communication_project_rubric

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

communication_project_rubric [2019/08/22 10:34] (current)
river created
Line 1: Line 1:
 +===== Communication Project Rubric =====
  
 +This rubric is intended to assess student proposals during the
 +communication project day. The communication project homework rubrics
 +helped inform the topics, and therefore should help expedite grading.
 +Each section is equally weighted. Information provided in a proposal
 +should cover both the work previously completed and the work that might
 +emerge from it. This rubric intends to assess both aspects.
 +
 +A previous communication project homework tasked students with
 +critiquing proposals, everyone should be aware of both what is expected
 +in a proposal as well as how to assess them, using feedback provided
 +there to inform critique decisions and their assessment of others. While
 +a complete proposal is expected, by the first project day, students have
 +only received feedback regarding previous work. Therefore, the first
 +proposal is likely to be stronger in that area. To account for this, the
 +first proposal is weighted significantly less than the second. This
 +activity and future homework assignments are intended to build further
 +skills, culminating in the second proposal. As such, please make sure
 +the feedback you provide is productive and useful to the students
 +receiving it. Student­-assigned feedback that does not meet this
 +condition will not satisfy the "in ­class"​ portion of the project grade.
 +
 +The grading breakdown for this day is as follows:
 +
 +  * 70% of the complete grade - Tutor­-assigned feedback
 +  * 20% of the complete grade - Student-­assigned feedback
 +  * 10% of the complete grade - In ­Class Portion: Completion of five peer reviews for other students
 +
 +All feedback will be returned to the students, but will be returned
 +anonymously. Both strengths and areas of possible improvement should be
 +noted, with suggestions to successfully improve.
 +
 +There is no intent to assess on "​beauty,"​ and no benefit should be
 +awarded for proposals that are visually more "​appealing"​ or "​official."​
 +If images are included, no benefit or penalty should be included outside
 +of clarity.
 +
 +==== General Grading Scale ====
 +
 +4.0 (100%) - Perfect, I cannot think of anything else they could have done\\ ​
 +4.0 (96%) - A very good proposal, they just have a couple of things they could improve on\\ 
 +3.5 (88%) - A good proposal, could use some more work\\ ​
 +3.0 (80%) - An alright proposal, they have some good stuff but it needs a lot of improvement\\ ​
 +2.5 (72%) - Not great, they left out very important pieces of information completely and what they have needs a lot of work\\ ​
 +2.0 (64%) - Very weak proposal, they turned something in but that's about it\\ 
 +0.0 (0%) - They did not turn anything in
 +
 +=== Prior Work ===
 +  * Experimental Design: It is clear how the past data was taken.
 +  * Discussion: The document tells a complete story of the conducted experiment
 +    * Experimental Design
 +      * Method
 +        * The overall experimental method including pertinent equipment and critical procedural steps are included
 +      * Uncertainty
 +        * Discusses uncertainty in measurements,​ models, and results.
 +        * The quantitative data are presented with uncertainty
 +        * Sources of uncertainty are described
 +        * Deviations from the model are described
 +    * Discussion
 +      * Communication
 +        * Motivation of previous work is clear
 +        * Figures are complete (axes, titles, units, error bars, etc.)
 +      * Results
 +        * Results from previous work are presented within experimental constraints
 +        * Reasonable conclusions and implications are drawn from the data presented
 +        * Data are presented effectively
 +
 +=== Future Work ===
 +
 +  * Experimental design: It is clear how future data will be taken.
 +  * Discussion: The document discusses compelling future work.
 +    * Experimental Design
 +      * Method
 +        * Necessary or additional equipment is discussed
 +        * New experimental methodology is summarized
 +        * Reasons for conducting experiment in this manner are clear
 +      * Uncertainty
 +        * Future work has considered possible issues
 +        * Acknowledges concerns and complications
 +        * Considers potential solutions
 +    * Discussion
 +      * Proposed investigation is original, but connected to and motivated from the previous work
 +      * There is a need for the future work
 +      * The proposal is compelling and well argued
  • communication_project_rubric.txt
  • Last modified: 2019/08/22 10:34
  • by river