CSC 498/499 Rubric v2
 Share
The version of the browser you are using is no longer supported. Please upgrade to a supported browser.Dismiss

View only
 
 
ACDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZAAABAC
1
CSC 498 / 499 Rubric (version 2, updated 11/30/2016)
2
Jane Q. Student
3
CategoryRating Description498499Note: The number of ★s in the ★ column indicates relative importance of the category
4
★★★Was the project successful? - Did we learn something? Has it produced interesting results? (Maybe in a different way than the student expected at the start.)3The student achieved success with the project. The original research question, or reasonable reformulation, has been answered, or the results have led to an understanding of why the original research question could not be answered or how the project methodology would need to be revised. For 498: The project is on good track to succeed. 33498499
5
2Project goals are partially achieved. For 498: The student has some reason to believe that with some extra effort the project can be completed successfully.Seminars Total55
6
1The student did not achieve success with the project. The goals are not achieved. For 498: The student has little to no reason to believe that the project can be completed successfully in the remaining time.Seminars Missed00
7
★★★Did the student make consistent and concerted effort?3The student made consistent substantive effort on the project from week to week.33Max Penalty for Missed Seminars10%10%
8
2There were several weeks during which the student made little effort on the project, or total effort across the term was below expectation.Score Penalty0%0%
9
1There were many weeks during which the student made little effort on the project.
10
Did the student shape the project? 3The student made the research their own by bringing in own interests, finding literature and resources, and thinking creatively about possible questions and approaches.33Total Score100%100%
11
2The student contributed to the definition of the research program, but could have shown more initiative in finding relevant literature and other resources and thinking through possible alternative questions and approaches.Letter GradeAA
12
1The research program was almost entirely defined by the advisor or other sources. The student is just carrying it out.
13
Did the student deal with obstacles independently and creatively?3The student regularly showed initiative and creativity in exploring possible solutions to problems that arose.33
14
2The student usually did not show initiative in investigating solutions to problems they encountered, but were able to characterize and communicate the problems.
15
1The student rarely showed initiative in resolving problems that came up and had difficulty expressing or determining what the problems were.
16
★★Does the student reflect critically on the work they accomplished?3The student understands the project results and shows a strong grasp of any limitations. The student has critically analyzed the reasons for and implications of any failures, including reflecting on their progress, plan, and work habits. The student thoughtfully considered feedback from others, and incorporated it as appropriate.33
17
2The student understands the basics of the project results, but doesn't really understand the consequences of those results or the limitations of applying the lessons to other situations. The student has only superficially analyzed their failures and did not regularly reflect on the state of the project. The student did not fully consider or incorporate appropriate feedback.
18
1The student lacks understanding of the project results. The student did not reflect on the state of the project and ignored useful feedback from others.
19
Were the products iteratively improved?3Multiple drafts / practices were done which resulted in significant improvements to the presentation, poster, and paper (as applicable).33
20
2There were several drafts which resulted in moderate improvements.
21
1There was little or no iterative improvement of products.
22
Was the project intellectually challenging?3The intellectual scope and depth of the project is challenging.33
23
2The project is either too shallow or too limited in scope to present an adequate challenge.
24
1The project is shallow, narrow, and does not present an intellectual challenge appropriate to a capstone project in computer science.
25
498499
26
Process Weights50%50%
27
Process Scores100%100%
28
29
CategoryRating Description
498 Poster
498 Paper
499 Pres
499 Poster
499 Paper
30
★★★Does it, as a whole, tell a coherent story?3Holistically, the argument is coherent. The research question is motivated with literature used as evidence. There is a logical thread that flows from the question through method, results, and analysis. The conclusion provides an answer to the research question.33333
31
2Important steps of the story are missing, poorly supported, or do not fit together.
32
1The story is not coherent.
33
★★★Is the research question or problem clearly stated?3Research question or problem is clearly and concisely explained.33333
34
2Research question or problem is not clearly described.
35
1Research question or problem is absent or poorly described.
36
★★★Is the methodology well explained?3The paper clearly describes the methodology and the rationale that led the student to that methodology.33333
37
2Either it's not clear what the methodology was or the rationale for that methodology is either missing or poorly explained.
38
1The methodology and rationale for same is missing or poorly explained.
