Notes on 16.621 Grading 16.621
Notes on 16.621 Grading 16.621
Topics Grading rubrics for written proposals Content Communication Grading distribution between content and communication Dealing with multiple graders Division of work within teams
Topics • Grading rubrics for written proposals – Content – Communication • Grading distribution between content and communication • Dealing with multiple graders • Division of work within teams
16.621 Written Proposal Content Grading Sheet -Spring 2003 Performance Level (see reverse side for definitions 1,2,3,45 Comments LiLl Executive Summary Introduction Hypothesis, Objective, 44 4 Success criteria Literature Review Experimental Design Data analysis Project Planning Facil Summary Overall Evaluation of Proposal version 05051469[70980899101 Student: Version Grader: Grade: /1
16.621 Written Proposal Content Grading Sheet - Spring 2003 Performance Level (see reverse side for definitions) Version I II III 1 2 3 4 5 Comments Cover Page 4 4 4 Executive Summary 4 Introduction 4 4 4 Hypothesis, Objective, Success Criteria 4 4 4 Literature Review 4 4 Technical Approach 4 4 Experimental Design 4 Data Analysis 4 Project Planning 4 Facilities 4 Summary 4 References 4 4 Appendices 4 4 Overall Evaluation of Proposal Version Numerical Range 0-50 51-69 70-79 80-89 90-100 Student: Version: Grader: Grade: /100
Performance levels 5 Exceptionally go ood Coverage and/or correctness of content demonstrates superior understanding of the subject matter, a depth plan for a 1662X project. The student is exceptionally well prepared to proceed to 16.622in- foundation of extensive knowledge, an ability to skillfully use concepts, and a well-organized and 4 Good performance Coverage and/or correctness of content demonstrates a good understanding of the subject matter can be improved as indicated by comments in the text. The student is prepared to proceed to 16. 622 Ion capability for use of the relevant concepts, and a good plan for a 16 62X project. The section or version 3 Adequate Coverage and/or correctness of content demonstrates adequate understanding of the relevant material ability to apply the concepts in a relatively simple manner, and a basic plan for a 16 62X project. The section or version can be improved as indicated by comments in the text. The student has the minimum preparation to proceed to 16.622 2 Minimally acceptable Coverage and/or correctness of content demonstrates only partial familiarity with the subject matter, some capacity to work with the concepts in simple applications, and a partial plan for a 1662X projec Deficiencies are serious enough that the student should make major revisions to this section/version by the next version, or before proceeding 16.622 1 Unacceptable Content is missing, so incomplete, or so full of errors that it does not satisfy minimum requirements of acceptability. The student should completely redo this section/version by the next version, or is not prepared to continue to the 16.622 without repeating 16.621 These performance levels are paraphrased from the definition of MiT grades given in the Bulletin
Performance Levels* 5 Exceptionally good Coverage and/or correctness of content demonstrates superior understanding of the subject matter, a foundation of extensive knowledge, an ability to skillfully use concepts, and a well-organized and indepth plan for a 16.62X project. The student is exceptionally well prepared to proceed to 16.622. 4 Good performance Coverage and/or correctness of content demonstrates a good understanding of the subject matter, capability for use of the relevant concepts, and a good plan for a 16.62X project. The section or version can be improved as indicated by comments in the text. The student is prepared to proceed to 16.622. 3 Adequate Coverage and/or correctness of content demonstrates adequate understanding of the relevant material, an ability to apply the concepts in a relatively simple manner, and a basic plan for a 16.62X project. The section or version can be improved as indicated by comments in the text. The student has the minimum preparation to proceed to 16.622. 2 Minimally acceptable Coverage and/or correctness of content demonstrates only partial familiarity with the subject matter, some capacity to work with the concepts in simple applications, and a partial plan for a 16.62X project. Deficiencies are serious enough that the student should make major revisions to this section/version by the next version, or before proceeding 16.622. 1 Unacceptable Content is missing, so incomplete, or so full of errors that it does not satisfy minimum requirements of acceptability. The student should completely redo this section/version by the next version, or is not prepared to continue to the 16.622 without repeating 16.621. * These performance levels are paraphrased from the definition of MIT grades given in the Bulletin
