Model Grading Rubric

From Coder Merlin
Within these castle walls be forged Mavens of Computer Science ...
— Merlin, The Coder


About Rubrics[edit]

A rubric is a tool that highlights what is required for successfully completing a mission. It ensures that you have a clear understanding of what you must do to succeed in the mission, and it provides your guide with a concrete method to evaluate your work. Rubrics also ensure that guides are grading fairly by looking for the same elements across all the submissions for a mission. Before you begin work, you should review any supporting rubrics.

Long Beach Rubric[edit]

Trait Exceptional Proficient Developing Inevident
Specifications The program works and meets all the specifications. The program works and produces the correct results and displays them correctly. It also meets most of the other specifications. The program produces correct results but does not display them correctly. The program is producing incorrect results.
Readability The code is exceptionally well organized and very easy to follow. The code is fairly easy to read. The code is readable only by someone who knows what it is supposed to be doing. The code is poorly organized and very difficult to read.
Reusability The code could be reused as a whole or each routine could be reused. Most of the code could be reused in other programs. Some parts of the code could be reused in other programs. The code is not organized for reusability.
Documentation The documentation is well written and clearly explains what the code is accomplishing and how. The documentation consists of embedded comments and some simple header documentation that is somewhat useful in understanding the code. The documentation is simply comments embedded in the code with some simple header comments separating routines. The documentation is simply comments embedded in the code and does not help the reader understand the code.
Delivery The program was delivered on time. The program was delivered within a week of the due date. The code was delivered within two weeks of the due date. The code was more than two weeks overdue.
Efficiency The code is extremely efficient without sacrificing readability and understanding. The code is fairly efficient without sacrificing readability and understanding. The code is brute force and unnecessarily long. The code is huge and appears to be patched together.

Source: Computer Science Rubric (California State University Long Beach)

Long Island Rubric[edit]

Trait Exceptional Proficient Developing Inevident
Syntax
Ability to understand and follow the rules of the programming language.
Program compiles and contains no evidence of misunderstanding or misinterpreting the syntax of the language. Program compiles and is free from major syntactic misunderstandings but might contain nonstandard usage or superfluous elements. Program compiles but contains errors that signal misunderstanding of syntax―such as the semicolon in if(exp);{} Program does not compile or (in a dynamic language) contains typographical errors leading to undefined names.
Logic
Ability to specify conditions, control flow, and data structures that are appropriate for the problem domain.
Program logic is correct, with no known boundary errors and no redundant or contradictory conditions. Program logic is mostly correct but might contain an occasional boundary error or redundant or contradictory condition. Program logic is on the right track with no infinite loops but shows no recognition of boundary conditions (such as<vs.<=) Program contains some conditions that specify the opposite of what is required (less than vs. greater than), confuse Boolean AND/OR operators, or lead to infinite loops.
Correctness
Ability to code formulas and algorithms that reliably produce correct answers or appropriate results.
Program produces correct answers or appropriate results for all inputs tested. Program produces correct answers or appropriate results for most inputs. Program approaches correct answers or appropriate results for most inputs but can contain miscalculations in some cases. Program does not produce correct answers or appropriate results for most inputs.
Completeness
Ability to apply rigorous case analysis to the problem domain.
Program shows evidence of excellent case analysis, and all possible cases are handled appropriately. Program shows evidence of case analysis that is mostly complete but might have missed minor or unusual cases. Program shows some evidence of case analysis but might be missing significant cases or mistaken in how to handle some cases. Program shows little recognition of how different cases must be handled differently.
Clarity
Ability to format and document code for human consumption.
Program contains appropriate documentation for all major functions, variables, or nontrivial algorithms. Formatting, indentation, and other white space aids readability. Program contains some documentation on major functions, variables, or nontrivial algorithms. Indentation and other formatting is appropriate. Program contains some documentation (at least the student's name and program's purpose) but has occasionally misleading indentation. Program contains no documentation or grossly misleading indentation.
Modularity
Ability to decompose a problem into coherent and reusable functions, files, classes, or objects (as appropriate for the programming language and platform).
Program is decomposed into coherent and reusable units, and unnecessary repetition has been eliminated. Program is decomposed into coherent units but might still contain some unnecessary repetition. Program is decomposed into units of appropriate size, but they lack coherence or reusability. Program contains unnecessary repetition. Program is one big function or is decomposed in ways that make little sense.

