Grading rubrics: Difference between revisions

From MSc Voice Technology
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 96: Line 96:


=== Talking clock video presentation ===
=== Talking clock video presentation ===
[coming soon]
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Criteria !! Description !! Maximum Points
|-
| Functionality || The extent to which the basic functionalities of the clock are adequately presented as per instructions || 2
|-
| Customization + Interface || The extent to which the customized features and interface of the clock are adequately presented, with attention given to aesthetics, creativity, and intuitive aspects || 2
|-
| Shortcomings / Challenges || The extent to which any shortcomings or room for improvement are adequately discussed in a constructive and practical way || 2
|-
| Quality of the Video and Presentation || Extent to which the video content is professionally made. Overall professional impression || 2
|-
| Engagement || The extent to which the video presentation engages the viewer, sustaining their interest. The point is to make something that is interesting to watch through e.g. sharing your commitment, interest, enthusiasm, or struggles in a way that hooks the viewer || 2
|-
| TOTAL || || 10
|}


=== Participation activities ===
=== Participation activities ===

Revision as of 12:05, 24 October 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


Talking clock

Criteria Description Maximum Points
Interface Design Aesthetics and layout of the clock's GUI. Incl. aspects like color scheme, font choices, visual consistency, and user-friendliness. 2
Usability Ease of use and intuitiveness. Is it straightforward for a user to interact with and customize? Does it require a steep learning curve? 2
Audio Quality Quality of the audio recordings used for time announcements. Incl. clarity, pronunciation, volume, and overall audio experience. 2
Documentation Clarity and completeness of the documentation provided. Is everything properly explained? If there are multiple languages in the talking clock, is there some reflection on relevant differences between the languages? Are ethical issues mentioned in the documentation (if there are none, this should be motivated)? 2
Customization Options Variety and utility of customization options. This may include language selection, voice options, snooze, alarm, time zones, and other features. 2

Key:

  • 0.0: Not addressed at all.
  • 0.5: Addressed in a very minimal way
  • 1.0: Addressed to a limited extent
  • 1.5: Addressed very well
  • 2.0: Addressed perfectly, nothing can be improved.

Talking clock video presentation

Criteria Description Maximum Points
Functionality The extent to which the basic functionalities of the clock are adequately presented as per instructions 2
Customization + Interface The extent to which the customized features and interface of the clock are adequately presented, with attention given to aesthetics, creativity, and intuitive aspects 2
Shortcomings / Challenges The extent to which any shortcomings or room for improvement are adequately discussed in a constructive and practical way 2
Quality of the Video and Presentation Extent to which the video content is professionally made. Overall professional impression 2
Engagement The extent to which the video presentation engages the viewer, sustaining their interest. The point is to make something that is interesting to watch through e.g. sharing your commitment, interest, enthusiasm, or struggles in a way that hooks the viewer 2
TOTAL 10

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

Programming

Speech Sounds