Project rubric (open-ended project) =================================== NAME: PROJECT THEME: PROJECT PROPOSAL (20 points total) ---------------------------------- PROPOSAL FORM (5 points): The proposal has the appropriate form. [ ] 5 The proposal includes all of the required components: a heading (with authors) and title, a short description of the project goals, a description of the materials, and a description of the algorithm or algorithms. [ ] 4 The proposal is missing one component. [ ] 2 The proposal is missing two or more components. Comments: PROPOSAL WRITING (5 points): The proposal uses correct spelling, grammar, and style. [ ] 5 The proposal not only uses correct spelling and grammar, but also demonstrates particular facility with language. [ ] 4 The proposal uses correct spelling and grammar, with at most two or three errors. [ ] 2 The proposal does not use correct spelling and grammar. Comments: PROPOSAL PROJECT STATEMENT (5 points): The project statment is complete and accurate and reveals an understanding of the purposes and processes of the digital humanities. [ ] 5 The project statement clearly describes the goals of the project in a form in language appropriate for a general audience, demonstrates a deep understanding of the digital humanities, and suggests a project that is likely to provide compelling or useful results. [ ] 4 The project statement fails to completely achieve one of the primary goals (e.g., shows a less than comprehensive view of the digital humanities, fails to address the appropriate audience, or fails to motivate the project). [ ] 3 The project statement fails to completely achieve two of the primary goals. [ ] 2 The project statement fails to completely achieve three or more primary goals. [ ] 0 No project statement. Comments: PROPOSAL ALGORITHM PLAN (5 points): The proposal algorithm plan is complete and accurate. [ ] 5 The proposal includes a description of each algorithm to be implemented as well as an outline of how they will be implemented and used. [ ] 4 The proposal accurately describes the algorithms but leaves a question or two remaining about how they will be implemented or used. [ ] 3 The proposal has some minor inaccuracies or raises several questions regarding the algorithms to be implemented or used. [ ] 2 The proposal is significantly incomplete and/or inaccurate in its description of the algorithms to be implemented or used. Comments: PROJECT (40 points total) ------------------------- FILES (5 points): The submission includes all required files. [ ] 5 The submission includes a Racket file, a copy of any additional materials to be analyzed, and instructions for using the the code with the materials. The instructions work. [ ] 4 The submission includes all three components but a little additional work is necessary in order to use the algorithm with the materials. [ ] 2 The submission includes all three components but significant additional work is necessary in order to use the algorithm with the materials. [ ] 0 Missing one of the three components. Comments: ALGORITHMIC TECHNIQUES (15 points): The project uses a novel algorithmic technique. [ ] 15 The algorithms implemented are non-trivial and use many new techniques and/or combine techniques in a novel way. [ ] 12 The algorithms implemented are non-trivial but most techniques are similar to those covered earlier in the course. [ ] 10 The algorithms implemented are too simple or use only techniques covered previously in the course. [ ] 8 The algorithms implemented are trivial or rely almost entirely on code from previous assignments or labs. Comments: CODE QUALITY (10 points): The code is elegant, concise, and efficient. [ ] 10 The code is nearly flawless in concision and efficiency, or impressive in its elegance. [ ] 9 The code has a few minor problems with concision or efficiency. [ ] 8 The code has one significant problem with efficiency or several problems with concision. [ ] 6 The project has significant problems with concision and efficiency. Comments: CODE READABILITY (10 points): The code is well-documented and easy to understand. [ ] 10 All procedures are documented with 6P-style documentation. Procedure, parameter, and variable names are crystal clear. Code is correctly formatted. Short comments explain the purpose of expressions that might otherwise be unclear. [ ] 9 All procedures are documented with the 6Ps and there may be a few internal comments where needed. Procedure, parameter, and variable names are mostly clear. Code is formatted correctly. [ ] 8 Most procedures are documented with the 6Ps. Procedure, variable, and parameter names are at least suggestive. Formatting is mostly correct. [ ] 4 There is little documentation. Much of the code is incorrectly formatted. Several procedures, variables, or parameters have opaque or meaningless names. Comments: FINAL REPORT (25 points total) ------------------------------ REPORT FORM (0 points): The report has the appropriate form. The report must include all of the required components: a heading (with authors) and title, a short description of the project goals, a description of the materials, a description of the algorithm or algorithms, an explanation of the results, and a description of necessary followup work. Reports that lack any of these components will receive a score of zero. Comments: REPORT WRITING (5 points): The report uses correct spelling, grammar, and style. [ ] 5 The report not only uses correct spelling and grammar, but also demonstrates particular facility with language. [ ] 4 The report uses correct spelling and grammar, with at most two or three errors. [ ] 2 The report does not use correct spelling and grammar. Comments: REPORT PROJECT STATEMENT (5 points): The project statment is complete and accurate and reveals an understanding of the purposes and processes of the digital humanities. [ ] 5 The project statement clearly describes the goals of the project in a form in language appropriate for a general audience, demonstrates a deep understanding of the digital humanities, and suggests a project that is likely to provide compelling results. [ ] 4 The project statement fails to completely achieve one of the primary goals (e.g., shows a less than comprehensive view of the digital humanities, fails to address the appropriate audience, or fails to motivate the project). [ ] 3 The project statement fails to completely achieve two of the primary goals. [ ] 2 The project statement fails to completely achieve three or more primary goals. [ ] 0 No project statement. Comments: ALGORITHMS AND RESULTS (5 points): The descriptions of the algorithms and their results are complete and accurate. [ ] 5 The report includes a description of each algorithm that was implemented, an outline of how it was used, and a summary of the results. [ ] 4 The report accurately describes the algorithms but leaves a question or two remaining about how they will be implemented or used. [ ] 3 The report has some minor inaccuracies or raises several questions regarding the algorithms to be implemented or used. [ ] 2 The report is significantly incomplete and/or inaccurate in its description of the algorithms to be implemented or used. Comments: POST-ALGORITHM ANALYSIS (5 points): The descriptions of the post-algorithm analysis are clear and accurate. [ ] 5 The report includes a description of what was done with the results from the algorithm, such as what texts were then explored, how "manual" checking related to the "conclusions" of the algorithms (e.g., supported, rejected, added aditional insight). [ ] 3 The report does not describe the followup steps or what was discovered in those steps. [ ] 0 The report does not suggest that further work was done after the algorithm results were collected. Comments: REPORT RESULTS (5 points): The report results section is complete and accurate. [ ] 5 The report includes a summary of important results and suggests clear and reasonable next steps. (Not all projects will produce results; in those cases, the "non results" are equally important, and still require suggested next steps.) [ ] 4 The report leaves some question about the results or the next steps. [ ] 2 The report leaves qustions about results and next steps. PRESENTATION (15 points total) ------------------------------ [ ] 15 The presentation is appropriate in length, is organized well, and and provides a complete overview of the materials, approach, and results. It also includes a brief overview of the algorithms implemented. Questions are answered well. [ ] 13 The presentation is organized well but too long. It includes the important aspects of the project, and questions are answered well. [ ] 13 The presentation is organized well and the right length, but fails to describe one or more aspects of the project or leaves some important questions (explicit or implicit) unanswered. [ ] 11 The presentation is organized well, but is too long and either fails to describe one or more aspects of the project or leaves some important questions unanswered. [ ] 9 The presentation is disorganized and too long. It also fails to overview several aspects of the project and leaves many important questions about the project unanswered. [ ] 0 No presentation Comments: OTHER COMMENTS -------------- Total: ___/100