Capstone projects at BCIT are designed to allow students to demonstrate the knowledge and skills they have gained throughout their diploma or degree program. They involve undertaking a substantive project related to the student’s field of study, where the student works independently while receiving guidance from an instructor or industry mentor. Due to the significant role capstone projects play in assessing student learning outcomes, BCIT has developed a rigorous process for evaluating these projects.
The evaluation of capstone projects at BCIT is centered around clear evaluation criteria that are shared with students early in the capstone experience. These criteria cover all aspects of the capstone from formulation of objectives, design of the project plan, implementation, outcomes, and presentation of results. For example, criteria related to the project plan may include elements such as a well-defined statement of work, timelines, budget, logical approach to tasks, and identification of risks and limitations. Criteria for implementation cover project management competencies like task tracking, issue resolution, use of tools/methodologies, safety practices, and adaptability to changes. Evaluation of outcomes focuses on technical merits such as fulfillment of objectives, quality/reliability of results, documentation of findings, and achievement of deliverables. Presentation criteria assess communication skills through organization, clarity, use of media, poise during questions, and ability to convey the significance of the work.
The capstone evaluation criteria are intended to reflect expectations that graduates should demonstrate based on the program and course learning outcomes. Instructors work with advisory boards and accreditation bodies to ensure criteria align with needs of the profession/industry. Students get guidance on applying the criteria to their projects through instruction and formative feedback over the capstone term. This support helps surface any gaps in skills early so remedial action can be taken before the final evaluation.
Typically, two evaluators are assigned to each capstone – the primary instructor overseeing the project, and a subject matter expert (SME) from industry. For some programs where multiple sections run simultaneously, common SMEs may evaluate projects across sections for consistency. The evaluators independently use rubrics tied to the evaluation criteria to assess written reports, presentations, discussion with students, and any documentation of project outcomes.
Scoring on the rubrics is most often on a scale from 1 to 5, with detailed descriptors defining expectations at each level. Evaluators must provide qualitative comments along with scores to explain ratings and provide specific feedback. Once independent evaluations are complete, the evaluators convene to moderate scores, compare perspectives, and agree on a final rating for each criterion and overall for the capstone. In cases of divergent scores, discussion focuses on evidence from the work to justify differences and reach consensus.
The final evaluated rubrics then feed into a letter grade determination. Each program or department sets grading scales customized to their rubrics and criteria. For example, an overall score average above 90% could merit an ‘A’ while 75-80% may equal a ‘B’. Student performance is also considered holistically, such as improvements shown over the term or additional accomplishments beyond expectations. Grading recommendations go through departmental review and approval before official assignment.
Should a capstone be deemed unsatisfactory or borderline, in-depth feedback is provided on gaps and remedial work required. Students may get one more term to improve their projects or risk failing the program. If there are disputes over evaluation or grading, formal appeal processes exist where students can present their cases and have decisions reviewed by separate committees.
BCIT has implemented a structured yet flexible evaluation system for capstone projects with multiple stages of moderation to uphold academic standards and fairness to students. The process helps develop work that reflects expected professional competence and fosters continuous dialogue around learning outcomes. Student and SME feedback over the years also factor into refining evaluation approaches to maintain relevance and rigour.