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. 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.

2 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. 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.

3 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. 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.

4 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. 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. Grammatical and spelling errors made it difficult for the reader t o i nterpret the text in places.

5 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. 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.

6 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. 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.

7 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. 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.

8 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. Sp eakers d emonstrated good vo lume, a nd eye contact. E nthusiasm andconfidence w as e xuded. The p resentation f it i nto t he time allotment of 10 minutes.

9 Team members were m ostly a udible and/or f luent on the t opic, b ut:1) not all t eam m embers s poke a nd/or participated i n a h igh a nd b alanced leve l; 2 ) speakers d emonstrated f air vo lume and/or e ye c ontact w as broken w ith audience; 3) light discomfort with public speaking was exuded; and/or 4) the presentation slightly went ove r the10 minute allotment. Team m embers w ere o ften inaudible and/or h esitant a nd relied heavi ly on notes. Speakers made d istracting gestures w ith little or no audience eye contact. A high leve l o f discomfort with public speaking was exuded. The presentation w ent o ve r t he 10 minute allotment. Final Pres entation rubric Individual Reflection Ess ay rubric Component Sophisticated Competent Not Yet Compl ete Cont ri butions (50 Po int s) The individual contributed in a va luable w ay t o t he p roject.

10 The indivi dual i s a lso a ble t o articulate the key performance criteria of successful teams and eva luate t he g roup performance accordingly. The i ndivi dual d id n ot c ontribute a s heavi ly a s o thers b ut d id m eet a ll responsibilities. T he i ndivi dual is a lso able to identify some key performance criteria of successful teams and/or draw related connections the g roup p erformance. The individual did not contribute to the Project and failed to meet responsibilities. T he i ndividual does n ot i dentify k ey performance c riteria o f successful t eams o r d raw inference to own experience. Lessons Learned (50 Po int s) The i ndividual h ad a l eve l of engagement t hat demonstrateda s trong commitment to the class a nd the l earning o utcomes. T he vo ice of the individual writer is evi dent. The i ndivi dual h ad a l eve l o f engagement t hat d emonstrated a commitment t o the c lass a nd/or t he learning o utcomes.