Case Study Rubric for Bachelor's Computer Science

Key Indicators

• •Formulates technically viable architectures or algorithms aligned with case requirements
• •Justifies engineering decisions using explicit evidence from the case context
• •Analyzes trade-offs between competing constraints (e.g., CAP theorem implications, performance vs. cost)
• •Identifies potential failure modes, security risks, or scalability bottlenecks in the design
• •Synthesizes theoretical computer science concepts with practical implementation details

Grading Guidance

The transition from Level 1 to Level 2 hinges on the presence of a relevant technical proposal. While Level 1 responses may simply restate the problem or list unrelated technologies, Level 2 responses attempt to map a specific solution to the case, even if the justification is weak or the technology fit is generic. The student moves from passivity to proposing a basic, albeit potentially flawed, course of action. To reach Level 3, the student must move from generic suggestions to justified technical decisions. Unlike Level 2 work, which might suggest 'using a database' without rationale, Level 3 work specifies the technology stack (e.g., SQL vs. NoSQL) and grounds that choice in the case's functional requirements. The solution is technically viable, and the student demonstrates an awareness of primary trade-offs, marking the shift from guessing to basic engineering competence. The leap to Level 4 involves a rigorous, multi-dimensional analysis of trade-offs and constraints. While Level 3 focuses on finding a solution that works, Level 4 evaluates why this solution is superior to alternatives, explicitly discussing tensions like latency versus consistency or security versus usability. Level 5 distinguishes itself through foresight and professional maturity; the student anticipates second-order effects—such as long-term maintainability or migration risks—and synthesizes a solution that optimally balances technical elegance with business reality.

Proficiency Levels

Key Indicators

• •Structures arguments hierarchically from high-level system problems to root causes
• •Bridges technical findings explicitly to business or functional impact statements
• •Sequences paragraphs to build a cumulative case rather than listing isolated facts
• •Integrates code snippets, diagrams, and data naturally into the textual narrative
• •Derives conclusions directly from the preceding chain of technical evidence

Grading Guidance

Moving from Level 1 to Level 2 requires the student to organize information into a recognizable structure (Introduction, Analysis, Conclusion) rather than presenting a disorganized dump of technical observations. While a Level 1 submission often reads as a stream of consciousness or a disconnected list of bullet points, a Level 2 submission attempts to group related technical details together, even if the transitions between these groups are abrupt or the logical connection to the main problem is weak. To cross the competence threshold from Level 2 to Level 3, the student must establish clear logical bridges between paragraphs. Where Level 2 work might jump from a database schema issue to a networking protocol without context, Level 3 work uses transitional sentences to explain why the analysis is shifting focus. The narrative flows logically from the problem statement to the evidence, ensuring the reader understands the relevance of each technical component before diving into the details. The leap from Level 3 to Level 4 involves the hierarchical organization of complex information. A Level 4 analysis doesn't just sequence topics linearly; it prioritizes them based on impact, effectively layering technical depth. The student distinguishes between primary drivers and secondary factors, creating a persuasive narrative arc. Finally, achieving Level 5 requires a seamless synthesis where the conclusion feels inevitable because the sequencing of evidence has systematically eliminated other possibilities, demonstrating a mastery of technical storytelling that anticipates and addresses reader questions within the flow.

Proficiency Levels

Key Indicators

• •Integrates precise domain-specific terminology accurately within technical descriptions.
• •Formats citations and references strictly according to specified standards (e.g., IEEE/ACM).
• •Constructs standard-compliant visual aids (UML, flowcharts) with appropriate labels and captions.
• •Maintains a formal, objective tone free of colloquialisms or subjective qualifiers.
• •Eliminates mechanical errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation to ensure readability.

Grading Guidance

Moving from Level 1 to Level 2 requires shifting from informal or chaotic writing to a recognizable attempt at a technical format. The student must reduce distracting mechanical errors enough to allow basic readability and attempt to use some CS terminology, even if occasionally imprecise. Citations may be present but inconsistent, and diagrams are likely hand-drawn or utilize non-standard notation, yet they indicate an awareness of the need for visual representation. To cross the competence threshold into Level 3, the work must achieve mechanical stability and strict standard compliance. Terminology usage becomes generally accurate, preventing confusion about technical concepts (e.g., correctly distinguishing between 'authentication' and 'authorization'). Citations follow the required style guide with only minor formatting slips, and visual aids use correct standard notation (such as proper UML arrowheads) rather than ad-hoc drawing styles, ensuring the document looks like a formal case study. Progression to Level 4 distinguishes compliance from professional polish. The writing becomes concise and fluid, integrating visual aids seamlessly into the text with specific references rather than leaving them floating. Technical vocabulary is used with precision to condense complex ideas, and the document is virtually free of mechanical errors. Finally, reaching Level 5 requires achieving a publication-ready standard where communication explicitly enhances the technical argument; visual aids are professionally styled for maximum clarity, and citation management is flawless, demonstrating a rigorous command of industry conventions.

Proficiency Levels