16.621 Written Communication Grading Sheet -Spring 2003 Performance Level see reverse side for definitions) 1,2,3,45 Comments Element Document preparation Cover sheet with appropriate information All required sections and sub-sections present and properly labeled Page numbers; tables, figures, and quations labeled Acronyms and numbers used conventionally Citations done properly(when appropriate) Writing skills Ideas flow logically from sentence to sentences, from paragraph to paragraph, Document shows evidence that writer has considered a mixed audience and provided punctuation is correct, words are spelled Writing is concise Overall Evaluation Numerical Range 050516977 80-8990-100 Student: Version Grader grade
16.621 Written Communication Grading Sheet - Spring 2003 P e r fo r m a n ce Le v el (see reverse side for definitions) Element 1 2 3 4 5 Comm e n t s D o c u m ent pr e p a r atio n Cover sheet with appropriate information All required sections and sub-sections present and properly labeled. Page nu mbers; tables, figures, and equations labeled Acronyms and n umbers used conventionally Citations done properly (when appropriate) Writing s kills Ideas flow logically from sentence to sentences, from paragraph to paragraph, from section to section Document shows evidence that writer has considered a mixed audience and provided sufficient background. Language is used gram matically; punctuation is correct; words are spelled correctly. Writing is concise. Ov e rall Eval u ation N umerical Ran ge 0-50 51-69 70-79 80-89 90-100 Student: Version: Grader: Grade: /10 0
Grading Distribution Between Content and communications Table 1. 16.621 Grade Allocation Table ll. 16.622 Grade Allocation Assessment tool Final Grade Assessment tool Final Grade 3 Notebook Checks 3 Notebook Checks Version i 10% Oral Progress Report 15% Version I revised and 10% Final Oral Presentation 20% ersion l Final Written Report 25% Oral Project Proposal (L, Il) 20% Advisor's grade Advisor's grade-I 10% Technical Staff Grade 10% Final Written Proposal 20% Course Evaluation Advisors grade-II Technical Staff grade Subject Evaluation 1% For shaded assignments, 60% of grade given by Course 16 Faculty and 40% given by Writing Faculty For both 16.621 and 16.622, 24% of total grade based upon communications Or for 16.621 plus 16.622, 4.32 of 18 total subject units are allotted to communications
Grading Distribution Between Content and Communications T able I. 16. 621 Grad e Alloc atio n Assessm ent Tool % Final Grad e 3 Notebook C h e cks 9% V ersion I 10% V ersion I r e vised and V ersion II 10% Oral Proj e ct Proposal (I,II) 20% Advisor’s Gra d e - I 10% Final Written Proposal 20% Advisor's Grade - II 10% T e chnic al Staff Grade 10% Subj e ct Evaluation 1% T able II. 16.622 Grade Allo cati o n Assessm ent Tool % Final Grad e 3 Notebook C h e cks 9% Oral Progress R eport 15% Final Oral Pr esentati o n 20% Final Written R eport 25% Advisor's Grade 20% T e chnic al Staff Grade 10% Course Evaluation 1% For shaded assignments, 60% of grade given by Course 16 Faculty and 40% given by Writing Faculty. For both 16.621 and 16.622, 24% of total grade based upon communications. Or for 16.621 plus 16.622, 4.32 of 18 total subject units are allotted to communications
Dealing with Multiple Graders Multiple Course 16 Faculty will grade your written and oral assignments For example, Profs Deyst, Greitzer and murman will each grade Version I of your proposal The facultys evaluations are subjective The may not be the same They might be in conflict They might not agree with your advisor's viewpoint This may be a new experience for you In technical subjects, correct answer is usually not subjective In non-technical subjects, there is usually only one grader Multiple reviews are the norm in evaluation of research proposals and papers, and often the reviewers do not agree
Dealing with Multiple Graders • Multiple Course 16 Faculty will grade your written and oral assignments. – For example, Profs Deyst, Greitzer and Murman will each grade Version I of your proposal. • The faculty’s evaluations are subjective. – The may not be the same. – They might be in conflict. – They might not agree with your advisor’s viewpoint. • This may be a new experience for you. – In technical subjects, correct answer is usually not subjective. – In non-technical subjects, there is usually only one grader. • Multiple reviews are the norm in evaluation of research proposals and papers, and often the reviewers do not agree
Example of Two conflicting reviews Actual contents of the review of a paper submitted to the international gas turbine institute annual conference(Turbo Expo Reviewer #1: The authors are to be congratulated on an excellent use of CFD [computational fluid dynamics. The work leads to increased understanding of a physical flow mechanism and is shown to be consistent with experimental results.” Reviewer #2: The authors attempted to study the upstream unsteady effects on rotor tip clearance flow..... The CFD model (wake rotor) used by the authors is not adequate to represent the true multi-blade row situation, especially when the blade row gap is small
