Portfolio

Because the participants in the Spring 2009 instance of CMPSC580 are all also in CMPSC220, the notion of the portfolio was already well explored in that context. At no point was the portfolio for 580 well defined in writing. (It was defined and discussed in-class early in the semester.)

Literature Review

Your literature review should be part of your portfolio. It should demonstrate understanding somewhere between 10 and 20 research articles that are pertinent to your area of interest. It will likely take one of two forms:

  • Breadth : Your choice of literature covers a broad range of topics within your area of interest. This will likely require you to read more papers to write well. For example, if you are interested in parallel programming languages, one paper about each of 10 languages is inadequate. 

  • Depth : Your choice of literature focuses on a more specific topic, but you read deeply about that topic. For example, you might be particularly keen on the Fangsnort Transform as applied to the B-Positive form when (most typically) used as an intermediate language representation. In this case, your literature review will be more targeted, but still demonstrate breadth of understanding within this (narrower) topic.


The number of articles is approximate: you may need to read more. It is unlikely you can write a good review with less.

(Mock) Proposals

You will write four mock proposals over the course of the semester. As part of your portfolio, we would like you to submit three of those for consideration.

I have introduced the notion that one of them is primary in some way. It is hoped that one of these proposals might serve as the basis for your senior thesis proposal. While no one proposal is necessarily worth more than the others, I will generally provide feedback at two levels:

  • Primary : If the proposal is your primary proposal (meaning it is most likely to lead towards your senior comp topic), then I will encourage you to edit and reflect more on the document. This is to help you refine and improve the proposal as much as possible this semester, so that the start of your senior year is easier, and you can get into your research quickly.
  • Secondary : If the proposal is unlikely to lead to your comp, it still represents an important exercise in writing and revision. However, we should also acknowledge that it is not likely to be your topic of research, and therefore spend less time towards the end of the semester obsessing over the document. These proposals should be clear in conception and well-written, but perhaps not obsessed over in the same way as your primary proposal.


If none of your proposals are likely to become your senior comp, you should say so. However, this does not lift from your shoulders the onus of good writing.

Weighting

Your portfolio will consist of four documents: a review of the literature, three proposals, and a self-reflection. Your review will be considered at a weight of 15% of your grade, the proposals at 20%, and the self-reflection at 15%. We will consider class participation as 10% of your grade (where we consider the quality of presentations and discussion). 

Your writing will be evaluated by the rubric given below.

Rubric

Your review of the literature, portfolios, and self-reflection 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.) 

Not all of these categories will apply to all of the documents you will write, but it seems counter-productive to create separate rubrics for each document. (For example, "Organization" will apply to all of your documents, but "Testing" will probably not apply to your review of the literature or the self-reflection.)


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 (2 or 3). 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.

Creative Commons License This site is licensed under a Creative Commons License.