Skip to main content

Documentation Index

Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://mintlify.com/danielpose1996-stack/ruedadeproyectos/llms.txt

Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

​
Teacher Guide

Welcome to the Teacher Guide for RuedaPro UNIPAZ. As a teacher (docente evaluador), you will evaluate engineering projects using a comprehensive rubric system.

​
Logging In

Navigate to the RuedaPro UNIPAZ login page and enter:
  • Email: Your institutional email address
  • Password: Your password (use the provisional password provided by the administrator if this is your first login)
Click “Iniciar Sesión” to access your dashboard.

​
Teacher Dashboard Overview

After logging in, you’ll see your personalized dashboard with:

​
Dashboard Header

  • Greeting: “Hola, Prof. [Your Name]”
  • Platform Name: “Panel de Evaluación RuedaPro UNIPAZ”

​
Statistics Summary

Three stat cards display your evaluation metrics:
  • Total Asignados: Total number of projects assigned to you
  • Pendientes: Projects waiting for your evaluation
  • Enviados: Projects you’ve already evaluated
The left sidebar provides quick access to:
  • Asignados / Pendientes: View projects awaiting evaluation (default view)
  • Evaluaciones enviadas: View your submitted evaluations
  • Mi perfil: View your profile information
  • Cerrar sesión: Log out of the system

​
Viewing Assigned Projects

​
Pending Projects Tab

The “Asignados / Pendientes” tab (default view) shows all projects assigned to you that haven’t been evaluated yet. Table Columns:
  • Proyecto: Project name
  • Categoría: Project category (Desarrollo, Propuesta, Aplicación) with colored badges:
    • Desarrollo: Blue badge
    • Propuesta: Yellow/Orange badge
    • Aplicación: Green badge
  • Semestre / Año: Academic period (e.g., “1° / 2026”)
  • Estado: Current status (“Pendiente (Tú)” indicates you haven’t evaluated it)
  • Acción: “Calificar” button to start evaluation
If you have no pending projects, you’ll see: “No tienes proyectos pendientes de evaluación.”

​
Submitted Evaluations Tab

Click “Evaluaciones enviadas” in the sidebar to view all projects you’ve already evaluated. Table Columns:
  • Proyecto: Project name
  • Categoría: Project category with badge
  • Semestre / Año: Academic period
  • Estado / Nota: Shows “Enviado” badge and your final score (e.g., “4.5”)
If you haven’t submitted any evaluations yet, you’ll see: “Aún no has enviado ninguna evaluación.”

​
Evaluating a Project

When you click the “Calificar” button on a pending project, you’ll be taken to the evaluation interface.

​
Evaluation Interface Layout

​
1. Navigation

  • Back button: ”← Volver al Dashboard” returns you to the teacher dashboard

​
2. Project Information Header

Displays:
  • Project title
  • Category badge
  • Student authors (“Integrantes”)
  • Academic period

​
3. Evaluation Timer

A countdown timer displays the time remaining for evaluation:
  • Default: 15 minutes (15:00)
  • Format: MM:SS
  • Color: Changes to red when time expires
The timer is a guideline to help you pace your evaluation. You can still submit after time expires if needed.

​
The Evaluation Rubric

You’ll evaluate the project across 9 criteria using a standardized rubric. Each criterion has:
  • Descriptors for 4 performance levels:
    • 1.0 – 2.9: No cumple (Does not meet)
    • 3.0 – 3.9: Cumplimiento básico (Basic compliance)
    • 4.0 – 4.4: Buen nivel (Good level)
    • 4.5 – 5.0: Excelente (Excellent)
  • Score input field: Enter a score from 1.0 to 5.0 (decimal values allowed, e.g., 4.2)

​
Evaluation Criteria

Problem StatementEvaluate how clearly and precisely the problem is defined, contextualized, and delimited.
  • 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 understood technological need
  • 4.5-5.0: Precisely formulated problem with rigorous delimitation and solid technical contextualization
JustificationAssess the strength of arguments supporting the project’s importance and relevance.
  • 1.0-2.9: Weak or nonexistent 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 pertinence
  • 4.5-5.0: Solid, convincing justification with evidence of academic, technological, and social impact
General ObjectiveEvaluate the formulation and alignment of the general objective with the problem.
  • 1.0-2.9: Incorrectly formulated or not related to the problem
  • 3.0-3.9: Comprehensible but with weak writing or partial alignment
  • 4.0-4.4: Clear, well-written objective aligned with the problem
  • 4.5-5.0: Precise, measurable objective perfectly aligned with rigorous technical writing
Specific ObjectivesAssess the quality, measurability, and coherence of specific objectives.
  • 1.0-2.9: Not presented or don’t contribute to general objective; inadequate verbs
  • 3.0-3.9: Objectives present but with weaknesses in writing or logical sequence
  • 4.0-4.4: Clear, measurable objectives coherent with general objective
  • 4.5-5.0: Well-structured, measurable, methodologically coherent objectives defining clear path
State of the Art / BackgroundEvaluate the depth and quality of prior work review.
  • 1.0-2.9: No background or irrelevant sources without academic support
  • 3.0-3.9: Basic background with little depth or few sources
  • 4.0-4.4: Adequate review of relevant prior work
  • 4.5-5.0: Critical analysis of scientific and technological background with updated sources
Proposed Development MethodologyAssess how the technological solution will be constructed.
  • 1.0-2.9: Does not define how the 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)
Proposed Research MethodologyEvaluate the research approach, type, and design.
  • 1.0-2.9: Does not identify approach or methodological design
  • 3.0-3.9: Presents 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
Project ViabilityAssess technical, economic, and operational feasibility analysis.
  • 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
Presentation ClarityEvaluate organization, clarity, and structure of the project presentation.
  • 1.0-2.9: Disorganized, unclear exposition without logical structure
  • 3.0-3.9: Comprehensible presentation with order or clarity flaws
  • 4.0-4.4: Clear, organized presentation with good argumentative structure
  • 4.5-5.0: Fluid, professional, well-structured presentation with topic mastery

