Department of Computer Science Computer Science 461 ### Assignment (PROJECT) Cover Page
________________________________________________________ Assignment: ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________

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

Assessment: TOTAL OUT OF ***100*** [10%]

# A [4] = Exemplary B [3] = Exceeds Requirements C [2] = Acceptable D [1] = Sub-Standard

#

# A | # A- | # B+ | # B | # B- | # C+ | # C | # C- | # D+ | # D | # F** | # not handed in
# 100 | # 92 | # 84 | # 75 | # 68 | # 60 | # 50 | # 44 | # 34 | # 25 | # 12 | # 0

Marking Rubric for Project Itself
##### Student Names | Problem Solving: | / 40
|  | Approach and Outcomes: | / 40
|  | Technical Quality (content) | / 20
|  | (10%) TOTAL: | ____/ 100

# Problem Solving: | (0-3) Needs Improvement | (4-7) Meets Requirements | (8-10) Exceeds Requirements | Self Mark: | TA Mark:
Accurately Identifies Constraints or Obstacles | Omits significant ones. | Identifies some – (the most important ones) | Accurately and thoroughly describes the relevant ones. Addresses some that are not immediately apparent. | / 10 | / 10
Identifies viable and important alternatives for overcoming the constraints or obstacles. | Present solutions that fail to address the critical parts of the problem. | - Plausible alternatives - Addresses many (most) important ones | - Creative - Plausible - Addresses central difficulties posed by constraints and obstacles. | / 10 | / 10
Selects and adequately tries out alternatives. | Does not satisfactorily test the selected solutions. | Puts selected alternatives to trials adequate to determine their utility. Some may be incomplete. | - Effective, valid, and exhaustive trials. - Trials go beyond those required to solve the problem (or explore the question) and show a commitment to an in-depth understanding of the problem. | / 10 | / 10
Accurately articulates and supports the reasoning behind the order of the selection of alternatives and the extent to which each addressed the obstacles or constraints. | Illogical. Does not present reasonable review of the strengths and weaknesses of the alternative solutions that were tried. | Describes the process that lead to the ordering of secondary solutions. Mostly clear, defensible rationale; most of the alternatives addressed. | Clear, comprehensive summary of reasoning that led to selection of secondary solutions. Description includes a review of the decisions that produced the order of selection and how each alternative fared as a solution. | / 10 | / 10
Problem Solving Total | / 40 | / 40

Project Approach and Outcomes:
| (0-1) Sub-Standard | (2-3) Acceptable | (4) Exemplary | Self Mark: | TA Mark:
Context
Can an informed reader make sense of the project? | Confused | Logical, straight-forward | Clear, clean, intriguing | / 4 | / 4
###### Statement and origin of the problem
Is the focus of the project clear? | Not really | Yes | Significance and implications explained | / 4 | / 4
Did the researcher formulate a workable plan (set realistic goals)? | No. Goals & project don’t match | Fairly close. | Seems to have covered all the angles. | / 4 | / 4
Methodology
Was researcher able to gather the necessary tools to begin useful work (organized)? | - spent most of his/her time hunting for tools or creating them | Mostly. | Yes. Chose reasonable alternatives when tools were unavailable. | / 4 | / 4
Are data collection methods described? | No. | Mostly. | Yes. | / 4 | / 4
Did researcher make effective use of resources? | No. | For the most part. | Yes. | / 4 | / 4
Is data presented and is there an initial analysis? | No data. No analysis. | Reasonably well. | Yes. | / 4 | / 4
Was researcher able to explain (justify) deviations from the original proposal? | No. | Yes. | Very convincing. (OR) No deviation was necessary. | / 4 | / 4
###### Implications
Were judgments justified? | No. | For the most part. | Yes. | / 4 | / 4
###### Findings
What did the researcher learn from the work itself? | Apparently nothing. | Able to articulate some “learnings”. | Yes. | / 4 | / 4
Project Approach and Outcomes Total: | / 40 | / 40

Technical Quality (content)
| ###### [ 0-1 ] Unacceptable | [2-3] Meets Requirements | [4-5] Exceeds Requirements | Self Mark: | TA Mark:
Code is well thought out for the intended purpose. | Effort spent on portions of the code that did not affect the problem at hand. | Does the job. | Demonstrates planning for future enhancements. | / 5 | / 5
Tools, languages, approaches were appropriate to the task. | Developers stuck with what they knew without justification. | Mostly. | Shows evidence of considered choices. | / 5 | / 5
Reasonably efficient use of resources (code; data structures) | Cryptic, messy, awkward, not up to standard for a programmer with this level of expertise. | Mostly. | Verry nice. | / 5 | / 5
Layout: submission organized; marker was able to find necessary parts with ease. All parts properly labeled and annotated. | Nope. | Mostly. | Yup. | / 5 | / 5
Technical Quality (content) Total | /20 | /20