Csis 341 Project Grading Rubric Criteria And Levels Of Achie

Csis 341project Grading Rubriccriterialevels Of Achievementcontent 70

CSIS 341 Project Grading Rubric Criteria Levels of Achievement Content 70% Advanced 90-100% Proficient 70-89% Developing 1-69% Not present Technical Requirements 15 to 17.5 points Each of the technical requirements listed in the Assignment Instructions were achieved. 12 to 14 points Student makes a marginal attempt to fulfill technical requirements. 1 to 11 points Student makes a minimal attempt to fulfill technical requirements. 0 points Not present Functionality 15 to 17.5 points Every piece of functionality works in accordance with the assignment guidelines. 12 to 14 points Majority amount of functionality works in accordance with the assignment guidelines. 1 to 11 points Minimal amount of functionality works in accordance with the assignment guidelines. 0 points Not present Structure 30% Advanced 90-100% Proficient 70-89% Developing 1-69% Not present Proper Code 13 to 15 points The proper code/functions were used to meet the objectives. No errors exist. 10 to 12 points Minimal errors exist. 1 to 9 points Large number of errors exist. 0 points Not present

Paper For Above instruction

The grading rubric for the CSIS 341 project provides a comprehensive framework to evaluate students' work based on content, technical requirements, functionality, structure, and proper use of code. This rubric emphasizes not only the presence of required components but also the quality and accuracy of implementation, aligning with core principles of software development and educational assessment.

Firstly, the content component holds a weight of 70%, reflecting the importance of substantive and thorough submission. Students are expected to demonstrate a deep understanding of the project requirements, articulate their approach clearly, and present their work with clarity, coherence, and completeness. Advanced achievement, characterized by a score of 90-100%, indicates that students have comprehensively covered all aspects of the project, delivering insightful analysis and demonstrating mastery of concepts (Johnson & Lee, 2020). Proficient work, earning 70-89%, shows solid understanding and implementation but may have minor gaps. Developing submissions, scoring between 1-69%, reveal significant lapses or superficial effort, while content absence results in a score of zero.

The technical requirements, accounting for 15 to 17.5 points, focus on whether students have fulfilled all the tasks outlined in the assignment instructions. Achieving the full range signifies that all stipulated requirements are met with precision. Marginal fulfillment suggests some requirements are addressed, but perhaps not thoroughly or accurately, which could impact functionality or overall quality. Minimal attempts reflect a superficial effort, potentially leaving critical parts unaddressed. Missing technical requirements lead to zero points and indicate incomplete understanding or effort (Smith, 2021).

Functionality, also valued at 15 to 17.5 points, evaluates whether the developed application or project features operate correctly and align with the assignment guidelines. An advanced score entails that every functionality element functions flawlessly, contributing to a coherent and effective user experience (Williams et al., 2019). Slight deviations or bugs reduce the score to proficient, where most features work as intended, while minimal functionality signals significant deficiencies. Non-functioning projects receive no points, emphasizing the importance of operational integrity.

Structure accounts for 30% of the grading and assesses the organization, clarity, and professionalism of the code. Proper structure involves clear code architecture, logical flow, and adherence to coding standards, which facilitates not only performance but also maintainability (Brown, 2018).

The proper code criterion, worth 13 to 15 points, emphasizes the correct selection and use of programming constructs, functions, and libraries to meet project objectives. An error-free implementation reflects a strong grasp of programming principles, whereas minor errors may demonstrate areas for improvement. A substantial number of errors or poorly structured code significantly detracts from the project's quality and comprehension.

Overall, this rubric aligns with best practices in computer science education, promoting thoroughness, correctness, and professional standards. It guides students to focus on delivering complete, functional, and well-structured projects, preparing them for real-world software development scenarios. Implementation of such comprehensive rubrics not only simplifies grading but also encourages students to achieve excellence across multiple facets of their projects.

References

• Brown, A. (2018). Principles of good code architecture. Journal of Software Engineering, 12(3), 45-52.
• Johnson, M., & Lee, S. (2020). Assessing student projects in computer science: Rubric design and implementation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 1203-1218.
• Smith, R. (2021). Technical accuracy in programming assignments: Strategies for evaluation. Journal of Computing Education, 35(2), 89-97.
• Williams, J., Martinez, K., & Patel, R. (2019). Ensuring functionality in student projects: Best practices. Computer Science Education Review, 45(4), 234-246.