ABC-Rubrics

Rubrics

 

This page defines different levels of performance, and the grades that would normally be associated with these levels for a variety of tasks.

 

 

Assessment and Evaluation

Assessment is "formative": we apply the rubrics to gauge what level of performance has been achieved and provide feedback on successes and on aspects that need improvement. This can be self-assessment, peer-assessment and instructor assessment.

Evaluation is "summative". The rubrics give guidance regarding the final outcome of the task, and what grade should be recorded.

 

General

Essays, short reports, quizzes, projects and other assigned material will generally be evaluated according to the following principles:

Category	Outstanding (A+, 90-100% and more)	Excellent (A, 80-89%)	Good (B, 70–79%)	Adequate (C, 60–69%)	Marginal (D, 50–59%)	Inadequate (F, Less than 50%)
General	Advances the field: strong evidence of original thinking while organizing ideas in a lucid and rigorous manner; extends concepts of the subject matter; discovers non-obvious relationships and extensions to other domains.	Accomplished in every aspect: good organization; material is understood in broader context; capacity to analyze and synthesize; superior grasp of subject matter with sound critical evaluations; evidence of extensive knowledge base.	Knowledgeable and competent: evidence of fundamental understanding and operational grasp of subject matter; awareness of context; some evidence of critical capacity and analytic ability; evidence of familiarity with literature.	Basic proficiency: able to reproduce a majority of facts; basic understanding of the subject matter; ability to develop solutions to simple problems in the material; evidence of exposure to the literature.	Significant gaps: some evidence of familiarity with subject matter; not fully able to reproduce factual knowledge; some evidence that critical and analytic skills have been developed; vague knowledge of literature.	Competence has not been achieved: insufficient understanding of subject matter; weakness in critical and analytic skills; limited or irrelevant use of literature.
Concepts	Adds to expected concepts; balance between perspective and detail is exemplary.	Concepts complete; well balanced between broad perspective and crucial detail.	All main concepts present; granularity appropriate.	Contains most main concepts; too broad or too deep in parts.	Contains a few of the main concepts; granularity appears somewhat arbitrary.	Contains a limited number of concepts and/or irrelevant ones; haphazard granularity.
Relationships	Original insights extend given relationships in a meaningful and rigorous way.	Meaningful insights; precise representation of relationships; annotated where necessary - no ambiguities.	Expected relationships largely complete; relationships meaningful and accurate; annotations generally present.	Missing some important relationships; generally correct; some annotations.	Many omissions; existing ones not fully thought through; meaning vague.	Trivial connections only and/or erroneous connections; meaning not clear.
Organization	Lucid organization exposes how concepts derive from underlying principles; effortless presentation of the material's coherence.	Clear and compelling; cuts through superficial complexity but all essential relationships present; independently finds appropriate level of abstractions.	Thoughtful; clusters and pathways clear; expected relationships present.	Mostly represents topic adequately; some higher-order relationships shown.	Not all parts coherent; missing significant structure.	Choppy; confusing; with erroneous application of principles.
Form	Inspiring	Exemplary	Effective	Adequate	Hasty	Careless

 

Software Design

Grading of software design tasks will consider the following aspects:

Category	Outstanding (A+, 90-100% and more)	Excellent (A, 80-89%)	Good (B, 70–79%)	Adequate (C, 60–69%)	Marginal (D, 50–59%)	Inadequate (F, Less than 50%)
Principles	Naturally extends common design principles	Well grounded in common design principles	Adheres to most important design principles	Generally guided by appropriate design principles	Some design principles reflected in approach	Unprincipled and/or violates important design principles
Abstractions	Contains original, non-obvious abstractions that improve the design	Establishes wholly appropriate abstractions	Well defined, solid abstractions	Workable abstractions	Abstractions technically correct but unwieldy	Haphazard abstractions
Concerns	Separation of concerns flows naturally from design	Effective separation of concerns	Separation of concerns complete	Separation of concerns could be improved	Some inadequate separation of concerns will require refactoring	Disorganized separation of concerns creates significant technical debt
Granularity	Granularity is exemplary	Convincing level of granularity	Granularity acceptable in all respects	Granularity could be improved	Some inappropriate granularity will require refactoring	Granularity inappropriate
Coupling	Degree of coupling is fully balanced for efficiency, maintainability and extensibility, compromising on neither	Appropriate degree of coupling for the context	No unnecessary coupling between components	Some excessive or insufficient coupling	Several modules or components have excessive or insufficient coupling	Insufficient attention to coupling concerns
Requirements	Fully realizes all requirements, and in addition anticipates requirement changes without prematurely encumbering the design.	Fully realizes requirements while keeping extensibility in mind	All requirements addressed	All main requirements well addressed	All main requirements addressed	One or more main requirements missing and/or erroneously translated in the design

