| Course Code | Class Code | Assignment Title | Total Points |
| ECE-520 | ECE-520-O500 | Culminating Project Assignment | 80.0 |
| Criteria | Percentage | No Submission (0.00%) | Insufficient (69.00%) | Approaching (74.00%) | Acceptable (87.00%) | Target (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned |
| Criteria | 100.0% |
| Explanation | 10.0% | Not addressed. | The culminating project erroneously explains the purpose. | The culminating project inexplicitly explains the purpose. | The culminating project clearly explains the purpose. | The culminating project thoroughly explains the purpose. |
| Learning Objectives | 10.0% | Not addressed. | Inaccurately identifies a minimum of three learning objectives students will need to demonstrate in their projects that somewhat align to the state's learning standards. | Artificially identifies a minimum of three learning objectives students will need to demonstrate in their projects that somewhat align to the state's learning standards. | Accurately identifies a minimum of three learning objectives students will need to demonstrate in their projects that align to the state's learning standards. | Expertly identifies a minimum of three learning objectives students will need to demonstrate in their projects that align to the state's learning standards. |
| Culminating Projects | 15.0% | Not addressed. | Includes a minimum of four possible culminating projects that are inadequate; one includes technology. | Includes a minimum of four possible culminating projects that are lacking detail; one includes technology. | Includes a minimum of four possible culminating projects that are detailed; one includes technology. | Includes a minimum of four possible culminating projects that are compelling; one includes technology. |
| Presentation | 10.0% | Not addressed. | The explanation of how students will present the project to their peers during class time is unfitting. | The explanation of how students will present the project to their peers during class time is unclear. | The explanation of how students will present the project to their peers during class time is suitable. | The explanation of how students will present the project to their peers during class time is innovative. |
| Student-Friendly Rubric | 15.0% | Not addressed. | The poor rubric somewhat aligns with the expectations and does not include a line for the presentation deliverable. | The weak rubric aligns with the expectations and vaguely includes a line for the presentation deliverable. | The descriptive rubric aligns with the expectations and concisely includes a line for the presentation deliverable. | The well-crafted rubric aligns with the expectations and specifically includes a line for the presentation deliverable. |
| Checking for Understanding | 10.0% | Not addressed. | The rubric insufficiently addresses how you will formatively check for understanding during the student presentation and a flawed summative overview of the project as a whole. | The rubric ambiguously addresses how you will formatively check for understanding during the student presentation and an unfocused summative overview of the project as a whole. | The rubric effectively addresses how you will formatively check for understanding during the student presentation and a logical summative overview of the project as a whole. | The rubric proficiently addresses how you will formatively check for understanding during the student presentation and a superior summative overview of the project as a whole. |
| Aesthetic Quality | 15.0% | Not addressed. | Design detracts from purpose. Text and visuals are too simplistic, cluttered, or busy. Little to no creativity or inventiveness is present. | Design is fairly clean, with some exceptions. Audience may not be readily apparent. Visuals do not fully support the message. | Design is clean and audience is apparent. Purposeful integration of appropriate objects, charts, and/or graphs supports the message and enhance the presentation. | Design is professional, visually appealing, and clearly catered to the audience. Skillful handling of text and visuals creates a distinctive and effective presentation. |
| Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use) | 15.0% | Not addressed. | Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used. | Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or word choice are present. | Submission includes some mechanical errors, but they do not hinder comprehension. Varieties of effective sentence structures are used, as well as some practice and content-related language. | Submission is virtually free of mechanical errors. Word choice reflects well-developed use of practice and content-related language. Sentence structures are varied and engaging. |
| Total Weightage | 100% |
QH08
Week6Rubric.xlsx
