iRubric: Portfolio Analysis Section - Spring 2012 rubric

edit print share Copy to my rubrics Bookmark test run assess... delete Do more...

Portfolio Analysis Section - Spring 2012

This is the rubric for grading the Analysis section of the Student Portfolios in the Integrated Projects Curriculum of Messiah College Engineering Department. (v1.0, created 10/11 by TV, v2.0, revised 03/12 by TW)

Rubric Code: N7484B

By mcengin

Ready to use

Public Rubric

Subject: Engineering

Type: Assessment

Grade Levels: Undergraduate

Reflection 33.33 %
	Exemplary/Excellent 5 pts	Accomplished/Good 4 pts	Developing/Fair 3 pts	Deficient/Poor 2 pts
Setting / Context 1 pts	Exemplary/Excellent References the project assignment and its relationship to the project goals, as well as the date of completion, timeliness of sub-mission, and co-workers	Accomplished/Good References the project assignment, date of completion, and co-workers involved	Developing/Fair References only the project assignment that lead to the portfolio entry.	Deficient/Poor Does not describe the relationship of the portfolio entry with the overall project
Appearance 1 pts	Exemplary/Excellent Properly formatted word-processed document on “resume-quality” paper.	Accomplished/Good Properly formatted word-processed document.	Developing/Fair Neatly handwritten or unformatted type.	Deficient/Poor Illegible or sloppy.
Writing Mechanics 1 pts	Exemplary/Excellent Writing is free of grammatical and spelling errors	Accomplished/Good Writing is mostly free of grammatical and spelling errors.	Developing/Fair Grammatical and spelling errors are present but do not detract from the reflection.	Deficient/Poor Grammatical and spelling errors detract from the reflection. The FYS professor picks up the red pen to correct them…
Reflection 2 pts	Exemplary/Excellent Summary, mastery of the category, and personal growth represented by the entry.	Accomplished/Good Summary of the student’s contribution and an explanation of how the entry demonstrates the mastery of the category.	Developing/Fair Pure summary of the student’s contribution to entry.	Deficient/Poor Rambling gibberish. It appears the writer is trying to fill in empty space.
Entry 66.67 %
	Exemplary/Excellent 5 pts	Accomplished/Good 4 pts	Developing/Fair 3 pts	Deficient/Poor 2 pts
Choice of Method 1 pts	Exemplary/Excellent Uses method appropriate for teh system, considering accuracy, time, and other project constraints.	Accomplished/Good Chooses appropriate methods, but has not fully considered project constraints.	Developing/Fair Recognizes project constraints, but chooses a method inconsistent with those constraints.	Deficient/Poor Chooses a method without considering project constraints.
Input Specifications 1 pts	Exemplary/Excellent The inputs (boundary conditions, outputs from other systesm) are correct and have been carefully considered.	Accomplished/Good Inputs (boundary conditions, outputs from other systems) are probably correct, but have not been carefully thought out.	Developing/Fair Inputs (boundary conditions, outputs from other systems) have questionable accuracy.	Deficient/Poor The inputs (boundary conditions, outputs from other systems) are wrong.
Assumptions 1 pts	Exemplary/Excellent Assumptions are reasonable and the implications of the assumptions on the analysis have been considered.	Accomplished/Good Assumptions are probably reasonsable, but have not been fully thought out.	Developing/Fair Assumptions are questionable.	Deficient/Poor Assumptions that lead to large errors in the analysis have been made.
Correctness 2 pts	Exemplary/Excellent The analysis is done accurately and carefully with checks set up on the analysis.	Accomplished/Good The analysis is done accurately and carefully.	Developing/Fair The analysis is only approximately accurate.	Deficient/Poor The analysis is wrong.
Error Bounds 1 pts	Exemplary/Excellent The significance of possible errors in the model (including numeric errors) have been considered, controlled for, and quantified.	Accomplished/Good Possible errors in the model have been considered and controlled for, but not quantified.	Developing/Fair Only a few possible sources of error have been thought about.	Deficient/Poor Errors were not considered at all.
Interpretation of Results 1 pts	Exemplary/Excellent Uses results to predict system behaviour and direct project design efforts.	Accomplished/Good Uses results to guide project design process, but does not grasp the generalization.	Developing/Fair Reports results, but does not grasp their significance.	Deficient/Poor "Failed" results are not reported as failures.

Subjects:

Engineering

Types:

Assessment

Discuss this rubric