|
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
|
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. |
|
|
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 |
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 |
|||