 

Code

Grading of code development tasks will consider the following aspects:

Category	Outstanding (A+, 90-100% and more)	Excellent (A, 80-89%)	Good (B, 70–79%)	Adequate (C, 60–69%)	Marginal (D, 50–59%)	Inadequate (F, Less than 50%)
Code	All features of an Excellent submission are present. In addition: code is elegant, original, and/or introduces alternative idiom / pattern / library that improves on previously established solutions.	Complete, correct, and authoritative documentation is present; Variables are expressively named; astute use of external libraries and packages while limiting dependencies; mastering coding standards - at all times appropriate to the code's objective; confident use of language features but not so idiomatic as to be obscure to novices; efficient data structures and control flow; defensive in intake of data and parameters; rigorous in output; conscientious in error handling; all requirements fulfilled and all interfaces fully specified; unit tests (and integration tests where appropriate) fully cover the code.	Most features of an Excellent submission are present but all requirements are fulfilled, all interfaces are fully specified, and the code is fully tested.	Many features of an Excellent submission are present but all requirements are fulfilled, all interfaces are fully specified, and the code is fully tested.	Some features of an Excellent submission are present but all requirements are fulfilled, all interfaces are fully specified. There may be some omissions in test coverage.	Code does not run and/or produces incorrect results and/or does not fully implement specifications and/or has its interfaces not fully specified and/or there are significant omissions in test coverage. Note: any of these will justify a mark of "Inadequate".

 

Documentation

Grading of software documentation will consider the following aspects:

Category	Outstanding (A+, 90-100% and more)	Excellent (A, 80-89%)	Good (B, 70–79%)	Adequate (C, 60–69%)	Marginal (D, 50–59%)	Inadequate (F, Less than 50%)
Documentation	All features of an Excellent submission are present. In addition: documentation particularly well written, and/or introduces context in an original, useful way that improves on obvious paradigms.	Lucidly presents context, concept and realization; full coverage of behaviour; authoritative description of preconditions, parameters, output, and all error conditions; concise and illustrative examples. Related code and alternatives are clearly specified. Code is fully commented with focus on making design purpose, context, design decisions, and potential maintenance issues explicit, not merely paraphrasing the code itself.	Most features of an Excellent submission are present but still full coverage of preconditions, parameters, behaviour, output, and all error conditions; useful examples illustrate code usage.	Many features of an Excellent submission are present but still full coverage of preconditions, parameters, behaviour, output, and all error conditions; examples may not cover all aspects of the code.	Some features of an Excellent submission are present but still mostly full coverage of preconditions, parameters, behaviour, and output; all error conditions documented; few and/or not fully relevant examples.	Errors in the documentation and/or incomplete coverage of preconditions, parameters, behaviour, and output and/or significant omissions in covering error conditions and/or no usage examples or only trivial examples. Note: any of these will justify a mark of "Inadequate".

 

Course Journal

Caution:

If a journal is a deliverable of a course and will be graded, all rules regarding plagiarism and other academic misconduct apply in full. In particular:

do not include any material from elsewhere without referencing it:

We are operating a "full disclosure" policy. Anything that you did not write yourself, on the spot, must be referenced. In particular you need to reference if you are copying your own material from other courses.;

do not fabricate material that you are posting in your journal.

Fabrication could include things like: modifying results produced by your code, describing work that you have not actually done, or claiming a time for the journal entry that is not the time/date on which it was actually written. All of these are academic offences.;

Note:

Only journal entries that were written concurrently with the activity they describe will be evaluated for credit.

