish. | AI is difficult to use. Poor interface. No instructions. Negative user experience. Little polish. | |
|
Peer Feedback Given
(5 points)
|
Provided thoughtful, specific, constructive feedback to peers. Excellent suggestions for improvement. Professional and kind tone. | Provided good, specific feedback to peers. Helpful suggestions. Constructive and respectful tone. | Provided basic feedback to peers. Some suggestions. Generally constructive tone. | Provided minimal or unhelpful feedback. Few suggestions. Inappropriate tone. | |
|
Response to Feedback
(5 points)
|
Actively incorporated peer feedback into improvements. Open to suggestions. Demonstrated growth mindset. Made meaningful revisions. | Considered peer feedback. Generally receptive to suggestions. Some revisions made based on feedback. | Acknowledged peer feedback. Limited receptiveness. Few revisions made. | Ignored peer feedback. Resistant to suggestions. No revisions made. |
Strengths
Areas for Improvement
Overall Comments