Model Grading Rubric
From Coder Merlin
Revision as of 16:10, 30 September 2022 by Jeff-strong (talk | contribs) (Editorial review and minor corrections)
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)
Modified Stark Rubric[edit]
Trait | Exceptional | Proficient | Developing | Inevident |
---|---|---|---|---|
Application of Learning | The portfolio demonstrates the student has mastered the knowledge and skills for the course learning outcomes and can apply them in practice | The portfolio documents the acquisition of knowledge and skills for the course learning outcomes, with some ability to apply them in practice | The portfolio demonstrates the student’s ability to use the knowledge and skills for the course learning outcomes in practice is limited | The portfolio provides little evidence of the student’s ability to use knowledge and skills for the course’s learning outcomes in practice |
Reflection on Learning | The portfolio shows that the student has reflected with substantial depth on how the prior learning experience is aligned to the course learning outcomes for which credit is being sought | The portfolio provides evidence of reflection to increase learning aligned with the course learning outcomes for which credit is being sought | The portfolio provides inadequate evidence of reflection to increase learning aligned with the course learning outcomes for which credit is being sought | The portfolio provides little or no evidence of reflection to increase learning aligned with the course learning outcomes for which credit is being sought |
Presentation | The portfolio is well organized with all critical elements included; learning is well documented with writing and production skills that exceed those of most college students | The portfolio is well organized with all critical elements included; the quality of written, visual or digital the presentation is competent with minor errors | Most of the expected elements are included; the quality of visual or digital presentation does not meet post-secondary standards with too many errors | Assembly instructions have not been followed with critical portfolio elements not included; the quality of visual or digital presentation does not meet post-secondary standards |
Articulation | Submission is free of errors related to grammar, spelling, syntax, and organization and is presented in a professional and easy-to-read format | Submission has no major errors related to grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization | Submission has major errors related to grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively affect readability and articulation of main ideas | Submission has critical errors related to grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that prevent understanding of ideas |
Navigation | The navigation links are intuitive; the various parts of the portfolio are labeled, clearly organized and allow the reader to easily locate an artifact and move to related pages or a different section; all pages connect to the navigation menu | The navigation links generally function well, but it is not always clear how to locate an artifact or move to related pages or different section; most of the pages connect to the navigation menu | The navigation links are somewhat confusing, and it is often unclear how to locate an artifact or move to related pages or a different section; some of the pages connect to the navigation menu, but in other places the links do not connect to preceding pages or to the navigation menu | The navigation links are confusing, and it is difficult to locate artifacts and move to related pages or a different section; there are significant problems with pages connecting to preceding pages or the navigation menu |
Readability (Style) | The portfolio is easy to read; fonts and type size vary appropriately for headings, sub-headings and text; use of font styles (italic, bold, underline) is consistent and improves readability | The portfolio is generally easy to read; fonts and type size vary appropriately for headings, sub-headings and text; use of font styles (italic, bold, underline) is generally consistent | The portfolio is often difficult to read because of inappropriate use of fonts and type size for headings, sub-headings, text or long paragraphs; some formatting tools are under- or over-used and decrease readers' accessibility to the content | The portfolio is difficult to read because of inappropriate use of fonts, type size for headings, sub-headings and text and font styles (italic, bold, underline); many formatting tools are under- or over-used and decrease readers' accessibility to the content |
Readability (White Space) | Horizontal and vertical white space alignment are used appropriately to organize content | Horizontal and vertical white space alignment are generally used appropriately to organize content | Horizontal and vertical white space alignment are sometimes used inappropriately to organize content | Horizontal and vertical white space alignment are used inappropriately, and the content appears disorganized and cluttered |
Readability (Color) | Color of background, fonts, and links enhance the readability and aesthetic quality, and are used consistently throughout the portfolio | Color of background, fonts, and links generally enhance the text readability, and are generally used consistently throughout the portfolio | Color of background, fonts, and links generally enhance the text readability, and are generally used consistently throughout the portfolio | Color of background, fonts, and links decrease the text readability, are distracting, and are used inconsistently throughout the portfolio |
Artifacts | All the photographs, concept maps, spreadsheets, graphics, audio or video files effectively enhance understanding of concepts, ideas and relationships, create interest, and are appropriate for the chosen purpose | Most of the graphic elements and multimedia contribute to understanding concepts, ideas and relationships, enhance the written material and create interest | Some of the graphic elements and multimedia do not contribute to understanding concepts, ideas, and relationships | The graphic elements or multimedia do not contribute to understanding concepts, ideas, and relationships; the inappropriate use of multimedia detracts from the content |
APA Formatting | Cover pages are correctly formatted (centered with bold title, student name, location, subject, teacher name, due date; in-text citations are present and correctly formatted, reference pages are correctly formatted (alphabetical order, hanging indent with author, date, title); body text is double-spaced | Minor formatting errors that do not negatively affect overall readability | Major formatting errors that negatively affect overall readability | Does not meet post-secondary standards |
Validation | All pages and style sheets are valid as analyzed by the selected validation tool | Nearly all pages and style sheets are valid, occasional warnings or errors that do not affect site functionality are present | Major errors with pages or style sheets are present or errors that affect site functionality are present | Few pages and style sheets are valid |
Sources:
- Portfolio Rubric (Stark State University)
- Portfolio Rubric (University of Wisconsin - Stout)
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)