Grading rubrics: Difference between revisions

From MSc Voice Technology
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "Below are grading rubrics for some courses. == Introduction to Voice Technology == === Wiki pages === The Wiki pages will be assessed according to the criteria below. A total score will be given assigned as an average. {| class="wikitable" |+ !Criteria !Points |- |Topic |10 |- |Presentation |10 |- |Underlying research |10 |- |Content |10 |- |Internal linking |10 |- |LLM review |10 |} '''Topic''': Appropriateness and relevance *...")
 
Line 1: Line 1:
Below are grading rubrics for some courses.
Below are grading rubrics for some courses.


== [[Intro to Voice Technology syllabus|Introduction to Voice Technology]] ==
== Introduction to Voice Technology ==
This section is dedicated to describing how scoring in the [[Intro to Voice Technology syllabus|Intro to Voice Tech]] course is performed.


=== Wiki pages ===
=== Wiki pages ===

Revision as of 15:07, 1 September 2023

Below are grading rubrics for some courses.

Introduction to Voice Technology

This section is dedicated to describing how scoring in the Intro to Voice Tech course is performed.

Wiki pages

The Wiki pages will be assessed according to the criteria below. A total score will be given assigned as an average.

Criteria Points
Topic 10
Presentation 10
Underlying research 10
Content 10
Internal linking 10
LLM review 10

Topic: Appropriateness and relevance

  • 0 = Inappropriate
  • 5 = Somewhat Appropriate
  • 7 = Good
  • 10 = Completely Appropriate

Presentation: Adherence to layout, clarity of language

  • 0 = Unacceptable
  • 5 = Sufficient but rushed (lots of language may be difficult to understand or the flow may be incoherent)
  • 7 = Good
  • 10 = Excellent

Underlying Research: Evidence of scholarly research

  • 0 = No citations
  • 5 = Citations only to popular content and/or citations are incorrect / missing
  • 7 = Some Citations, mainly reporting outcomes
  • 10 = Excellent, evidence of synthesis of complex ideas and reflection

Content

  • 0 = Incoherent
  • 5 = Coherent but superficial
  • 7 = Good, some depth
  • 10 = Excellent

Internal linking to other Wiki articles produced by peers

  • 0 = No Links
  • 5 = Some links missing
  • 7 = Well-linked to other articles
  • 10 = Well-linked to other articles in an enriching way which demonstrates a deep understanding

LLM Review

  • 0 = No effort made
  • 5 = Minimal effort, but not transparent, insufficient detail
  • 7 = LLM used productively and reported well
  • 10 = LLM used in a highly productive or interesting way and reported very well

Participation activities

For the most part, participation activities are scored on a three-point scale:

  • 0 = incomplete
  • 1 = minimal attempt to deliver
  • 2 = rushed or incomplete delivery
  • 3 = complete delivery

Some activities are worth 2 points:

  • 0 = incomplete
  • 1 = minimal or incomplete delivery
  • 2 = complete delivery