Your final project will earn a mark of either an A, B, C, D, or F.
Poster Evaluation
To receive an A, your poster must be excellent. This is hard work; do not underestimate effort it takes to assemble an excellent poster. This rubric will be given to other faculty taking part in poster evaluation.
| Category | Excellent | Satisfactory | Passable |
|---|---|---|---|
| Titles/Subtitles | Clear and enhance readability. | Mostly titles clear and enhance readability. | Do a poor job of clarifying text. |
| Text Size/Color | All text clear, readable. Any changes in size/color enhance readability | All text clear, readable. Some changes in size/color enhance poster. | Some text clear, changes do not help. |
| Writing | Well written, well organized, easy to follow. | Adequately written/organized, easy to follow | Poorly written/organized, hard to follow |
| Graphics/Data | Graphics/data clear, labeled, easy to understand | Graphics/data clear, labeled | Existence of graphics/data. |
Report Evaluation
Your reports will be evaluated (as nearly as possible) according to the following rubric. (Much of the material for this rubric was developed by Matt Boutell at Rose-Hulman.)
| Category | Excellent | Satisfactory | Passable |
|---|---|---|---|
| Organization | Document uses headings and topic sentences. Easy for the reader to follow the discussion and find any specific topic of interest. | Some headings/topic sentences in evidence. Fairly easy for reader to follow discussion. | Use of headings/topic sentences apparently optional. Hard to follow the discussion or find specific topics in the document. |
| Clarity/Conciseness | Writing is clear and unambiguous. Not wordy. | Mostly clear. Occasionally unclear or awkward writing. | Unclear writing. Ambiguous or excessively wordy writing detracts from any points being made. |
| Spelling/Grammar | Free of errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation. | Small number of errors. | Many errors. |
| Professionalism | Document has a professional tone and format. Could be shared with colleagues elsewhere without reservation. | Mostly professional in tone. Minor revision before distribution. | Unprofessional. Majority of the document would need rewriting before sharing/publication. |
| Introduction | Document clearly describes the work so that any competent computer scientist could understand the exploration undertaken. | Document describes the work so that a competent computer scientist with knowledge of the problem domain could understand the exploration undertaken. | Fails to describe the work. Computer scientists everywhere weep. |
| Literature review | Document includes a summary of appropriate literature and its relation to this project | Document includes a brief summary of appropriate literature and its relation to this project. | Document fails to include any discussion of the literature. |
| Design and Development | Document clearly describes the overall process followed, including development methods, language experiments, data, and analysis. | Document clearly describes the overall process followed. | Document fails to make process clear. |
| Testing | Document clearly describes testing framework, tests developed, and confidence regarding completeness. | Document clearly describes tests developed. | Testing? |
| Future Work | Document includes next steps that the pair would take, given more time. | Same. | Document fails to include future work. |
| Reflection | Document clearly describes the key challenges faced in implementing the project and the lessons learned from each challenge. | Document describes the key challenges faced in implementing the project and some of the lessons learned. | Document fails to describe the key challenges or lessons learned. |
| Effort | Excellent progress made on tough problem, or other evidence of much effort and new learning. | Problem was easy or similar to what we did in class, so not much new learning needed to be done or effort expended. | Little effort expended. |
| Code | Clear code, formatted in style idiomatic to the language used. Appropriately commented and documented. Compiles without warnings or errors, and executes correctly for all reasonable inputs. | Clear code, idiomatically formatted. Comments wanting, documentation passable. Executes without error. | Poorly formatted code, crashing behavior on some inputs. Generally poor software. |
And, to be clear regarding your code: take it through a code walk. If you have not edited and revised the work you have done to the best of your ability, then it cannot represent your best work.
Summary
An excellent project is overwhelmingly excellent in all cases. Excellent projects translate into A projects.
A satisfactory project is generally satisfactory in all cases; excellent ratings are balanced out with passable ratings. Satisfactory projects generally translate into projects in the B to C range.
A passable project is likely a C.
Projects that fail to rate on this scale in one or more dimensions may do poorly. Such projects may garner a D or an F.