Evaluation System

Comprehensive rubric-based project evaluation with multiple evaluators

Overview

The Evaluation System in RuedaPro UNIPAZ provides a standardized, rubric-based assessment framework for engineering projects. Multiple evaluators can independently score projects across 9 comprehensive criteria, with automatic averaging to calculate final grades.

Evaluation Criteria

9-Point Rubric

Projects are assessed using a detailed rubric with 9 evaluation criteria:

1. Planteamiento del problema (Problem Statement)

Evaluates how clearly and precisely the problem is defined.

Scoring Guide:

• 1.0-2.9: Problem not clearly defined, lacks context and delimitation
• 3.0-3.9: General description with limited context and partial delimitation
• 4.0-4.4: Clear, contextualized, and delimited problem with technological need
• 4.5-5.0: Highly precise formulation with rigorous delimitation and solid technical context

2. Justificación (Justification)

Assesses the importance and relevance of the project.

Scoring Guide:

• 1.0-2.9: Weak or non-existent arguments for project importance
• 3.0-3.9: General justification with basic relevance arguments
• 4.0-4.4: Clear justification with academic support and technological relevance
• 4.5-5.0: Solid and convincing justification showing academic, technological, and social impact

3. Objetivo general (General Objective)

Reviews the main goal’s formulation and alignment with the problem.

Scoring Guide:

• 1.0-2.9: Incorrectly formulated or unrelated to the problem
• 3.0-3.9: Comprehensible but weak wording or partial alignment
• 4.0-4.4: Clear, well-written, and aligned with the problem
• 4.5-5.0: Precise, measurable, perfectly aligned with rigorous technical writing

4. Objetivos específicos (Specific Objectives)

Evaluates the specific goals’ quality and contribution to the general objective.

Scoring Guide:

• 1.0-2.9: Not presented or don’t contribute to general objective, inadequate verbs
• 3.0-3.9: Present but with weaknesses in wording or logical sequence
• 4.0-4.4: Clear, measurable, and coherent with general objective
• 4.5-5.0: Well-structured, measurable, methodologically coherent, defines clear path

5. Estado del arte / Antecedentes (State of the Art)

Assesses the literature review and background research.

Scoring Guide:

• 1.0-2.9: No background or irrelevant, without academic support
• 3.0-3.9: Basic background with little depth or few sources
• 4.0-4.4: Adequate review of previous relevant work
• 4.5-5.0: Critical analysis of scientific and technological background with updated sources

6. Metodología de desarrollo propuesta (Development Methodology)

Reviews the technical development approach.

Scoring Guide:

• 1.0-2.9: Does not define how the technological solution will be built
• 3.0-3.9: Generally describes the development process
• 4.0-4.4: Clear methodology with defined phases coherent to project type
• 4.5-5.0: Rigorous, structured methodology aligned with standards (agile or traditional)

7. Metodología de investigación propuesta (Research Methodology)

Evaluates the research approach and design.

Scoring Guide:

• 1.0-2.9: Does not identify approach or methodological design
• 3.0-3.9: Basic approach with limited description
• 4.0-4.4: Adequately defines approach, type, and research design
• 4.5-5.0: Solid methodological foundation, coherent and fully justified

8. Viabilidad del proyecto (Project Viability)

Assesses technical, economic, and operational feasibility.

Scoring Guide:

• 1.0-2.9: Does not analyze technical, economic, or operational feasibility
• 3.0-3.9: Superficial viability analysis with little evidence
• 4.0-4.4: Clear viability in technical and operational terms
• 4.5-5.0: Comprehensive evaluation of technical, economic, operational, and temporal viability

9. Claridad de la presentación (Presentation Clarity)

Evaluates the quality and professionalism of the presentation.

Scoring Guide:

• 1.0-2.9: Disorganized, unclear exposition without logical structure
• 3.0-3.9: Comprehensible but with order or clarity failures
• 4.0-4.4: Clear, organized presentation with good argumentative structure
• 4.5-5.0: Fluid, professional, well-structured presentation with topic mastery

Scoring Mechanism

Score Range

1.0 - 2.9

No cumple

Does not meet requirements

3.0 - 3.9

Cumplimiento básico

Basic compliance

4.0 - 4.4

Buen nivel

Good level

4.5 - 5.0

Excelente

Excellent

Each criterion is scored independently on a scale from 1.0 to 5.0 with 0.1 precision:

evaluacionView.js:44

<input type="number" min="1" max="5" step="0.1" class="rubric-input" value="0.0">

Input Validation

The system automatically clamps scores to valid ranges:

evaluacionView.js:213-226

function updateFinalScore() {
    const inputs = document.querySelectorAll('.rubric-input');
    let sum = 0;
    let count = 0;
    inputs.forEach(i => {
        let val = parseFloat(i.value) || 0;
        if(val > 5) { val = 5; i.value = 5; } // Clamp max
        if(val < 0) { val = 0; i.value = 0; } // Clamp min
        sum += val;
        count++;
    });
    const avg = sum / count;
    document.getElementById('final-score').innerText = avg.toFixed(1);
}

Scores are clamped between 0.0 and 5.0, and the minimum submittable score is 1.0 per the validation logic.

