Department of Computer Science
CPSC 461
Project Proposal Marking Guide (RUBRIC)

Assignment: |
Semester (circle one): | Spring LABs: B20 B21 Fall LABs: B01 B02 B03 B04
Date: |

TA Name:
Student Name(s) | Student ID(s) | Lab

Presentation (looks) | / 10
Literary Quality (writing form) | / 10
Technical Quality (content) | / 30
(5%) TOTAL: | / 50

A = Excellent | B = Good | C = Average | D = Sub-Standard
A | A- | B+ | B | B- | C+ | C | C- | D+ | D | F** | not handed in / late
50 | 46 | 42 | 38 | 34 | 30 | 25 | 22 | 17 | 13 | 6 |

Presentation (looks) | Unacceptable * 0.0 | [ 'C' ] Meets Requirements * 0.5 | [ 'A' ] Exceeds Requirements * 1.0 | Your Mark:
[ 4 ] Overall appearance | Looks disorganized.Looks like it was thrown together at the last minute. | Clean,Good enough. | Clean, clear, professional | / 4
[ 3 ] Length (approx. 2-5 pages) | Too short (doesn’t say enough).Too long (says stuff we don’t want to know). | Not too long or short (able to say what it needs to) | Right length.Easy to read.Holds reader’s interest. | / 3
[ 3 ] Use of white-space | Too much: white space used to make it look bigger.Interferes with readability.Too little: looks crowded – hard to keep one's place when reading. | Helps readability. | Looks professional. | / 3
Total | /10

Literary Quality (writing form) | Unacceptable * 0.0 | [ 'C' ] Meets Requirements * 0.5 | [ 'A' ] Exceeds Requirements * 1.0 | Your Mark:
[ 2 ] Professional, grammatically correct | Needs to be proofread. Inconsistent. Incomplete sentences where there should be some. | Very few problems. | No noticeable problems | / 2
[ 2 ] Spelling, typos | Ignored types.Looks like it was not proofread. | Almost none. | No noticeable problems. | / 2
[ 2 ] Style and interest | Does not stick to the point; choppy; awkward. | Acceptable. | Enjoyable to read. | / 2
[ 2 ] Clarity of writing; flows naturally | Had to re-read portions.Hard to follow / understand. | Mostly. | Yup. | / 2
[ 2 ] 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. | / 2
Total | /10

Technical Quality (content) | Unacceptable * 0.0 | [ 'C' ] Meets Requirements * 0.5 | [ 'A' ] Exceeds Requirements * 1.0 | Your Mark:
[ 2 ] Introduction – What is the proposal about? | Sketchy or non-existent. | Short; to the point. Tells me what’s to come | Sets up the paper well. Has good lead-up to the problem at hand. | / 2
[ 5 ] Purpose – What is the project about? | Unclear.Condescending. | Clear, clean. | Explains what you hope to get out of it. | / 5
[ 3 ] Rationale – Why is it worth doing? | I don’t believe it. | I’m convinced. | I’m enthused. | / 3
[ 3 ] Question or hypothesis – What is the question you are trying to answer? | UnclearAmbiguous | Unambiguous.Expresses relationships among variables. Magnitude (size of proposed project) might be off – either too big or too small. | Everything hangs together. Magnitude of project is well-suited to this assignment. | / 3
[ 3 ] Delimitations & limitations | Project is WAY too big or too little. Unable to define limitations & delimitations. | Anticipates many of the potential weaknesses and problems. | Seems to have all the angles covered. | / 3
[ 2 ] Definitions | None / unnecessary definitions included. | Appropriate.Sufficient. | Some good ones. Each one relevant. None un-necessary. | / 2
[ 5 ] Background | Sketchy or non-existent. | Explain what you already know / can do.Explain how this project relates to 461.Explains why it is being done this way. | Thorough. Appears complete, defensible, justified. | / 5
[ 5 ] Procedures | Sketchy or non-existent. | Explain what you plan to do. Perhaps somewhat unrealistic. | Lays it out in sufficient detail – without going overboard. Realistic (appropriate for this course and project). | / 5
[ 2 ] Supplementary material | None | Some. | Indicates project is well thought out. | / 2
Total | /30