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