39
★★Are the results well explained?3The results are presented with appropriate use of prose, graphics, and tables. There is a clear connection to the methodology. For 498: It is clear what results the student expects to get and how they will be obtained using the methodology.NA3333
40
2The results are explained, but some details are missing. It is not immediately clear how they were obtained using the methodology. Some important components of the results may be missing (e.g. statistical significance, correctness proof, ...).
41
1The results are poorly explained or missing, and the connection to the methodology is tenuous.
42
★★Are analyses and conclusions well explained? (NA for 498)3It is clear how the analysis was produced from the results. Conclusions are appropriately drawn from the analysis. Limitations of the conclusions and analyses are transparent. There is a cogent discussion of future / subsequent work.NANA333
43
2The connection between results, analysis, and conclusion is somewhat unclear. Limitations of the conclusions and analyses are superficially discussed.
44
1The analysis and conclusions are poorly explained, superficial, or not applicable. There is no reflection on the limitations of the conclusions or on avenues for future work.
45
★★Is it clear what the student has done?3The reader is left with a clear sense of what the student has done and what has been done by others.33333
46
2For some parts of the project, it's unclear exactly what the student has done, or it's unclear what is provided by other resources.
47
1It is not clear what the student has actually done to address the research question or problem.
48
★★Is literature used for evidence and comparison?3An encompassing description of the relevant literature, including alternative approaches, is given. The discussion of research question, methods, results, analysis, and conclusions includes concrete comparisons to the literature. The bibliography is extensive and appropriately formatted.33333
49
2Some relevant literature is described, but alternative approaches may be missing. The relationship of the research question and methods to previous work is unclear. The conclusions are not grounded with references to the literature. The bibliography omits some references.
50
1The discussion of the relevant literature is shallow. There is no connection or reference to the literature in the main body. The bibliography is too short, missing, or inappropriately formatted.
51
CategoryRating Description
498 Poster
498 Paper
499 Pres
499 Poster
499 Paper
52
Is the paper/poster/presentation well organized?3It is well organized. Information is appropriately organized into slides / paragraphs / sections expressing common ideas. Ideas naturally flow from one to the next. Prerequisite knowledge is discussed before its application. It foreshadows content and includes cues to prevent the audience from being lost.33333
53
2It is somewhat organized. Information is scattered across multiple slides / paragraphs / sections that should have been discussed together. Some transitions are abrupt. Some prerequisite knowledge is discussed out of order or not at all. The observer is sometimes lost.
54
1It is not organized. Information is scattered across multiple sections that should have been discussed together. Important prerequisite knowledge is omitted or out of order. The flow is jarring and the audience is easily lost.
55
Is it aimed at a general computer science audience?3It is tailored to be understood by a general computer science audience, and provides the appropriate level of formality, detail, and rigor.33333
56
2Some parts include more or less explanation than is required by a general computer science audience.
57
1It is not appropriate for a general computer science audience.
58
Does it use an appropriate technical style?3It is elegantly presented in an appropriate technical style. It uses active voice, present tense, and is cohesive, concise, and coherent.33NA33
59
2It strives for appropriate technical style, but misses the mark in several dimensions.
60
1It is not presented with appropriate technical style.
61
Does it make effective use of the medium?3The medium is used effectively. Textual, verbal, visual, and physical components are used when and where appropriate. It takes into account the distance the audience will be viewing from.33333
62
2Several opportunities were missed to use the medium more effectively.
63
1The medium is not used effectively, for example, by including too many textual components in a poster or presentation when diagrams or video components would have been substantially more effective, or by choosing fonts, font sizes, or color schemes that are difficult to read or distinguish.
64
Is it edited?3It has relatively few grammar and spelling mistakes.33333
65
2It has some grammar or spelling mistakes that affect clarity.
66
1It is apparently not proofread.
67
★★Was it well delivered? 3The presentation was clear, authoritative, and natural. The student spoke with the appropriate formality, tone, rate, and volume. The student responded well to questions.3NA3NANA
68
2There were several issues with the delivery, which had some impact on what the audience was able to take away. The student struggled to answer questions.
69
1Delivery was poor. It seriously impacted the audience's ability to understand what was being presented.
70
498 Poster
498 Paper
499 Pres
499 Poster
499 Paper
71
Product Weights20%30%15%5%30%
72
Product Scores100%100%100%100%100%
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
Loading...
Main menu