computer science data analysis rush hour staffling design challenge and report

ME 250: Grading Rubric for Project 2 Technical Memo

Category Score (S) = 4

Exemplary

Score (S) = 3

Accomplished

Score (S) = 2

Developing

Score (S) = 0

Inadequate

Weight

(w)

Max

weighted

score

(wS)

Title page Title page contains all required information; uses white space appropriately and is one page.

Includes team number, student names, title of

report, class, and due date. Includes a high

quality graphic or photo that is representative of

Project 2. Excellent quality.

Title page is nearly complete,

some minor errors. Good quality.

Title page is nearly

complete, has major

errors. Needs work.

Missing Title page. 1 4

Introduction Introduction is complete and well written; summarized in the team’s own words. Provides

strong background and context for Project 2,

states all objectives of the report, and outlines the

contents of the report (introduces each upcoming

section). An outsider can read this section and

fully understand in detail what has been done and

what the report is about. Excellent quality.

Introduction is nearly complete,

missing some minor details. An

outsider reading the section has

only minor questions after reading

which does not impact their full

understanding of the project or the

report. Good quality.

Some introductory

information is given, but

still missing major points

or context. An outsider

reading the section has

several questions after

reading and will be

confused, section lacks

depth and details.

Inaccurate background

information or unreadable.

An outsider cannot

understand what is

happening in the section.

Needs much work.

Or, missing Introduction

section.

10 40

Problem

Definition

Includes a concise statement of the design

problem and includes a comprehensive list of

objectives and constraints. Captures all aspects of

the problem, including some not-so-obvious

details.

Has a clear statement and good list

of objectives and constraints. No

obvious items are missing.

Offers a statement and a

partial list of objectives

and constraints.

Missing a statement

and/or list of objectives

and/or constraints.

10 40

Software

Algorithm

Software algorithm section has introductory

paragraph with sufficient details to help reader

understand the algorithm used in the code. The

algorithm is presented as a flow chart graphic that

is color-coded and uses shapes from class to

represent different statements/conditions. The

algorithm must be carefully explained in the text.

Excellent quality.

Section is nearly complete, missing

some minor details. An outsider

reading the section has only minor

questions after reading which does

not impact their full understanding

of the project or the report. Good

quality.

Some information is given

and explained, but still

missing major points. An

outsider reading the

section has several

questions after reading

and will be confused-

section lacks depth and

details.

Inaccurate information or

unreadable. An outsider

cannot understand what is

happening in the section.

Needs much work.

Or, missing section.

10 40

Coding Coding and hardware for experimental testing is provided and described. The code itself is

included in an appendix. The code has been tested

to function without flaws.

Adequate description of code and

hardware. Code is included in an

appendix. The code has been tested

with minor flaws.

Description of code and

hardware is missing some

details. Only partial code

is included in an

appendix. Code has been

tested with major flaw.

Missing description. No

code is included in

appendix. Code has not

been tested or did not

function at all.

15 60

Methods Well-written in paragraph format, all critical experimental details are summarized which

document how data collection is performed. All

procedures for debugging are noted. The

procedure for data collection is briefly outlined

and it is clear what measurements were taken and

how and where. Experimental setup is accurately

described in text and possibly diagram(s).

Contains generally adequate

description of methods.

Written in paragraph

format, still missing some

important experimental

details; poor descriptions.

Inaccurate or unreadable

description.

Or, missing Methods

section.

5 20

ME 250: Grading Rubric for Project 2 Technical Memo

Category Score (S) = 4

Exemplary

Score (S) = 3

Accomplished

Score (S) = 2

Developing

Score (S) = 0

Inadequate

Weight

(w)

Max

weighted

score

(wS)

Data

Presentation

in Data

Analysis

Section

Professional looking and accurate presentation of

the data in tables, graphs, and/or figures. All

figures/graphs/tables are correctly drawn and

include labels and proper units (if needed). The

most appropriate/relevant data are displayed.

Excellent quality.

