Department of Computer Science Computer Science 461 ### Assignment (Post Mortem) Cover Page
____________________________________________________ Assignment: ____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________

Semester/Date:__________________________________
T.A. Name:__________________________________
Student Name:__________________________________
Student Name:__________________________________
Student Name:__________________________________

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

# A = Excellent B = Good C = Average D = Sub-Standard

#

# A | # A- | # B+ | # B | # B- | # C+ | # C | # C- | # D+ | # D | # F** | # not handed in
# 150 | # 135 | # 120 | # 110 | # 100 | # 85 | # 75 | # 65 | # 48 | # 38 | # 18 | # 0

Marking Rubric for Post Mortem
##### Student Names | Demonstration of Understanding: | / 30
|  | Analysis: | / 100
|  | Literary Quality (writing form): | / 20
|  | (15%) TOTAL: | _____/ 150

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

Demonstration of Understanding:
(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.
Interpretatio n (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 | Self Mark: / 30 | TA Mark: / 30

Analysis: | (0-3) Needs Improvement | (4-7) Meets Requirements | (8-10) Exemplary | Self Mark: | TA Mark:
| Includes awkward, cumbersome, and hard to read writing. |  | Well written AND well answered. |  |
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. | Yup. | / 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