Assignment 3 Grading Rubric

Describing a Mechanism

ENGR 1271 Fall 2009 Asst 3 Grading Rubric (Describing a Mechanism)
Criterion Unacceptable.
Incorrect or incomprehensible.
Misunderstood what was wanted.
 Marginally Acceptable
Needs serious attention.
 Acceptable
Average.
 Good
Still room for improvement.
 Excellent
I would hire this person.
0 points 1 points 2 points 3 points 4 points
Grammar, Style & Format
(neatness, completeness, white space, consistency, balance, spelling & grammar)
→Neatness: Sloppy.
→Incomplete.
→Too much or too little white space.
→Inconsistent.
→Lacks balance.
→Grammar: Too many spelling or grammatical errors.
 →Neatness: Some problems.
→Poor use of white space.
→Missing title, name or headings.
→Inconsistent.
→Lacks balance.
→Grammar: Many spelling or grammar errors.
 →Neatness: Room for improvement.
→Sufficient white space.
→Consistent formatting.
→Lacks adequate balance.
→Grammar: Few spelling or grammatical errors.
 →Neatness: No serious problems.
→Good use of white space.
→Consistent formatting.
→Reasonable balance.
→Grammar: Only one or two spelling or grammatical errors.
 →Neatness: clean and appropriate.
→White space compliments text and content well.
→Consistent formatting.
→Good balance.
→No spelling or grammatical errors.
Overall Writing Quality
Audience
Terminology
Illustrations		 →Overall: awkward, unprofessional
→Wrong audience. Too casual.
→Terminology: miss-used; didn't explain; explained incorrectly
→Illustrations missing entirely, incomprehensible, or misleading.
 →Overall:
→Audience: miss-judged; casual
→Terminology: major misconceptions or miss-use; missed important ones
→Illustrations: sloppy, too few or too many. Only marginally helpful.
 →Overall: OK.
→Audience: OK. Reasonable tone.
→Terminology: Got many of them. Explained some.
→Illustrations: OK. Could have used more or fewer.
 →Overall:
→Audience: Correct level of detail, tone and language.
→Terminology: Explained ones that needed it. No superfluous explanations.
→Illustrations: Sufficient. Labeled. Accurate.
 →Overall: Professional quality.
→Appropriate for audience. Tone and language are right.
→Terminology is accurate, precise, and explained where appropriate.
→Illustrations: Helpful. Labeled. Complete the description.
→Provides definitions or illustrations where appropriate.
Introduction & Conclusion (orientation, naming parts, conclusion puts it all together) →Orientation: Missing or confused.
→Introduce Parts: Missing; too much or too little detail.
→Conclusion: Missing or inappropriate.
 Orientation: Exists.
→Introduce Parts: ** Many missing.
→Conclusion: ** Exists, but doesn't really pull anything together.
 →Orientation: **Exists. Minimal.
→Introduce Parts: Some parts missing, or not well described.
→Conclusion: ** Attempt.
 →Orientation: **Prepares readers.
→Introduce Parts: Introduces the key parts.
→Conclusion: Sums it up.
|bgcolor=#CCEEDD|Introduction orients the reader well.
→Introduction names the main parts of the object.
→Conclusion describes how the parts fit together.
→
|- !align=center|At Rest Description (stationary parts, moving parts) |bgcolor=#FFC2D1|Overall: Confused. Described moving parts as stationary or vice-versa. Doesn't seem to know how it works.
→Stationary Parts: ** Missed too many; Incorrectly described.
→Moving Parts: ** Missed too many; Incorrectly described.
→Attributes: ** Missed too many; wrong.
 Overall: ** Not clear what is going on from descriptions.
→Stationary Parts: Miss-labeled; missed key ones; described ones that weren't important..
→Moving Parts: Missed a key one. Mentions unimportant or misleading ones.
→Attributes: ** Got a few. Missed a key one. Mentions unimportant or misleading ones.
 Overall: **
→Stationary Parts: Almost none mis-labeled; no important ones missed;
→Moving Parts: Got them all, but descriptions are just OK.
→Attributes: ** OK. Lists most of the important ones but still misses some.
 Overall: **All there.
→Stationary Parts: ** Got all the important ones. Not too much extra or missing.
→Moving Parts: **Has all of them.
→Attributes: ** Lists all those that are important.
Overall: **
→Each of the parts named in the introduction is described fully, in order.
→Complex parts or those made of sub-parts are described separately.
→Stationary Parts: Describes what role they play. Nothing important missing.
→Moving Parts: Notes their role and that they are movable. Nothing important missing.
→Attributes: Includes information such as size, shape, color, and material.
|- !align=center|In Operation Description |bgcolor=#FFC2D1|Overall: Would not help me if I didn't already know.
→Entry: Doesn't get it. If it actually worked like this, it would never catch mice.
→Capture: Doesn't get it. If it actually worked like this, the mice would get away.
Gross or vulgar.
Lacks respect. |bgcolor=#FFE6B4|Overall: Marginally helpful. I would probably still hurt myself.
→Entry: Missing some key information.
→Capture: Missing some key information.
|bgcolor=#D4CCF9|Overall: OK
→Entry: Adequate explanation. Not especially convincing.
→Capture: Adequate explanation. Not especially convincing.
|bgcolor=#bfd3ff|Overall: Gives me enough information to get the job done.
→Entry: I get it. Not sure I could fix one.
→Capture: I get it. Not sure I could fix one.
|bgcolor=#CCEEDD|Overall: Not only do I know how to use this device, but I know when & how I can fix it, and when it is better to just buy a new one.
→Builds on at-rest descriptions to explain what happens when mouse 'enters' and how it gets 'caught'.
→Entry: References appropriate parts with no wasted space or superfluous descriptions.
→Capture: **Leaves me with confidence that this will perform as advertised.
→Includes some helpful advice without being to wordy or preachy.

Criteria:

  1. Grammar, Style & Format
  2. Overall: Writing Quality
  3. Introduction & Conclusion
  4. At Rest Description
  5. In Operation Description
  • tnl/engr/a3-rubric.txt
  • Last modified: 2012/03/29 10:09
  • by 127.0.0.1