Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| — |
communication_project_rubric [2019/08/22 14:34] (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 | ||