{ "metadata": { "name": "", "signature": "sha256:b50bdb31a82455434a6499e5d9516f9ea4c8bf66542c1c8fb3fc90910b2e473b" }, "nbformat": 3, "nbformat_minor": 0, "worksheets": [ { "cells": [ { "cell_type": "heading", "level": 1, "metadata": {}, "source": [ "Peer Evaluation Form" ] }, { "cell_type": "markdown", "metadata": {}, "source": [ "This rubric will be used by the students to assess the project demos during the final exam period." ] }, { "cell_type": "markdown", "metadata": {}, "source": [ "---" ] }, { "cell_type": "markdown", "metadata": {}, "source": [ "\n", " \n", " \n", " \n", " \n", "\n", " \n", " \n", " \n", " \n", "\n", " \n", " \n", " \n", " \n", "\n", " \n", " \n", " \n", " \n", "\n", " \n", " \n", " \n", " \n", "
Category/Score4 - Exemplary3 - Accomplished2 - Fair1 - Poor
OrganizationThe demo is well organized and has a clear logical progression from beginning to end. \n", "Clearly states the research question to be answered.Demo is reasonably well organized, but has occasional jumps that are hard to follow. \n", "Research question is stated.Organization is weak. The demo is rather hard to follow. Research question is not stated clearly.The demo is very disorganized and hard to follow. \n", "Research question not stated at all.
MediaGraphics or output are all clear, well designed, appropriate, and support the demo. \n", "Plot labels are legible, understandable.Graphics or output are OK but some could be better designed.Graphics or output need work. May be lacking some appropriate materials to clearly elucidate results (e.g. missing animation or plot where needed).Graphics or output are poor. Hard to read, poorly designed. Important graphical results are missing.
DeliveryLooks professional. Is relaxed, confident and enthusiastic. Speaks clearly at all times, with good volume, good pace, and smooth delivery.Enthusiasm doesn\u2019t come through. Volume and/or pace have occasional problems. Too many pauses and \u201cumms.\u201dIsn\u2019t confident or relaxed. Understandable, but serious difficulties with volume, pace, and/or pauses.Attitude is problematic. Hard to understand. Mumbles or speaks much too softly.
ContentSpeaker shows mastery of the topic. Project details and analysis are very clear. Research question is answered completely and appears correct.Speaker shows a decent understanding of the topic. Project details and analysis could have been clearer. Research question mostly answered.Understanding is weak; there are errors in the demo and/or significant pieces of the analysis were missing.Does not seem to understand the project much at all. Many errors. No serious attempt to answer research question.
" ] }, { "cell_type": "markdown", "metadata": {}, "source": [ "---\n", "\n", "Please assign a numerical score from 1 to 4 for each element of the student's presentation. Include your name on the form and be sure to evaluate yourself.\n", "\n", "\n", "\n", "\n", "\n", "\n", "\n", "
NameOrganizationMediaDeliveryContent
Student 1
Student 1
Student 1
Student 1
Etc. ...
" ] }, { "cell_type": "markdown", "metadata": {}, "source": [ "---" ] } ], "metadata": {} } ] }