Grading rubric for a Group Project Project Proposal and ...

1 Page 1 of 1 Grading rubric for a Group ProjectProject Proposal and the System analysis and Design Deliverable rubric Teamwork ( 25 Points) The t eam worked well together t o achieve objectives. Each member contributed i n a valuable way to the Project . All data sources i ndicated a high level of mutual respect and collaboration. The team worked well together most of the time, with only a few occurrences of communication breakdown or f ailure to collaborate when appropriate. Members were mostly respectful of each other. Team did not collaborate or communicate well. Some members would work i ndependently, without r egard t o objectives or priorities. A lack of respect and regard was frequently noted.

2 Cont ri bution ( 25 Points) All r equirements and objectives are i dentified, evaluated and competed. The deliverable offered new information or approach to the topic under discussion. Likewise, t he application is based on stated criteria, analysis and constraints. All requirements are i dentified and evaluated but some objectives are not completed. The deliverable offered some new information or approach to the topic under discussion. The application i s r easonable; further analysis of some of the alternatives or constraints may have l ed t o a different recommendation. Many r equirements and objectives are not identified, evaluated and/or completed. The deliverable offered no new i nformation or approach t o t he t opic under discussion.

3 Few application considerations are analyzed and other factors were i gnored or incompletely analyzed. Subject Knowledge ( 25 Points) The deliverable demonstrated knowledge of t he course content by integrating major and minor concepts i nto the response. The deliverable also demonstrated evi dence of extensive research effort and a depth of thinking about the topic. The deliverable demonstrated knowledge of t he course content by i ntegrating major concepts into the response. The deliverable also demonstrated evi dence of l imited research effort and/or i nitial of t hinking about the topic. The deliverable did not demonstrate knowledge of the course content, evi dence of the research effort or depth of thinking about the topic.

4 Support ing Material ( 20 Points) All relevant information was obtainedand i nformation sources were valid. analysis and design considerations were well supported by the information. Sufficient i nformation was obtained and most sources were valid. analysis and design considerations were mostly supported by the information. Insufficient i nformation was obtained and/or sources l ack validity. analysis and design considerations were not supported by the information collected. Composition ( 5 Points) The deliverable was well organized and clearly written. The underlying logic was clearly articulated and easy to follow. Words were chosen that precisely expressed t he i ntended meaning and supported reader comprehension.

5 Diagrams or analyses enhanced and clarified presentation of i deas. Sentences were grammatical and free from errors. The deliverable was organized and clearly written for the most part. In some areas the logic and/or f low of i deas were difficult to follow. Words were well chosen with some minor expectations. Diagrams were consistent with the t ext. Sentences were mostly grammatical and /or only a few spelling errors were present but they did not hinder the reader. The deliverable l acked overall organization. The reader had to make considerable effort t o understand the underlying logic and f low of i deas. Diagrams were absent or inconsistent with t he t ext.

6 Grammatical and spelling errors made it difficult for the reader t o i nterpret the text in places. Not Yet Compl eteComponentSophisticatedCompetentpage 1 of 1 Application Demonstration rubric Component Sophisticated Competent Not Yet Compl ete Teamwork ( 30 Points) The team worked well together to achieve objectives. Each member contributed i n a valuable way to the Project . All data sources indicated a high level of mutual r espect and collaboration. The team worked well together most of the time, with only a few occurrences of communicationbreakdown or failure to collaborate when necessary. Members were mostly respectful of each other. The team did not collaborate or communication well.

7 Some members would work independently, without regard to objectives or priorities. A lack of respect and r egard was frequently noted. Cont ri bution ( 3 0 Points) The demonstration offered new information or approach about the application . The demonstration also showed strong effort was made i n breaking new ground and building excitement about the application. The demonstration offered some new information or approach about t he application. The demonstration also showed i nitial effort was made i n building excitement about t he application. The demonstration was not complete and offered no new information or approach about th e application. The demonstration also showed that little effort was made in building excitement about t he application.

8 Content and (40 Points) The demonstration was imaginative and effective i n conveying i deas t o t he audience. The demonstrati on techniques used were effective in conveying main ideas, but a bit unimaginative. The demonstration failed to capture t he i nterest of t he audience and/or i s confusing in what was communicated. Creativitypage 1 of 1 Component Sophisticated Competent Not Yet Compl ete Cont ent and Creativity (40 Po int s) The presentation c ontained an abundance o f m aterial w hich clearly r elated t o t he m ain arguments. E xternal r esearch was u sed t o j ustify a rguments or solutions. T he p resentation of the material was original and presented i n a c reative w ay that held audience attention.

9 The presentation contained material to support the main arguments, but: 1) not all material clearly related to the main a rguments; 2) limited external research was used to justify or solutions; and/or 3) the presentation of the material was appropriate, but only somewhat held a udience attention. The a udience h ad t o m ake considerable e ffort t o understand t he u nderlying logical and flow of ideas. Major aspects o f t he a nalysis o r rec ommendations w ere a bsent. No external research was used to j ustify a rguments o r s olutions. The p resentation l acked creativi ty a nd d id n ot h old audience attention. Coherence and Org ani zation (30 Po int s) The t hesis, a rgument a nd solution w ere c learly s tated and e xamples w ere appropriate.

10 T he t ransitions and flow w ere e asy t o follow. Sl ides w ere e rror-free a nd logically presented. The thesis, argument and solution were clearly stated, but: 1) not all examples w ere supportiveillustrations; 2) the transitions and /or flow were some w hat difficult to follow; and/or 3) slides were error-free and logically presented. The thesis, a rgument, solution and examples were n ot c learly stated. T he c onclusion w as unclear. The transitions and flow were n ot l ogical. Sl ides contained e rrors a nd a l ack o f logical progression. Speaking Skills a nd Part icipation (30 Po int s) Team members were poised and h ad c lear a rticulation. Eve ry team member spoke and participated at a ve ry high and balanced l eve l.