Grading of Course Journals will consider the following aspects:

Category	Outstanding (A+, 90-100% and more)	Excellent (A, 80-89%)	Good (B, 70–79%)	Adequate (C, 60–69%)	Marginal (D, 50–59%)	Inadequate (F, Less than 50%)
Course Journal	Engaging; illuminating reference for others; maximally concise yet comprehensive; easy to navigate and search; written concurrently with the course activities; improves on suggested form.	Complete; concise; reproducible; cross-references important sections; written concurrently with the course activities; adheres to suggested form; grammar and spelling flawless.	At times too wordy and/or too brief; lacking or overusing cross-references; written concurrently with the course activities; mostly adheres to suggested form; grammar and spelling good.	Noticeably too wordy and/or too brief; frequently lacking or overusing cross-references; written concurrently with the course activities; large parts adhere to suggested form; grammar and spelling still acceptable.	Generally too wordy and/or too brief; lack of or indiscriminate use of cross-references; however always written concurrently with the course activities; significant issues with form, grammar and/or spelling. Formulaic, not describing actual experience. Describing objectives, not what was actually done.	Incoherent, incomplete, disorganized, disregarding suggested form, and/or not written concurrently with the described activities. Copy/paste contents from learning unit objectives.

 

Please note: in addition to the specific rubric items for your journal, your general interaction with the course will be considered. If you consistently contribute valuable contents to the course mailing list, I may add bonus marks to your total. If you ignore and/or violate the Netiquette principles, I may deduct marks from this category.

 

Insights

Grading of the insights! page will consider the following aspects:

Category	Outstanding (A+, 90-100% and more)	Excellent (A, 80-89%)	Good (B, 70–79%)	Adequate (C, 60–69%)	Marginal (D, 50–59%)	Inadequate (F, Less than 50%)
insights!	Engaging, memorable, inspiring, with significant benefit to most readers. Highly original insights. Effortlessly deriving principles from actual activities in the greater context. Complete coverage focussing on the most essential aspects. Easy to navigate. Possibly modelling an improvement to the suggested form.	Overall well written, generally useful to the reader. Original. Basically complete. Referenced to actual activities for context. Form as required.	Writing usually well focussed. Some spelling- or grammar errors and/or errors of terminology. Most writing show original thinking. Large parts of the material covered. Usually referenced to actual activities. Only few lapses in form.	Majority of material is focussed. Some parts not plausibly motivated. Some writing is formulaic or mechanical. Significant opportunities to improve reference to context and motivation. The number of spelling- or grammar errors and/or errors of terminology is noticeable. Form still adequate.	Lacking focus. Only a few thoughts are plausible to the reader. Significant number of spelling- or grammar errors and/or errors of terminology. Needs improvement of context, motivation, and/or relevance to actual activities. Spotty coverage or mechanical, unreflected writing. Little evidence of original thought. Form needs improvement.	Cryptic, superficial, irrelevant, rambling, formulaic, erroneous, spotty, and/or lacking form or missing required elements.

 

Learning Units

Grading of student developed Learning Units will consider the following aspects. Note that the rubrics for Software Design, Documentation, and Code also apply.

 

