13/04/2020 2020 Semester 1, ICT112, Creative Problem Solving with …
https://online.usc.edu.au/webapps/rubric/do/course/manageRubrics?dispatch=view&context=course&rubricId=_71575_1&course_id=_35198_1 1/3
Task 2 Assignment Rubric
Percentage range (HD to FL). Will calculate a Ñnal grade.
Levels of Achievement
Criteria High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Fail
Criteria 1:
Presentation
and
organisation
of report
85.00 to 100.00 %
Report is well structured,
clear, concise and
complete. The rationale for
the application design and
meaning are consistently
clear. Use of terminology is
conÑdent and assured.
The level of presentation
meets the professional
standards of the discipline,
and there is a high level of
attention to detail with
content. Little/ no errors in
grammar, syntax and
spelling. Academic
referencing (APA) and
citations are appropriate
and well-integrated.
75.00 to 84.00 %
Report is mostly
well structured,
and is complete.
The rationale for
the application
design and
meaning are
clear. Use of
terminology is
extensive and
largely correct.
The level of
presentation
meets the
professional
standards of the
discipline, and
there is attention
to detail with
content. The
grammar, syntax
and spelling are
near prefect.
Academic
referencing (APA)
and citations are
appropriate and
integrated.
65.00 to 74.00 %
Report is well
written in places,
may exhibit
repetition in
multiple place.
The rationale for
the application
design and
overall meaning
is clear though
there are minor
instances of
awkward or
unclear
expression. Use
of terminology is
adequate. The
level of
presentation
mostly meets the
professional
standards of the
discipline, and
there are some
lapses in
attention to
detail with
content. The
grammar, syntax
and spelling are
good. Some
academic
referencing (APA)
and citation
errors.
50.00 to 64.00 %
The intended
meaning can be
discerned but lacks
rationale for the
application design,
clarity and/ or
instances of awkward
or unclear
expression. Limited
use of terminology
with minor
inaccuracies. The
level of presentation
sometimes meets the
professional
standards of the
discipline, but there
are some lapses in
attention to detail
with content. The
grammar, syntax and
spelling contain
errors. Some
academic referencing
(APA) and citation
errors.
0.00 to 49.00 %
Use of language
fails to make
meaning clear,
many errors of
grammar, syntax
and spelling. The
range of errors
indicates a lack of
editing and proofreading. Limited
use of terminology
with minor
inaccuracies.
Elements of report
are missing or
incomplete, Some
referencing and
citation errors
Criteria 2:
Insightful
analysis of the
given problem
85.00 to 100.00 %
Clearly and
comprehensively
understood and reÒected
in the pseudocode and
test plan. A single
pseudocode includes
information on displaying
the correct output in an
editor and writing output
into a Ñle. The pseudocode
is completely accurate or
clear. Test plan is detailed
and includes three test
cases with correct inputs
and outputs. The
discussion and
assumptions show a good
depth of insight into the
case study.
75.00 to 84.00 %
DI –
Comprehensively
reÒected in the
pseudocode and
test plan.
Multiple
pseudocodes are
written to display
correct output in
an editor and
writing output
into a Ñle. Test
plan is detailed,
and includes two
test cases with
correct inputs
and outputs. The
discussion and
assumptions
show a sound
depth of insight
into the case
study
65.00 to 74.00 %
Clearly reÒected
in the
pseudocode and
test plan. A
pseudocode is
written to display
correct output in
an editor or to
write output into
a Ñle. Test plan is
detailed, and
includes one test
case with correct
inputs and
outputs.The
discussion and
assumptions
show some
insight into the
case study.
50.00 to 64.00 %
Generally reÒected in
the pseudocode and
test plan. The
pseudocode is not
completely accurate
or clear. A test plan is
included with some
correct inputs and
outputs. Limited
discusion and
assumptions.
0.00 to 49.00 %
Narrow reÒection
in the pseudocode
and test plan. The
pseudocode is not
complete or clear.
A test plan is
included with
some inputs or
outputs. Discusion
and assumptions
are not completely
addressed.
Name
Description
Rubric Detail
Weight
5.00%
Weight
20.00%
13/04/2020 2020 Semester 1, ICT112, Creative Problem Solving with …
https://online.usc.edu.au/webapps/rubric/do/course/manageRubrics?dispatch=view&context=course&rubricId=_71575_1&course_id=_35198_1 2/3
Levels of Achievement
Criteria High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Fail
Criteria 3:
Creative
approaches to
solving the
problem
85.00 to 100.00 %
Problem is solved
creatively using the
concept of decomposition;
use of functions/libraries
not taught in class.
Produce correct output
using the turtle module,
matplotlib and pandas
libraries.
