This general gradic rubric is vastly borrowed from Jenny Bryan's course's rubric.
For most assignments, the category for graph/table presentations will not apply.
| Topic | Excellent | Satisfactory | Needs work |
|---|---|---|---|
| code performance | efficient & lean code, using tools that are fast and that use memory efficiently, e.g. appropriate data structures | correct code, gets the work done with no error | some errors, job partially done, or in misplaced files |
| coding strategy | problem broken down into simpler sub-problems. Checks for common errors | correct but lengthy code, e.g. from not using suitable data structures. Some checks for errors | problem tackled in one big chunk, functions / subroutines not used to avoid code repetitiveness. No anticipation of errors. |
| coding style | human-readable code, good variable names, consistent indentation, coding manual, well commented functions and algorithm methods | readable code with comments, but style lacks refinement, may have some style errors | many errors in coding style, little attention paid to making the code human readable |
| project documentation | each folder has its own readme file with a map of what is in the folder, how/when it got there, detailed notes & commands to reproduce the work, from which directory to run each command, explanations of project goals and analysis choices. Markdown syntax is used, documentation well organized in sections & subsections |
each folder had its own readme documentation, markdown syntax is used, most commands are there to reproduce the workflow, but it might not be clear in which order the commands / scripts need to be run, or from where, or what they each do. |
missing project documentation, or present but difficult to follow and missing information |
| Presentation: graphs & tables | graph(s) carefully tuned to convey a message | well chosen graph(s) but a few minor problems (e.g. aspect ratios, labels) | poorly chosen graphs, do not address questions |
| achievement, mastery, cleverness, creativity | beyond what was expected and required, e.g., extraordinary effort, additional tools not addressed by this course, unusually sophisticated application of tools from course | tools and techniques from the course are applied very competently and, perhaps somewhat creatively. Chosen task was acceptable, but fairly conservative in ambition. | does not display the expected level of mastery of the tools and techniques in this course. Chosen task was too limited in scope. |
| work submission | access was made easy for instructor, the code runs, tagged versions with git, informative commit messages | satisfactory access, complied with instructions | not an earnest effort to comply with conventions and/or code does not run, git history re-written |