Category	Outstanding (A+, 90-100% and more)	Excellent (A, 80-89%)	Good (B, 70–79%)	Adequate (C, 60–69%)	Marginal (D, 50–59%)	Inadequate (F, Less than 50%)
Outcomes	All features of an Excellent submission. In addition, formulation of meta-skills as outcomes that are relevant to learning in context and support of career goals, and/or particularly insightful outcomes of the unit.	Outcomes are clearly defined in terms that can be assessed and measured; they are of immediate and future value to the learner (including teaching directly applicable knowledge and strategies to learn in a dynamic field) and target high levels of cognition (e.g. application of concepts, critical analysis of alternatives, acquisition of best-practice habits, ability to extrapolate and synthesize); they are realistic for the scope of the learning unit.	Most features of an Excellent submission are present but all outcomes are valuable and realistic.	Many features of an Excellent submission are present but all outcomes are valuable. Needs work on making them realistic.	Some features of an Excellent submission are present but at least some realistically achievable outcomes are included.	Outcomes are vague and/or ambiguous and/or disconnected from the material.
General	Advances the field: strong evidence of original thinking while organizing the material in a lucid and rigorous manner; extends concepts of the subject matter without losing focus; covers current aspects as well as developing trends; discovers non-obvious relationships and extensions to other domains while keeping with the objectives of the unit; supports all outcomes in an effortlessly integrated fashion.	Accomplished in every aspect: good organization; material is understood in broader context; analyses and synthesis of contents flow naturally; superior grasp of subject matter with inclusion of sound critical evaluations into the material; evidence of extensive knowledge base, while ensuring that the covered material is fully appropriate for the stated prerequisites; all stated outcomes are supported.	Knowledgeable and competent: evidence of fundamental understanding and operational grasp of subject matter; awareness of context; some evidence of critical and analytic ability in presenting the material; evidence of familiarity with literature.	Basic proficiency: able to guide learners correctly through the facts of the material; basic understanding of the subject matter; ability to develop solutions to simple problems in the material; evidence of exposure to the literature; all stated outcomes are supported.	Significant gaps: some evidence of familiarity with subject matter; not fully able to reproduce factual knowledge; some evidence that critical and analytic skills have been developed; vague knowledge of literature; all stated outcomes are supported.	Competence has not been achieved and is not imparted on the learner - any of: insufficient understanding of subject matter; factual errors; weakness in critical and analytic skills; limited or irrelevant use of literature; claims outcomes that are not supported by the material.
Prerequisites and data	All features of an Excellent submission. In addition, adds creatively to the common data with additional data that has a natural connection to it.	Material clearly relates to the stated prerequisites; all material that has not been previously covered is developed in the unit itself; unit demonstrates it principles with simulated, synthetic data that represents known features and relationships, to demonstrate that the proposed strategies work in principle (positive control); unit than works with the common data from previous units ("real" data), to contribute to a cohesive analysis workflow.	Most features of an Excellent submission are present but all prerequisites are respected and both synthetic as well as "real" data is used.	Many features of an Excellent submission are present; all prerequisites are respected but the balance between synthetic and "real" data needs work.	Some features of an Excellent submission are present; some prerequisites may be missing; the balance between synthetic and "real" data is poor.	Does not relate to prerequisites and/or misses synthetic or "real" data".
Contents	Adds to expected concepts; balance between perspective and detail is exemplary.	Concepts complete; well balanced between broad perspective and crucial detail.	All main concepts present; granularity appropriate.	Contains most main concepts; too broad or too deep in parts.	Contains a few of the main concepts; granularity appears somewhat arbitrary.	Contains a limited number of concepts and/or irrelevant ones; haphazard granularity.
Tasks and exercises	All features of an Excellent submission. In addition, provides perspectives for the learner to go beyond the limits of the current material.	Continuously engages the learner with interactive tasks that solidify and evaluate understanding; provides exercises that grow active knowledge and skills and whose outcomes are valuable beyond the immediate context. All tasks and exercises relate to the actual material. Provides clear sample solutions for all tasks and exercises.	Most features of an Excellent submission are present but all tasks and exercises are valuable. All sample solutions are present.	Many features of an Excellent submission are present; some tasks and exercises need work. All sample solutions are present.	Some features of an Excellent submission are present; many tasks and exercises are not very valuable. All sample solutions are present.	Tasks and exercises patchy and/or vague and/or disconnected from the material and/or are missing sample solutions.
Organization	Lucid organization exposes how concepts derive from underlying principles; effortless presentation of the material's coherence.	Clear and compelling; cuts through superficial complexity but all essential relationships present; independently finds appropriate level of abstractions.	Thoughtful; concept clusters and connections clear; expected relationships present.	Mostly represents topic adequately; some higher-order relationships shown.	Not all parts coherent; missing significant structure.	Choppy; confusing; with erroneous application of principles.
Form	Inspiring	Exemplary	Effective	Adequate	Hasty	Careless

 

Notes and References

 

In general, marks will be "holistic" in the sense that a high-level achievement in one category can not simply compensate for an inferior achievement in another category. It is the overall quality, integrated over all categories that counts. Therefore it would not make sense to attempt a "marks-breakdown" by category for these items. Marks negotiations that you base on isolated aspects of these rubrics will be pointless - that's not what the rubrics are for. Use them as a guide what you should be aiming for instead.

 

---

 

This work is made available to the public under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.