Editing
Grading rubrics
(section)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==== Collaborative article resource assignment ==== '''Individual contributions (Total: 40 Points)''' # '''Depth and insight of article analysis and annotations (40 points)''' #* 0-10 points: Annotations lack depth or critical engagement with the article. Minimal or superficial evaluations are provided. #* 11-20 points: Annotations show some critical engagement, but analyses are inconsistent or lack depth in places. #* 21-30 points: Annotations are detailed, demonstrating a good level of critical engagement and insight into the methodologies and findings. #* 31-40 points: Annotations are exceptionally detailed and insightful, offering deep analyses of methodologies, findings, and relevance, with clear connections to the thesis theme. '''Group Contributions (Total: 60 Points)''' # '''Relevance and coherence of synthesized findings in the report (40 points)''' #* 0-10 points: The report lacks coherence; synthesized findings are not clearly relevant to the thematic focus. #* 11-20 points: The report shows some relevance and coherence, but the synthesis of findings is uneven or lacks depth. #* 21-30 points: The report is coherent and relevant, with a clear synthesis of findings that are well-aligned with the thematic focus. #* 31-40 points: The report is highly coherent and relevant, with a comprehensive and insightful synthesis of findings, clearly illuminating trends, debates, or future directions. # '''Organization and clarity of the report (20 points)''' #* 0-5 points: The report is poorly organized and difficult to follow, with significant issues in clarity or adherence to the template. #* 6-10 points: The report has some organizational structure and clarity, but there are notable issues in adherence to the template or writing quality. #* 11-15 points: The report is well-organized and clear, with minor issues in adherence to the template or writing quality. #* 16-20 points: The report is excellently organized and clear, adhering closely to the template with high-quality writing throughout.
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to MSc Voice Technology are considered to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution (see
MSc Voice Technology:Copyrights
for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource.
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Page
Discussion
English
Views
Read
Edit
Edit source
View history
More
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
Help about MediaWiki
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Special pages
Page information