All figures/graphs/tables are

accurate, but some have minor

errors.

Most figures/graphs/tables

are OK; some are still

missing some important or

required features.

Presentation of data is

illegible. No or very few

graphs are shown.

5 20

Data Analysis Data analysis section has introductory paragraph with sufficient details to help reader understand

the upcoming results and how data analysis was

performed. Data analysis is clearly performed

correctly from viewing included graphs, and all

graphs are explained and are of high quality. A

“Rush Hour” is well defined. Excellent quality.

Section is nearly complete, missing

some minor details. Good quality.

Some information is given

and explained, but still

missing major points.

Data analysis performed

with many or substantial

errors.

Data analysis is incorrect

or unintelligible.

10 40

Conclusion

/Recommend

ations

Well-written and good description of all the

important conclusions; the team shows good

understanding of the project and the results.

Includes: thorough review of main results, good

discussion of any limitations on the results,

lessons learned, and all suggestions for

improvement in future studies. No new

information is introduced.

The most important conclusions

have been drawn, only minor

points missing.

Conclusions regarding

major points are drawn,

but many are misstated,

indicating a lack of

understanding.

Inaccurate or

unintelligible description.

Presents “summary”

instead of conclusion

Or, missing Conclusions

section.

15 60

References Citations and references adhere to IEEE standards. Citations appear in chronological order

in text as numbers [1] at the end of sentences and

all are properly cited in Reference section.

1-2 minor mistakes. Major mistakes present. Missing References. 2 8

Appearance Appearance of the report is professional and the appropriate level of effort was put into the

presentation of the report. Report is typed with

good margins and font and has excellent

organization. The formatting is consistent

throughout the report, including tables and

figures.

Figures must be large enough to read-maximum 3

per page (better is 2 per page). All figures have

figure numbers and captions (below the figure)

and all tables have table numbers and captions

(above the table). Excellent quality.

Appearance of the report is

professional, but some minor

presentation problems. Formatting

is generally good, but could still be

improved. Good quality.

Major presentation

problems or formatting is

inconsistent throughout

the report and needs work.

Inconsistent formatting.

Lacking figure or table

numbers.

Needs a lot of editing.

5 20

Appendix All appendices present and complete and labeled. Includes code as one appendix. Excellent quality

and presentation of appendices.

Needs a lot of editing or

lacking information.

2 8

ME 250: Grading Rubric for Project 2 Technical Memo

Category Score (S) = 4

Exemplary

Score (S) = 3

Accomplished

Score (S) = 2

Developing

Score (S) = 0

Inadequate

Weight

(w)

Max

weighted

score

(wS)

Sentence

Mechanics

and Writing

Style

Sentences are well written: the text is free of

errors in grammar, punctuation, and spelling.

Consistent writing style throughout. Overall

impression is easy to read and understand.

Excellent quality.

Sentences are generally well

written; there are occasional

grammar/spelling/punctuation

errors. Overall impression is

usually easy to read and

understand. Good quality.

Sentences have multiple

errors. Requires effort to

comprehend meaning.

Somewhat incoherent

styles across document.

Sentences are poorly

written, incomplete, or

rambling; there are

frequent errors in

grammar/punctuation/

spelling that impair

communication. Hard to

read and understand.

5 20

Concise

Reporting

15 pages or less, excluding the title page and

appendices. Report contains no fluff.

Generally concise. Writing or

formatting may appear slightly

bloated to increase page count.

Appears to intentionally

increase page count by

manipulating formatting

and/or wordiness.

Either exceeds the 15-

page limit or contains

mostly fluff without much

substance.

5 20

SUM 100 400

Your raw grade on the Technical Memo #2 is: 𝑅𝑎𝑤 𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑒 = 100

400 ∑ 𝑤𝑖 𝑆𝑖𝑖 (max=100)

**Blackboard will show you a score out of 400 points.

**Late penalty: -10% off raw grade for reports turned in after 6pm. You need to communicate with your team so your report gets

turned in (on time)!