Follow me on twitter @bradleyboehmke
Follow me on twitter @bradleyboehmke
Each week you will be assigned homework that will need to be completed prior to each Saturday session. These homework assignments will be crucial in helping you complete a high-quality final project. Each Saturday session your homework will be graded according to the following:
Each Saturday your small group peers will review your homework code to provide feedback. This feedback is meant to improve your code, help you with issues or concerns, and also improve your ability to review other's code. The peer review grading rubric will be used to assess your code; however, additional comments and inputs can be freely given. The feedback provided by your peers will not influence your grade; however, at the end of the term every student will assess the engagement of each small group member. Consequently, your contributions to your small group peers by providing high-quality feedback and working well to improve one another will be measured and will influence the engagement portion of your grade.
Also consult any specific guidance given in the relevant assignment itself.
| Topic | Excellent: ✓+ coded as + |
Satisfactory: ✓ coded as 0 |
Needs work: ✓- coded as - |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding style | Student has gone beyond what was expected and required, proper coding style is followed, code is well commented | Coding style lacks refinement and has some errors, but code is readable and has some comments | Many errors in coding style, little attention paid to making the code human readable |
| Coding strategy | Complicated problem broken down into sub-problems that are individually much simpler. Code is efficient, correct, and minimal. Code uses appropriate data structure (list, data frame, vector/matrix/array). Code checks for common errors | Code is correct, but could be edited down to leaner code. Some “hacking” instead of using suitable data structure. Some checks for errors. | Code tackles complicated problem in one big chunk. Code is repetitive and could easily be functionalized. No anticipation of errors. |
| Presentation: graphs | Graph(s) carefully tuned for desired purpose. One graph illustrates one point | Graph(s) well chosen, but with a few minor problems: inappropriate aspect ratios, poor labels. | Graph(s) poorly chosen to support questions. |
| Presentation: tables | Table(s) carefully constructed to make it easy to perform important comparisons. Careful styling highlights important features. | Table(s) generally appropriate but possibly some minor formatting deficiencies. | Table(s) with too many, or inconsistent, decimal places. Table(s) not appropriate for questions and findings. Major display problems. |
| Achievement, mastery, cleverness, creativity | Student has gone beyond what was expected and required, e.g., extraordinary effort, additional tools not addressed by this course, unusually sophisticated application of tools from course. | Tools and techniques from the course are applied very competently and, perhaps,somewhat creatively. Chosen task was acceptable, but fairly conservative in ambition. | Student does not display the expected level of mastery of the tools and techniques in this course. Chosen task was too limited in scope. |