Marking Rubric for Project Proposal

Computer Science project post-mortem rubrics byKatrin Becker, Mount Royal University (and Mink Hollow Media, Ltd.)June 2014

Assessment: TOTAL OUT OF ***150*** [15%]

A

A-

B+

B

B-

C+

C-

D+

F**

not handed in

150

135

120

110

100

Marking Rubric for Project

Student Names

/ Demonstration of Understanding: / / 30
Analysis: / / 100
Literary Quality (writing form): / / 20
(15%) TOTAL: / _____/ 150

Demonstration of Understanding(Drawing on Wiggins & McTighe, 1998)

(0-1) / (2) / (3) / (4) / (5)
Explanation (goal: understand why an answer or approach is the right one (or at least viable)) / Self Mark:
/ 5 / TA Mark:
/ 5
Naïve: a superficial account; more descriptive than analytical or creative; a fragmentary or sketchy account of facts/ideas or glib generalizations; a black-and-white account; less a theory than an unexamined hunch or borrowed idea. / Intuitive: an incomplete account but with apt and insightful ideas; extends and deepens some of what was learned; some “reading between the lines”; account has limited support/argument/data or sweeping generalizations. There is a theory, but one with limited testing and evidence. / Developed: an account that reflects some in-depth and personalized ideas; the student is making the work her own, going beyond the given – there is supported theory here, but insufficient or inadequate argument or evidence. / In-depth: an atypical and revealing account, going beyond what is obvious or what was explicitly taught; makes subtle connections; well supported by argument and evidence; novel thinking displayed. / Sophisticated: an unusually thorough, elegant, and inventive account (model, theory, or explanation); fully supported, verified, and justified; deep and broad; goes well beyond the information given.
Interpretation (goal: avoid pitfall of looking for “the right answer”; demand answers that are principled; encompass as many salient facts and points of view as possible) / Self Mark:
/ 5 / TA Mark:
/ 5
Literal: a simplistic or superficial reading; mechanical translation, a decoding with little or no interpretation; no sense of wider importance or significance; a restatement of what was taught or read. / Interpreted: a plausible interpretation or analysis of the importance/meaning/significance; makes sense of a story; provides history and context. / Perspective: a helpful interpretation or analysis of the importance/meaning/significance; tells a clear and instructive story; provides a useful history or context; sees different levels of interpretation. / Revealing: a nuanced interpretation and analysis of the importance/meaning/significance; tells an insightful story; provides a telling history or context; sees subtle differences, levels, and ironies in diverse interpretations. / Profound: a powerful and illuminating interpretation and analysis of the importance/meaning/significance; tells a rich and insightful story; provides a rich history or context; sees deeply and incisively any ironies in the different interpretations.
Application (goal: ensure your work is conscious and explicit reflection, self-assessment, and self-adjustment, with reasoning made evident. Authentic assessment requires a real or simulated audience, purpose, setting, and options for personalizing the work, realistic constraints, and “background noise”) / Self Mark:
/ 5 / TA Mark:
/ 5
Novice: can perform only with coaching or relies on highly scripted, singular “plug-in” (algorithmic and mechanical) skills, procedures, or approaches. / Apprentice: relies on a limited repertoire of routines; able to perform well in familiar or simple contexts, with perhaps some needed coaching; limited use of personal judgment and responsiveness to specifics of feedback/situation. / Able: able to perform well with knowledge and skill in a few key contexts, with a limited repertoire, flexibility, or adaptability to diverse contexts. / Skilled: competent in using knowledge and skill and adapting understanding in a variety of appropriate and demanding contexts. / Masterful: fluent, flexible, and efficient; able to use knowledge and skill and adjust understandings well in novel, diverse, and difficult contexts.
Perspective (goal: know importance or significance of an idea and grasp its importance or unimportance. Ask, “So what?” “What is this good for?” “How important is this idea?” “What can I do with it?”) / Self Mark:
/ 5 / TA Mark:
/ 5
Uncritical: unaware of differing points of view; prone to overlook or ignore other perspectives; has difficulty imagining other ways of seeing things; prone to egocentric argument and personal criticisms. / Aware: knows of different points of view and somewhat able to place own view in perspective, but weakness in considering worth of each perspective, especially one’s own uncritical about tacit assumptions. / Considered: a reasonably critical and comprehensive look at all the points of view in the context of one’s own; makes clear that there is plausibility to other points of view. / Thorough: a revealing and coordinated critical view; makes own view more plausible by considering the plausibility of other perspectives; makes apt criticisms, discriminations, and qualifications. / Insightful: a penetrating and novel viewpoint; effectively critiques and encompasses other plausible perspectives; takes a long and dispassionate, critical view of the issues involved.
Empathy(goal: develop the ability to see the world from different viewpoints in order to understand the diversity of thought and feeling in the world) / Self Mark:
/ 5 / TA Mark:
/ 5
Egocentric: has little or no empathy beyond intellectual awareness of others; sees things through own ideas and feelings; ignores or is threatened or puzzled by different feelings, attitudes, or views. / Developing: has some capacity and self-discipline to “walk in another’s shoes” but is still primarily limited to one’s own reactions and attitudes; puzzled or put out by different feelings or attitudes. / Aware: knows and feels what others see and feel differently; somewhat able to empathize with others; has difficulty making sense of odd or alien views. / Sensitive: disposed to see and feel what others see and feel; open to the unfamiliar and different. / Mature: disposed and able to see and feel what others see and feel; unusually open to and willing to seek out the odd, alien, or different,
Self-Knowledge: (goal: become deeply aware of the boundaries of your own and others’ understanding; able to recognize your own prejudices and projections; have integrity – able and willing to act on what one understands) / Self Mark:
/ 5 / TA Mark:
/ 5
Innocent: completely unaware of the bounds of one’s understanding and of the role of projection and prejudice in opinions and attempts to understand. / Unreflective: generally unaware of one’s specific ignorance; generally unaware of how subjective prejudgments colour understandings. / Thoughtful: generally aware of what is and is not understood; aware of how prejudice and projection can occur without awareness and shape one’s views. / Circumspect: aware of one’s ignorance and that of others; aware of one’s prejudices; knows the strengths and limits of one’s understanding. / Wise: deeply aware of the boundaries of one’s own and others’ understanding; able to recognize his prejudices and projections; has integrity – able and willing to act on what one understands.
Demonstration of Understanding Total / / 30 / / 30