Evaluation Interface

Evaluation Header

When a docente starts an evaluation, they see:

evaluacionView.js:10-22

<div class="eval-header">
    <div class="eval-info">
        <h2>Sistema IoT para Invernaderos Inteligentes</h2>
        <p><strong>Categoría:</strong> <span class="badge badge-info">Desarrollo</span></p>
        <p><strong>Integrantes:</strong> Ana López, Luis Perez</p>
        <p><strong>Evaluador:</strong> Prof. Carlos Martínez</p>
        <p><strong>Periodo:</strong> 2026-1</p>
    </div>
    <div class="timer-box">
        <p>Tiempo Restante</p>
        <div class="time" id="eval-timer">15:00</div>
    </div>
</div>

Key Features:

• Project name and category
• Student team members
• Current evaluator name
• Academic period
• 15-minute countdown timer

Countdown Timer

A 15-minute timer helps evaluators manage their time:

evaluacionView.js:189-204

clearInterval(evalTimerInterval);
let timeRemaining = 15 * 60; // 15 mins in seconds
const timerEl = document.getElementById('eval-timer');

evalTimerInterval = setInterval(() => {
    timeRemaining--;
    if(timeRemaining < 0) {
        clearInterval(evalTimerInterval);
        timerEl.style.color = "var(--status-danger)";
        return;
    }
    let m = Math.floor(timeRemaining / 60);
    let s = timeRemaining % 60;
    timerEl.innerText = `${m.toString().padStart(2, '0')}:${s.toString().padStart(2, '0')}`;
}, 1000);

The timer is informational only - evaluators can still submit after time expires. However, the timer turns red when it reaches zero to signal the recommended time limit.

Real-Time Score Calculation

Automatic Average

The final score updates automatically as evaluators enter criterion scores:

evaluacionView.js:207-211

const inputs = document.querySelectorAll('.rubric-input');
inputs.forEach(input => {
    input.addEventListener('input', updateFinalScore);
});

The final score is the arithmetic mean of all 9 criteria:

$$\text{Final Score} = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{9} \text{Criterion}_i}{9}$$

Score Display

evaluacionView.js:121-129

<div class="final-score-box">
    <div>
        <h3>Calificación Final</h3>
        <p>Promedio automático de los criterios evaluados</p>
    </div>
    <div class="score-display" id="final-score">0.0</div>
    <button class="btn btn-primary" onclick="showConfirmModal()">
        <i class="fa-solid fa-paper-plane"></i> Enviar calificación
    </button>
</div>

Observations and Feedback

Feedback Text Area

Evaluators can provide written feedback:

evaluacionView.js:117-119

<label>Observaciones y Retroalimentación:</label>
<textarea class="observations" placeholder="Escriba aquí los comentarios, sugerencias de mejora y observaciones generales sobre el proyecto..."></textarea>

Observations Include:

• Strengths and areas for improvement
• Specific suggestions for enhancement
• General comments on project quality
• Constructive criticism

This text is stored in the evaluaciones.observaciones field and can be reviewed later by students and administrators.

Submission Process

Evaluation Workflow

1. Complete Rubric

   Evaluator scores all 9 criteria (minimum 1.0 per criterion)

   evaluacionView.js:232-236

   if (finalScore < 1.0) {
       alert("Debe calificar todos los criterios. El puntaje mínimo es 1.0");
       return;
   }
   
2. Add Observations

   Optional but recommended feedback text

3. Click Submit

   Evaluator clicks “Enviar calificación” button

4. Confirmation Modal

   System displays confirmation dialog:

   evaluacionView.js:238-251

   <div class="modal-overlay active" id="confirm-modal">
       <div class="modal-content">
           <i class="fa-solid fa-triangle-exclamation modal-icon"></i>
           <h3>Confirmar Envío</h3>
           <p>¿Está seguro de enviar esta calificación? Una vez enviada <strong>no podrá modificarse</strong>.</p>
           <div class="modal-actions">
               <button onclick="closeModal()">Cancelar</button>
               <button onclick="submitEvaluation()">Sí, enviar</button>
           </div>
       </div>
   </div>
   
5. Database Insertion

   System stores evaluation data:

   evaluacionView.js:273-296

   // Collect rubric data
   const rubricData = [];
   inputs.forEach((input, index) => {
       rubricData.push({
           criterioIndex: index + 1,
           puntaje: parseFloat(input.value) || 0
       });
   });
   
   const finalScore = parseFloat(document.getElementById('final-score').innerText);
   const observaciones = document.querySelector('.observations').value.trim();
   