Source: Computer Science Rubric (Long Island University)

Purdue Rubric[edit]

Trait Exceptional Proficient Developing Inevident
Content
Importance of topic, relevance, accuracy of facts, overall treatment of topic.
Topic is tightly focused and relevant; presentation contains accurate information with no fact errors. Topic is adequately focused and relevant; major facts are accurate and generally complete. Topic would benefit from more focus; presentation contains some fact errors or omissions. Topic lacks relevance or focus; presentation contains multiple fact errors.
Organization/Clarity
Appropriate introduction, body, and conclusions; logical ordering of ideas; transitions between major points.
Ideas are presented in logical order with effective transitions between major ideas; presentation is clear and concise. Most ideas are in logical order with adequate transitions between most major ideas; presentation is generally clear and understandable. Some ideas not presented in proper order; transitions are needed between some ideas; some parts of presentation might be wordy or unclear. Ideas are not presented in proper order; transition are lacking between major ideas; several parts of presentation are wordy or unclear.
Completeness
Level of detail, depth, appropriate length, adequate background of information.
Presentation provides good depth and detail; ideas are well developed; facts have adequate background; presentation is within specified length. Presentation provides adequate depth; few needed details are omitted; major ideas are adequately developed; presentation is within specified length. Additional depth needed in places; important information is omitted or not fully developed; presentation is too short or too long. Presentation does not provide adequate depth; key details are omitted or undeveloped; presentation is too short or too long.
Grammar/Mechanics
Correct grammar and usage that is appropriate for audience.
Presentation contains no grammar errors; sentences are free of jargon, complete, and easy to understand. Presentation has no serious grammar errors; sentences are mostly jargon-free, complete, and understandable. Presentation might contain some grammar or sentence errors; sentences might contain jargon or are too long or hard to follow. Presentation contains several major grammar/usage errors; sentences are long, incomplete, or contain excessive jargon.
Documentation
Proper support and sourcing for major ideas, includes visual aids that support message.
Effective message support provided in the form of facts and visual aids; sourcing is current and supports major ideas. Adequate message support provided for key concepts by facts and visual aids; sourcing is generally adequate and current. Some message support provided by facts and visual aids; sourcing might be outdated or thin; visual aids need work. Little or no message support provided for major ideas; visual aids are missing or inadequate; little or no sourcing provided.
Delivery
Adequate volume, appropriate pace, diction, personal appearance, enthusiasm/energy, posture, effective use of visual aids.
Good volume and energy; proper pace and diction; avoids distracting gestures; professional appearance; visual aids used effectively. Adequate volume and energy; generally good pace and diction; few or no distracting gestures; professional appearance; visual aids used adequately. More volume/energy needed at times; pace too slow or fast; some distracting gestures or posture; adequate appearance; visual aids could be improved. Low volume or energy; pace too slow or fast; poor diction; distracting gestures or posture; unprofessional appearance; visual aids poorly used.
Interactions
Adequate eye contact with audience, ability to listen to and answer questions.
Good eye contact with audience; excellent listening skills; answers audience questions with authority and accuracy. Fairly good eye contact with audience; displays ability to listen; provides adequate answers to audience questions. Additional eye contact needed at times; better listening skills needed; some difficulty answering audience questions. Little or no eye contact with audience; poor listening skills; uneasiness or inability to answer audience questions.

Source: College of Science Oral Presentation Rubric (Purdue University)