Model Grading Rubric
From Coder Merlin
Revision as of 02:48, 3 April 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)
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)