   // Insert evaluation record
   const { error: evalErr } = await supabaseClient
       .from('evaluaciones')
       .insert([{
           proyecto_id: currentEvaluationProjectId,
           evaluador_id: currentProfile.id,
           puntaje_final: finalScore,
           observaciones: observaciones,
           rubrica_detalle: rubricData
       }]);
   
6. Check Completion Status

   System checks if ALL assigned evaluators have submitted evaluations

   evaluacionView.js:300-318

   // Count assigned evaluators
   const { data: assignedData } = await supabaseClient
       .from('proyecto_evaluadores')
       .select('evaluador_id', { count: 'exact' })
       .eq('proyecto_id', currentEvaluationProjectId);
   const totalEvaluators = assignedData.length;
   
   // Count completed evaluations
   const { data: evalsData } = await supabaseClient
       .from('evaluaciones')
       .select('evaluador_id', { count: 'exact' })
       .eq('proyecto_id', currentEvaluationProjectId);
   const totalEvaluated = evalsData.length;
   
7. Update Project Status

   If all evaluators have submitted, project status changes to “Evaluado”:

   evaluacionView.js:320-327

   if (totalEvaluated >= totalEvaluators && totalEvaluators > 0) {
       const { error: updErr } = await supabaseClient
           .from('proyectos')
           .update({ estado: 'Evaluado' })
           .eq('id', currentEvaluationProjectId);
   }
   
8. Success Confirmation

   Evaluator sees success message and returns to dashboard

   evaluacionView.js:329-334

   clearInterval(evalTimerInterval);
   closeModal();
   currentEvaluationProjectId = null;
   alert("¡Evaluación enviada con éxito!");
   navigateTo('dashboard-docente');
   

Important: Once an evaluation is submitted, it cannot be modified. This ensures fairness and prevents score manipulation after submission.

Multiple Evaluators

Independent Evaluations

Each assigned evaluator:

• Completes the rubric independently
• Cannot see other evaluators’ scores
• Submits their own observations
• Has their submission stored separately

Final Score Calculation

When a project has multiple evaluators, the final project score is calculated as:

$$\text{Project Final Score} = \frac{\sum_{j=1}^{n} \text{Evaluator}_j\text{Score}}{n}$$

Where $n$ is the number of evaluators who have submitted evaluations.

resultsView.js:96-100

let avgScore = 0;
if (p.evaluaciones && p.evaluaciones.length > 0) {
    const totalScore = p.evaluaciones.reduce((acc, curr) => acc + parseFloat(curr.puntaje_final || 0), 0);
    avgScore = parseFloat((totalScore / p.evaluaciones.length).toFixed(1));
}

This averaging system ensures fair grading even if evaluators have slightly different scoring tendencies.

Evaluation Data Structure

Database Schema

evaluaciones table:

Field	Type	Description
id	UUID	Unique evaluation identifier
proyecto_id	UUID	Foreign key to proyectos table
evaluador_id	UUID	Foreign key to perfiles table (docente)
puntaje_final	Float	Average score (1.0-5.0)
observaciones	Text	Evaluator’s written feedback
rubrica_detalle	JSONB	Array of criterion scores
created_at	Timestamp	Submission timestamp

rubrica_detalle structure:

[
  { "criterioIndex": 1, "puntaje": 4.5 },
  { "criterioIndex": 2, "puntaje": 4.2 },
  { "criterioIndex": 3, "puntaje": 4.0 },
  { "criterioIndex": 4, "puntaje": 4.3 },
  { "criterioIndex": 5, "puntaje": 3.8 },
  { "criterioIndex": 6, "puntaje": 4.1 },
  { "criterioIndex": 7, "puntaje": 3.9 },
  { "criterioIndex": 8, "puntaje": 4.4 },
  { "criterioIndex": 9, "puntaje": 4.6 }
]

This structure preserves individual criterion scores for potential detailed analysis.

Error Handling

Validation Errors

Incomplete Rubric

If final score is below 1.0:

"Debe calificar todos los criterios. El puntaje mínimo es 1.0"

Session Errors

If user is not authenticated or project ID is missing:

"Error de sesión o proyecto no seleccionado."

Database Errors

If evaluation insertion fails:

"Ocurrió un error al enviar la calificación."

Error details are logged to console for debugging.

Best Practices

Fair Evaluation

• Read full rubric descriptors before scoring
• Use the full 1.0-5.0 scale range
• Be consistent across criteria
• Provide constructive feedback

Detailed Feedback

• Write specific, actionable observations
• Highlight both strengths and improvements
• Reference specific project aspects
• Keep feedback professional and constructive

Related Features

Project Management

See how projects are created and assigned to evaluators

Results Gallery

View how evaluated projects appear in public rankings