Page 1 of 6

Analysis

[ 0-1 ] Sub-Standard / [ 2-3 ] Meets Requirements / [ 4 ] Exceeds Requirements
Includes awkward, cumbersome, and hard to read writing. / Well written AND well answered. / Self Mark: / TA Mark:
Does the researcher refer to the research literature that informs the project? / Very little. / Mostly. Appropriate to chosen task. / Thorough (needn’t be exhaustive). / / 10 / / 10
Does the researcher provide support for his/her knowledge claims? / Hardly. / Mostly, aligned. / Yes, aligned. / / 10 / / 10
What went right? How successful was your design? (Did the researcher critique his/her own work?) / Missed stuff. / Pointed out most things. / Accurate. Complete. / / 10 / / 10
What went wrong? What could have been improved? / Unable to articulate. Irrelevant or unimportant issues. / Fairly reasonable description of the problems and difficulties. / Insightful. / / 10 / / 10
Were there Special Problems encountered? How did you deal with them? (Did the researcher critique his/her own work?) / Avoided them; didn’t recognize them; were unable to address them reasonably. / Reasonable attempts to resolve them; explain & understand them. / Resolved some, explained others well enough to demonstrate understanding. / / 10 / / 10
How did your design change from your original, and why? / No relationship between proposal & project. No explanation. / Reasonable relationship between proposal and project (goals same). Reasonable explanation. / All changes well justified, of none necessary. / / 10 / / 10
If you had it to do again, what would you change? (and why). / Not explained. Unrealistic answer. / Realistic. Reasonably well explained. / Answer shows clear growth – advancement in sophistication from project. / / 10 / / 10
If you were to continue developing this project, how would you approach it? (and why). / Not explained; unrealistic answer. / Shows rational and reasonable progression. / Well thought out and justified next step. Clear. / / 10 / / 10
What have you learned from this? How did the project change the way in which the researcher thinks about his or her educational situation? / Nothing / Stuff / Things I wasn’t expecting / / 10 / / 10
Is data presented and analyzed? Did the researcher postulate a hypothesis to explain results? / No analysis. Missed obvious conclusions. No hypothesis or one that is very naïve. / Reasonably well presented & analyzed. Hypothesis plausible. / Well presented & analyzed. Hypothesis thoroughly believable. / / 10 / / 10
Analysis Total / / 100 / / 100

Literary Quality (writing form)

[ 0-1 ] Sub-Standard / [ 2-3 ] Meets Requirements / [ 4 ] Exceeds Requirements / Self Mark: / TA Mark:
Professional, grammatically correct / Needs to be proofread. Inconsistent. Incomplete sentences where there should be some. / Very few problems. / No noticeable problems. / / 4 / / 4
Spelling, typos / Ignored typos.
Looks like it was not proofread. / Almost none. / No noticeable problems. / / 4 / / 4
Style and interest / Does not stick to the point; choppy; awkward. / Acceptable. / Enjoyable to read. / / 4 / / 4
Clarity of writing; flows naturally / Had to re-read portions.
Hard to follow / understand. / Mostly. / Yup. / / 4 / / 4
Wordiness (each word should count) / Includes phrases that do not add to the meaning or content. Uses too many big or complex words when simple ones will do. / Mostly OK. / Each word / phrase is meaningful, appropriate and adds some value to the whole paper. / / 4 / / 4
Literary Quality Total / /20 / /20

Page 1 of 6