Business Intelligence and Data Mining Assignment
Ken33333
BIDATAMININGAssignment01MarkingRubric4.docxBI&Data Mining Assignment 01 Marking Rubric
|
Section 1 : Report / Case 1 /Case 2/Overall presentation |
||||
|
|
Description |
|||
|
• Excellent physical layout and logical structure. • The work is presented accurately, concisely and coherently, with no errors and thorough attention to detail. • Excellent technical style, avoiding excessive jargon. • Full acknowledgement of the work of others and correctly formatted reference section. • A clear report with goals, solution overview and methods which systematically follow from the business requirements. • The approach is creative and innovative. • The approach is ethical. -fully addressed case 1 and case 2 -provided in-depth details analysis of both cases
|
• Very good physical layout and logical structure. • Very good attention to detail. • The work is presented in an accurate, concise and coherent fashion, with very few errors. • Few errors in the acknowledgement of the work of others and a correctly formatted reference section. • Correct use of equations, footers and headers • A planned approach which follows from the business requirements. • The approach is systematic. • The approach is ethical. -Addressed case 1 and case 2 appropriately with details -provided a detailed analysis of both cases
|
Good logical structure and physical layout. • The work is presented in an accurate, concise and coherent fashion with good attention to detail in most areas and few errors. • Good technical style. • Few spelling mistakes or grammatical errors. • Few errors in the acknowledgement of the work of others or the reference section. • Few errors in equations, footers and headers. • A satisfactory plan of work is offered. • The approach is reasonably systematic. • The approach is ethical. -Addressed case 1 and case 2 in a good manner, provided details -provided an acceptable detailed analysis of both cases
|
• Satisfactory logical structure and physical layout. • Satisfactory attention to detail. • The work is presented in a satisfactory fashion. • Occasional errors in the acknowledgement of the work of others, satisfactorily formatted reference section. • Occasional errors in equations, footers and headers. •. • The plan of work offered is poor, or only partly relates to the business requirements. • • The plan of work offered is incomplete or unclear, or does not completely relate to the business requirements. • The approach is ill-considered, and does not logically flow from the business requirements. -Addressed case 1 and case 2 in general as an overview, provided enough details -provided an acceptable detailed analysis of both cases
|
Poor structure and inconsistent physical layout. • The work is presented poorly with little attention to detail. • Very many errors in the acknowledgement of the work of others and a poorly formatted reference section. • Poor (or no) footers or headers.
The plan of work offered is poor, or only partly relates to the business requirements. • The approach is ill-considered, and bears little relationship to the business requirements.
Did not address the cases appropriately. |
|
Excellent
|
Well done
|
Very good |
OK |
Need to review |
|
HD |
D |
C |
P |
F |
|
Section 2 : Answers |
||||
|
|
Description |
|||
|
• Excellent, clear definition of requirements. • Excellent description of the questions, problems, and/or requirements (including statement of purpose and relevance). -Excellent analysis of the case shown in questions responses, in-depth knowledge of the presented case specifications
|
• Very good definition of requirements. • Very good description of questions, problems, and/or requirements (including statement of purpose and relevance). -very good analysis of the case shown in questions responses, demonstrated an adequate understanding of the presented case specifications
|
Good definition of adequate requirements. • Good description of questions, problems and/or hypothesis (including statement of purpose and relevance). • good analysis of the case shown in questions responses, in-depth knowledge of the presented case specifications -Good analysis of the case shown in questions responses, demonstrated an adequate understanding of the presented case specifications
|
•Satisfactory definition of basic requirements /problem. -satisfactory responses to questions
|
Unsatisfactory definition of requirements. - Unsatisfactory responses on questions
|
|
Excellent
|
Well done
|
Very good |
OK |
Need to review |
|
HD |
D |
C |
P |
F |
