KEMBAR78
Python Lab Internal Rubrics 15 M | PDF | Rubric (Academic) | Experiment
Scribd
Upload
256 views1 page

Python Lab Internal Rubrics 15 M

This document provides a rubric for evaluating student lab work in the Department of Aeronautical Engineering's Python Lab. It outlines several evaluation parameters including aim and theory, formulae and data, code/procedure, results and discussion, viva voce, and record. For each parameter, it describes the criteria for excellent, good, fair, and poor work and the corresponding marks scored. The total possible marks for the lab work evaluation are 15.

Uploaded by

Lostxout
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
256 views1 page

Python Lab Internal Rubrics 15 M

This document provides a rubric for evaluating student lab work in the Department of Aeronautical Engineering's Python Lab. It outlines several evaluation parameters including aim and theory, formulae and data, code/procedure, results and discussion, viva voce, and record. For each parameter, it describes the criteria for excellent, good, fair, and poor work and the corresponding marks scored. The total possible marks for the lab work evaluation are 15.

Uploaded by

Lostxout
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Department of Aeronautical Engineering

(Python Lab)
Name of the Exam: Date:
Roll Number: Class:
Name of the Experiment:

Rubrics for Evaluation of Lab work


Evaluation Marks
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Parameter scored
States the Aim clearly and
States Aim of the States Aim & theory,
completely. Includes No theory or
Aim, Introduction lab clearly with but is unclear
theory needed to objective is
& theory minor errors or and/or has a major
understand the included.
(2M) omissions. error or omissions.
experiments (0 M)
(1.5 M) (1 M)
(2 M)
Procedure is clearly Minor errors No Procedure or
Major errors and/or
Formulae & Data explained with enough and/or apparatus sketch
omissions.
(3M) detail and no errors. omissions. is included.
(1 M)
(3 M) (2 M) (0 M)
Data is presented in Data is not
Table is accurate and written form but no presented
Code/Procedure/ complete and labeled Minor errors or tables or charts inaccurately or is
Sequence of Steps Calculations clearly and omissions and/or major errors missing.
(3 M) correctly shown. (2 M) .Very few Calculations are
(3 M) calculations. missing.
(1 M) (0 M)
Analysis
Brief and/or major
Discussion is detailed and Somewhat questions
Results and errors or omissions
includes the relationship detailed and/or responses are
Discussion & Overall, section is
between data. Results with minor errors or missing
conclusion not very thoroughly
units. omissions. completely, No
(2M) done.
(2M) (1M) results
(0.5M)
(0M)
Answers 50% of Answers 25% of Doesn’t answer
Viva Voce Answers all questions
questions questions any question –
(3M) (3M)
(2M) (1M) (0M)
50% of
Record Experiments 25% of Experiments Doesn’t have
Record
evaluation evaluated in evaluated in time Record
(2M)
(2M) time (0.5M) (0M)
(1M)
Total Marks- 15 M (15) (9.5) (5) (0)

Evaluator’s Name & Signature with date:

You might also like