Factors for Consideration in Capstone Design Assessment Schemes: A Systematic Review and Critical Reflection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Grading schemes in engineering capstone design courses—whether numeric, letter-based, or pass/fail—may impact student learning, motivation, and stress. Given the summative nature of capstone courses and their influence on graduate studies and employment, understanding grading implications is essential. Despite ongoing discussions about grading, there is limited research on how different grading schemes affect motivation and learning outcomes in capstone courses. A systematic literature review produced over 1000 results, of which 35 were deemed relevant and further analyzed. The review found no studies comparing grading schemes in capstone courses or their effects on motivation, stress, or mark inflation. Six key themes are highlighted: grading scheme characteristics, quantitative scoring, lack of critical grading, project variance, instructor competency, and team project challenges. The research highlights gaps in assessment methods and suggests future study areas to assess grading practices in capstone courses, including instructor training, assessment structures, and grading’s role in student development.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".