ABC-Rubrics
Rubrics
This unit is under development. There is some contents here but it is incomplete and/or may change significantly: links may lead to nowhere, the contents is likely going to be rearranged, and objectives, deliverables etc. may be incomplete or missing. Do not work with this material until it is updated to "live" status.
This page defines different levels of performance, and the grades that would normally be associated with these levels for a variety of tasks.
Contents
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[1] | 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 | Elegant; introduces alternative idiom / pattern / library that improves on previously established solutions | Expressively named variables; astute use of external libraries and packages; mastering coding standards - at all times appropriate to objective; confident use of language features but not so idiomatic 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.; | ... | ... | ... | ... |
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 | ... | Lucidly presents context, concept and realization; full coverage of behaviour; authoritative description of preconditions, parameters, output, and all error conditions; concise and illustrative examples. | ... | ... | ... | ... |
Course Journal
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. | Incoherent, incomplete, disorganized, disregarding suggested form, and/or not written concurrently with the described activities. |
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. |
Notes and References
- ↑ These principles generally reflect the University of Toronto's Grading Policies but distinguish between (A–/A) and A+ levels of achievement.
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.
