Overview
There are three main rubric categories that are detailed in the following sections for 145 points (subject to change)
Design Document (55)
Phase 1 (20 pts)
- 80% of your grade for Phase 1 will be determined by providing all sections completed on time.
- 20% will be provided once you have approval on your phase 1 to move to phase 2.
The approval may be graded after the due date and will not be late. However, you must get this signed off and complete well before phase 2 is due to be graded without deduction.
Category | Criteria | Points |
---|---|---|
Project Description |
| 5 |
MVP, Core, Stretch Features |
| 5 |
Purpose & Motivation |
| 3 |
Learning Targets and Challenge Goals |
| 2 |
High Level Timeline |
| 5 |
Phase 2 (15 pts)
Category | Criteria | Points |
---|---|---|
Detailed Schedule (baseline) |
| 5 |
User Experience |
| 10 |
Phase 3 (20 pts)
Category | Criteria | Points |
---|---|---|
Detailed Design |
| 15 |
User Stories |
| 5 |
Testing Strategy |
| 3 |
Algorithms |
| 2 |
Project Completion (60)
The following rubrics break out the assessment by different areas.
Updates (10 Pts)
Your updates will be graded out of 10 points. You must submit your updated Design Document to match your finished project.
This update should include updates to your design diagrams and any changes on the algorithms that you actually ended up implementing. See the Final Updates page for more information.
Functionality (40 Pts)
If you copy code (even small amounts) from the internet, from AI or other sources, you MUST attribute the origin of that code or you will receive an overall penalty on your grade. (Add the attribution links to your README.md file)
Criteria | Exemplary (100%) | Satisfactory (80%) | Not Yet (60%) | Unassessable (0%) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Quality (Bugs) | No major bugs or glitches. Program does not crash. All basic use cases work as advertised. Only minor bugs present. | Few major bugs. Program does not crash. Behavior is mostly correct. | Some major bugs. Program seldom crashes. | Major bugs prevalent. Important behavior malfunctions. |
Polish/User Design(UI) | Appearance is clean and professional. No visual or audio bugs. Great attention to detail and creativity. | Appearance is mostly well-organized and neat. No usage issues. Minor UI glitches. | Appearance is somewhat organized. Usage is somewhat difficult. | Appearance is poor. Usage is difficult. |
Quantity (Features) | Completed all MVP features and then some. Code demonstrates many hours of focused work (6+ hours per week). | Completed all MVP features. Appropriate number of hours is evident (5 hrs/week). | Completed some MVP features. Shows a lack of effort and dedication (3-4 hrs/week). | A long way from appropriate effort and completion. |
Difficulty | Difficult technology, algorithms, UI, and/or library integration. | Appropriate difficulty. | Lack of apparent or significant learning. | No demonstration of learning. |
Data Structures | Appropriate in all cases. | Mostly good. | Some poor choices. | Poor choices abound. |
Class Design | Strong use of all: abstraction, encapsulation, inheritance, polymorphism. | Use of inheritance and encapsulation is good. Reasonable set of classes. | Classes used, but not encapsulated well. Over or under-designed. | Few classes. Bad design. |
Presentation (10 Pts)
You will be peer reviewed for your presentation but overall grade for the presentation will be assessed as follows below.
If you are not present on your presentation day you may present on the first day back to class for full credit but your partner will still need to present separately on the presentation day.
Criteria | Exemplary (100%) | Satisfactory (80%) | Not Yet (60%) | Unassessable (0%) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Formal Presentation | Thorough presentation of project: functionality, learnings, and experience. Professional slides and/or presentation. | Demonstrates functionality and some insight into the development experience. No slides necessary. Reasonable quality of presentation. | Falls short of sharing functionality or experience. Presentation lacks quantity or quality. | Missing or woefully disorganized, lacking details. |
Ongoing (30)
Professionalism (30 pts)
This section will be ongoing through the entire project lifecycle and count towards the final grade.
Criteria | Exemplary (100%) | Satisfactory (80%) | Not Yet (60%) | Unassessable (0%) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Demo Days | Clear achievements made during each demo. Shared learning along with functionality. Tasklist is completely up to date. | Some progress is demonstrated. Task List has some updates. | Progress is missing or too small. Worksheet is missing important information. | No progress is discernible. Worksheet is inadequate. |
Independence | No instances of being off task. Asks for hints occasionally, independently researches, demonstrates problem-solving abilities. | 1 or 2 reminders needed to be on task. Needs help with difficult issues but demonstrates ability to debug and grow independently. | 3+ reminders to get back on task. Consistently unable to resolve (minor) issues without assistance. | Frequently off task. Cannot make progress without assistance. |