For Programming Exercises: TAs are not expected to debug or correct student work. That job is for lab sessions. What's handed in should be 'obviously correct' (readable, understandable, correct) when taken in conjunction with diary of interaction for the problem set. BUT: we would like the grades to be into blackboard IN A WEEK, please. Also for EVERY student we'd like some positive and directive feedback in each student's little "comment box" from the grader: either a "well done", "great comments", "need more comments", "you need to read the text on while-loops!", or whatever. This means a lot: the primary feedback will occur one-on-one in the labs, but this is important too. Marks: 4: The "Extras for Labs" problems are for use in labs for practice, and may be handed in along with the assigned Chap. 3 questions for extra credit. If everything is done in exemplary style they can raise a 3 to a 4, but doing more problems in a mediocre way is still mediocre work, so lots of problems at the 2-mark level don't add up to a 3. 3: Very Good to Excellent (equiv A) All assigned exercises attempted, answers ``obviously right'', convincing diary, TA believes student knows material. In later weeks, are functions commented? Are identifiers semantically meaningful? 2. Fair to Good (equiv C to B) Work is competent to marginally-competent, marginally adhering to good style. Minimal passing mark. ``Not 3 but not 1''. 1. Failing (equiv D to E) Work is unacceptable for passing credit. Grader may feel student clearly doesn't get the material, isn't putting in the hours, isn't doing the readings, isn't making sincere effort, does not follow directions (for submission, for formats,...). Whatever, this work is not good enough. 0. Worse Nothing handed in. ----- For Programming Projects, Code and Writeup See grading.html page. http://www.cs.rochester.edu/u/brown/160/grading.html Assign both marks, 0-4 for code, 0-4 for writeup. Spreadsheet will calculate weighted score as per Universal Hand-in page. http://www.cs.rochester.edu/u/brown/160/Handin.html TAs are not expected to debug or correct programs, or even to read code beyond checking for organization and style. Good code should be 'obviously correct' (readable, understandable, and right). The writeup should inform the reader of what the code does and should convince the reader it does it. Likewise, TAs are not expected to wrestle with file formats. Instructions explicitly state ``no .rar, no .doc , no .docx, ...''. If anything but .zip archive and .pdf readable format is submitted, TA has option of grading if it's easy, but 1 point must be deducted for each infringement. So if I submit a .rar file with .docx writeup and TA decides to grade it, I'd get a 1 mark for work of quality 3. I suspect we can all read .doc files, but I can't deal with .rar, for instance, from linux. So if any TA grader can't get at .rar files, all TAs for that assignment must give 0 to .rar submissions. So stay in touch with your grading buddies. Flag outstanding projects (one or two total) for inclusion in the example solution section of the course web page. Marks: 4. Level 3 performance plus significant extra credit work either suggested in assignment or not. (equiv about 1.2 * A work, or more.) 3. Very Good to Excellent (equiv A), Student obviously on top of technical material and writeup style. E.g. the student-written samples in http://www.cs.rochester.edu/u/brown/160/samples/samp.html are 3's and 4's.) 2. Fair to Good (equiv B to C) Work is competent to marginally competent, more or less aware of good style. Minimal passing mark. ``Not 3 but not 1''. 1. Failing to Failed (equiv D to E) Work is unacceptable for passing credit. Grader may feel student clearly doesn't get the material, isn't putting in the hours, isn't doing the readings, isn't making sincere effort, does not follow directions (for submission, for formats,...). Whatever, this work is not good enough. 0. Worse Nothing handed in.