​
How to Score Each Criterion

1

Read the Criterion

Review the criterion name and all four performance level descriptors.
2

Evaluate the Project

Assess the project’s performance for this criterion based on the presentation, documentation, and your professional judgment.
3

Enter Score

In the “Nota (1-5)” input field for that row, enter a decimal score between 1.0 and 5.0 (e.g., 3.5, 4.2, 4.8).The system automatically clamps values:
  • Minimum: 1.0
  • Maximum: 5.0
4

Review Auto-Calculated Final Score

As you enter scores, the “Calificación Final” box at the bottom automatically updates with the average of all criteria scores.
The final score is calculated as the arithmetic mean of all 9 criteria scores, displayed with one decimal place (e.g., 4.3).

​
Adding Observations

Below the rubric table, you’ll find a large text area labeled “Observaciones y Retroalimentación”. Use this section to:
  • Provide constructive feedback
  • Suggest improvements
  • Highlight strengths
  • Note concerns or weaknesses
  • Offer guidance for future work
Best Practice: Write detailed observations that help students understand your scores and how to improve. Your feedback is valuable for their learning process.

​
Submitting Your Evaluation

Once you’ve scored all criteria and written your observations:
1

Review Your Evaluation

Double-check all scores and ensure your observations are complete.Verify the Calificación Final reflects your assessment accurately.
2

Click Submit Button

Click the “Enviar calificación” button in the bottom section.If the final score is below 1.0 (indicating you haven’t scored all criteria), you’ll receive an alert:“Debe calificar todos los criterios. El puntaje mínimo es 1.0”
3

Confirm Submission

A confirmation modal appears with:“¿Está seguro de enviar esta calificación? Una vez enviada no podrá modificarse.”
  • Click “Sí, enviar” to confirm and submit
  • Click “Cancelar” to return and make changes
4

Wait for Processing

The button text changes to “Enviando…” while the system:
  • Saves your evaluation to the database
  • Records all rubric scores
  • Stores your observations
  • Checks if all evaluators have completed their assessments
  • Updates the project status to “Evaluado” if all evaluations are complete
5

Confirmation

Upon success, you’ll see an alert:“¡Evaluación enviada con éxito!”You’ll be automatically redirected to your teacher dashboard.
Evaluations cannot be modified after submission. Make sure all scores and observations are correct before clicking “Sí, enviar”.

​
Viewing Your Profile

Click “Mi perfil” in the sidebar to view your account information:
  • Avatar: Large circular avatar with your first initial
  • Nombre Completo: Your full name
  • Rol del Sistema: Your role (displayed as “docente”)
Profile information is read-only. Contact your administrator if you need to update your name, email, or password.

​
Logging Out

To end your session securely:
  1. Click “Cerrar sesión” (red link) at the bottom of the sidebar
  2. You’ll be logged out and redirected to the login page

​
Frequently Asked Questions

The timer is a guideline to help you pace your evaluation. The system will not prevent you from continuing or submitting after the timer expires. However, completing evaluations efficiently helps maintain a smooth workflow.
No. Once you click “Sí, enviar” and the evaluation is submitted, it cannot be modified. Always review your scores and observations carefully before submitting.
The final score is the arithmetic mean of all 9 criterion scores. For example, if your scores are 4.0, 4.5, 3.8, 4.2, 4.0, 4.3, 4.1, 4.4, and 4.5, the final score would be:(4.0 + 4.5 + 3.8 + 4.2 + 4.0 + 4.3 + 4.1 + 4.4 + 4.5) ÷ 9 = 4.2
A project is marked as “Evaluado” (Evaluated) only when all assigned evaluators have submitted their evaluations. If 3 evaluators are assigned, all 3 must complete their evaluations before the status changes.
No. Evaluator scores are independent and confidential during the evaluation phase. This ensures unbiased assessment.
Focus on:
  • Constructive feedback: Specific suggestions for improvement
  • Strengths: What the students did well
  • Weaknesses: Areas that need development
  • Guidance: Recommendations for future projects
Be professional, respectful, and educational in your tone.
If you experience issues during evaluation:
  1. Check your internet connection
  2. Try refreshing the page (your entered scores may be lost)
  3. Contact your system administrator if the problem persists
Always verify the success message appears after submitting to ensure your evaluation was recorded.

​
Tips for Effective Evaluation

  • Be Consistent: Apply the rubric criteria uniformly across all projects
  • Use the Full Scale: Don’t hesitate to use the entire 1.0-5.0 range when appropriate
  • Be Specific: In observations, reference specific aspects of the project
  • Be Timely: Complete evaluations promptly to keep the academic process moving
  • Be Constructive: Frame feedback in a way that helps students learn and improve

Build docs developers (and LLMs) love

Get started for freeTalk to us