75.00 to 84.00 %
Problem is
solved creatively
but only with
constructs
taught in class.
Produce correct
output using the
turtle module
and matplotlib
libraries.
65.00 to 74.00 %
Problem is
solved with a
little creativity.
Produce correct
output using the
turtle module.
50.00 to 64.00 %
Solution follows the
samples given in
class. Output is
addressed using
python libraries.
0.00 to 49.00 %
Limited /
inaccurate use of
functions/libraries.
Output is not
completely
addressed using
python libraries.
Criteria 4:
Application of
relevant
programming
concepts
85.00 to 100.00 %
The Python code is
skillfully constructed. The
code exhibits eÔciency,
abstraction, Code shows
no un-justiÑed repeated
code. User control and
freedom options (route
modiÑcation, conÑrmation
of a user request and exit)
are correctly implemented.
75.00 to 84.00 %
ProÑcient Code
exhibits minor
missed
opportunities for
use of libraries,
or abstraction
without
justiÑcation. Only
Route
modiÑcation and
conÑrmation of a
user request are
correctly
implemented in
the context of
user control and
freedom.
65.00 to 74.00 %
ProÑcient Code
exhibits minor
missed
opportunities for
use of libraries,
or abstraction
without
justiÑcation. Only
Route
modiÑcation is
implemented in
the context of
user control and
freedom.
50.00 to 64.00 %
Problem is solved but
signiÑcant repetition
is evident in code,
with no
abstraction/methods,
no eÔciency (i.e.
uses parallel lists not
dictionary). Only exit
option is
implemented in the
context of user
control and freedom.
0.00 to 49.00 %
Incorrect data
used (Zero mark).
The code has
substantial errors
/ inadequate
coverage of
answer. Or doesn’t
completely run.
Criteria 5:
Correctness of
the program
input and
output
85.00 to 100.00 %
Only relevant data has
been included in the data
Ñle with details of ten
cities. Information about
time is not inlcuded in the
data Ñle. The program has
accurate and complete
output with no additional
output. The output
contains information on
diÖerent modes of
transportation, distance
and time required by each
mode of transportation
including a
recommendation on
transportation that takes
the least amount of time.
The output is written to a
Ñle
75.00 to 84.00 %
Only relevant
data has been
included in the
data Ñle with
details of ten
cities.
Information
about time is not
inlcuded in the
data Ñle. The
program has
accurate and
complete output
(diÖerent modes
of
transportation,
distance and
time required)
with minor
additional
output. A
recommendation
on the
transportation
that takes the
least amount of
time is calculated
and displayed.
65.00 to 74.00 %
Output is correct
(diÖerent modes
of
transportation,
distance and
time
required)but
incomplete or
includes
substantial
additional
output. A
recommendation
on the
transportation
that takes the
least amount of
time is calculated
and displayed.
50.00 to 64.00 %
The program output
is mostly correct, or
incomplete. The
output contains
information on
diÖerent modes of
transportation,
distance and time
required by each
mode of
transportation which
is calculated and
displayed.
0.00 to 49.00 %
The program
output has
substantial errors
or omissions,
inadequate
coverage of
answer. Or doesn’t
completely run.
Weight
30.00%
Weight
20.00%
Weight
20.00%
13/04/2020 2020 Semester 1, ICT112, Creative Problem Solving with …
https://online.usc.edu.au/webapps/rubric/do/course/manageRubrics?dispatch=view&context=course&rubricId=_71575_1&course_id=_35198_1 3/3
Levels of Achievement
Criteria High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Fail
Criteria 6:
Adherence to
the
recommended
programming
styles
85.00 to 100.00 %
Code complies with “ICT
112 code style” (python
documentation standard)
completely and accurately.
Comments/documentation
are used in a meaningful
way to explain nonobvious code, functions
and segments of code.
75.00 to 84.00 %
Code complies
with “ICT 112
code style”
documentation
standard with
only one
omission. Either
one or two
comments
missing but
functions are
completely
documented.
65.00 to 74.00 %
Code complies
with “ICT 112
code style”
documentation
standard with
only one or two
omissions. Either
minor omission
of comments, or
inclusion of
unhelpful
/unnecessary
comments.
50.00 to 64.00 %
EÖort to comply with
standard (ICT112
code style) is evident
but signiÑcant
omissions. No
comments included
or all comments
unhelpful/
unnecessary.
0.00 to 49.00 %
No eÖort to use
code standard
(ICT112 code style)
is evident, and/or
comments not
Weight included or helpful
5.00%
View Associated Items
Print Close Window
The post Task 2 Assignment Rubric appeared first on My Assignment Online.