| Course Code | Class Code | Assignment Title | Total Points |
| ITT-455 | ITT-455-O500 | Curveball | 120.0 |
| Criteria | Percentage | Unsatisfactory (0.00%) | Less than Satisfactory (65.00%) | Satisfactory (75.00%) | Good (85.00%) | Excellent (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned |
| Content | 100.0% |
| Initial Curveball Draft | 15.0% | Draft is not uploaded to the group discussion forum. | Draft is uploaded to group discussion forum; provided after the designated timeline. | Draft is uploaded to group discussion forum; provided by the designated timeline. | n/a | Draft is uploaded to group discussion forum; provided before the designated timeline. |
| Final Proposal Draft | 20.0% | Proposal does not demonstrate knowledge of the subject. | Proposal demonstrates knowledge of data center transition needs. | Proposal demonstrates knowledge of data center transition needs by integrating major and minor concepts throughout proposal. | Proposal demonstrates knowledge of data center transition needs by integrating major and minor concepts throughout. Has updated risks, timeline and proposed budget based on changes and knowledge from previous topics | Proposal demonstrates knowledge of data center transition needs by integrating major and minor concepts throughout. Proposal has updated risks, timeline, and proposed budget based on changes and knowledge from previous topics. Proposal demonstrates how final proposal ties back to vision statement for the project. |
| Technical Knowledge | 20.0% | Proposal has no technical solution identified. | Proposal provides a technical solution but is not related to the vision statement. No visuals are provided. | Proposal provides technical solution with feasibility to solution, but no visuals provided. | Proposal provides feasible path to complete a technical solution for the project. Proposal includes a series of diagrams (i.e., network, servers, data center layout) but lacks connection to the vision statement. | Proposal provides clear and concise technical solution with a logical path to successful completion of the project that directly ties back to the vision statement. Proposal includes a series of diagrams that enhance the understanding of project implementation (i.e., network, servers, data center layout, context, state, domain, wireframes). |
| Responding to Change Requests | 5.0% | No clear path in responding to the changes requested. | Two of the five requests are addressed in the email. | Four out of the five requests are addressed in the email. | All five requests addressed in the email. Feasibility of solutions is not clear. Risk and issues of each change are addressed with minimal explanation. | All five requests are addressed and feasible solutions are proposed to complete each change. Inherent risks and issues relating to each request are presented in the email. |
| Justification of Changes Made or Not Made | 5.0% | Student provides no justification of why changes requested were made or not made. | Student provides justification of why changes requested were made or not made, but response lacks support. | Student provides justification of why changes requested were made or not made and has supporting arguments, but response does not correlate to the real world. | Student provides justification of why changes requested were made or not made and offers supporting arguments that correlate to the real world examples. | Student provides justification of why changes requested were made or not made, has supporting arguments that correlate to the real world examples, and provides details as to the impact they will have on the project. |
| Cost Estimates of the Security Specialist | 5.0% | No cost estimate is provided. | Cost estimate is provided but is not supported. | Cost estimates are provided and supported. | Cost estimates are provided and supported but do not correlate to the right skill set needed. | Cost estimates are provided and supported, and correlate to the right skill set needed. |
| Peer Review | 15.0% | Posts do not encourage further discussion and dialogue with other students in the class. Individual group contributions are submitted extremely late, affecting the ability to accomplish a successful task. Cooperative teamwork is not evident. | Some posts encourage further discussion and extensive dialogue with other students in the class. Posts may be critical, argumentative, or confrontational. Some individual contributions are provided after the designated timeline, affecting the group?s ability to accomplish a successful task. | Peer review posts demonstrate a critical analysis of classmate?s postings and provide relevant and constructive feedback. Individual contributions are not provided by the designated timeline. | Peer review posts demonstrate a critical analysis of classmate?s postings and provide relevant and constructive feedback. Individual contributions are provided by the designated timeline. | Peer review posts demonstrate a critical analysis of classmate?s postings and provide relevant and constructive feedback. Individual contributions are provided before the designated timeline. Multiple posts are made to assist fellow student?s decision-making process for ranking proposed solutions. |
| Paragraph Development and Transitions (Proposal and Email) | 5.0% | Paragraphs and transitions consistently lack unity and coherence. No apparent connections between paragraphs are established. Transitions are inappropriate to purpose and scope. Organization is disjointed. | Some paragraphs and transitions may lack logical progression of ideas, unity, coherence, and/or cohesiveness. Some degree of organization is evident. | Paragraphs are generally competent, but ideas may show some inconsistency in organization and/or in their relationships to each other. | A logical progression of ideas between paragraphs is apparent. Paragraphs exhibit a unity, coherence, and cohesiveness. Topic sentences and concluding remarks are appropriate to purpose. | There is a sophisticated construction of paragraphs and transitions. Ideas progress and relate to each other. Paragraph and transition construction guide the reader. Paragraph structure is seamless. |
| Mechanics of Writing (Proposal and Email) (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) | 5.0% | Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used. Written in an overly informal tone and an excessive use of layman?s terms. | Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. | Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. Written in a generally professional tone. | Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. | Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. Consistent professional tone and word choice. |
| Proposal Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) | 1.0% | APA is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. | APA is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent. | APA is used, and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. | APA is fully used; There are virtually no errors in formatting style. | All format elements are correct. Free of any and all formatting errors. |
| Word Counts (Proposal- max 6-pages long, Email- max 2- pages). | 2.0% | Both deliverables were over the specified page counts. | Both deliverables were slightly over the word count OR one was excessively over the page count. | One of the deliverables was slightly over the page count. | N/A | Both deliverables meet the word counts specified. (Proposal- max 6-pages, Email- max 2- pages). |
| Documentation of Sources (In-text citations for paraphrasing/direct quotes/images/etc. and reference page/bibliography as appropriate to assignment and style) | 2.0% | Sources are not documented. | Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. | Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. |
| Total Weightage | 100% |
biolablaq
Rubric_Print_Format14.xlsx