Example of Two Conflicting Reviews • Actual contents of the review of a paper submitted to the International Gas Turbine Institute annual conference (Turbo Expo). – Reviewer #1: “The authors are to be congratulated on an excellent use of CFD [computational fluid dynamics]. The work leads to increased understanding of a physical flow mechanism and is shown to be consistent with experimental results.” – Reviewer #2: “The authors attempted to study the upstream unsteady effects on rotor tip clearance flow.............The CFD model (wake + rotor) used by the authors is not adequate to represent the true multi-blade row situation, especially when the blade row gap is small
Dealing with Conflicting Evaluations Complain to Instructor in Charge Ignore the one(s)you dont like Understand and resolve the evaluations Ask for clarification from each evaluator Meet with all the stakeholders at once to resolve issues Team Meetings with all stakeholders are scheduled between versions and ll and Versions‖andⅢ to resolve issues
Dealing with Conflicting Evaluations • Complain to Instructor in Charge. • Ignore the one(s) you don’t like. • Understand and resolve the evaluations. – Ask for clarification from each evaluator. – Meet with all the stakeholders at once to resolve issues. Team Meetings with all stakeholders are scheduled between Versions I and II and Versions II and III to resolve issues
Division of work within teams Working together Partners are expected to work together in defining the problem, exploring design options constructing the apparatus, taking data, and discussing other aspects of their proiect Because of the team nature of the course. a few clarifications relating to academic honesty are provided below Oral progress reports and oral presentations are regarded as a combined effort and normally are graded as such. Partners should participate equally in both the presentation and the question-and-answer session Figures. tables of data. graphs, and typeset equations used in oral and written deliverable can and likely should be prepared jointly between team members Working separately Notebooks must be kept separately Written material reflects the degree of understanding, which you have gained from the work and your capacity to convey the results to others everyone is highly encouraged to discuss organization, results, conclusions, etc. with your partner, faculty advisor, and 16.62x staff members. However, the 16.621 project proposals and any solely authored 16.622 final written reports must be individual efforts. Duplication or direct paraphrasing of text is not allowed and is considered to constitute plagiarism. An exception to this is that the hypothesis, objective, and success Criteria statements must be the same for all members of a team Source: 16.621/16.622 Experimental Projects Lab l, ll Subject Syllabus, page 15
Division of Work Within Teams Wo rking tog e ther Par tne r s are expe c ted to w o r k t o g e th e r in d e fining t h e p r oblem, e xplo rin g d e sign o p tio n s, c o n s tr uc ting t h e a pp a r at u s, t aking d a ta, a nd dis c u s sing o t h e r a sp e ct s o f t h eir p r oj e c t. B e c aus e of the t eam nature o f t he cour s e, a fe w clarifi c ations r elating to academic hones ty ar e provided belo w. O r al p r o g r e s s r ep o r ts a nd o r al p r e s e nt atio n s a r e r egarded a s a combined e ffor t and nor m ally ar e graded a s s uch. P a r tne r s should participat e equally in both the pr e s e ntation and th e questio n -and-ans w e r s e s sion. Figu r e s, t able s o f d a ta, g r ap h s, a nd t yp e s e t e qu a tio n s used i n oral and written d elive rabl e s c an and likely should b e prepared jointly be tw e en tea m member s. Working se para t ely N o t eb o o k s must be k ept s epar ately. W rit te n m at erial r efl e cts the d e g ree of under standing, w hich you ha v e g ained from the work, and your c apa city to convey the r e sults to other s. E v e ryone is highly encouraged to discus s organiz ation, r e sults, conclu sions, e tc. with your p a r tne r, fa culty advi s o r, and 16.62x s taff member s. How ever, th e 16.621 proj e ct proposals and any s olely author e d 16.622 final wri tten r eports mu s t b e individual e ffort s. Du plica tion or di r ect par aphr a sing of text is not allow ed a nd is considered to constitute plagiarism. An ex c eption to t his i s t hat t he Hypoth e sis, O b j e ctiv e, an d S u c c e s s C rit e ria s t a t e ment s m u s t b e th e sa m e fo r all m emb e r s o f a t eam. Source: 16.621/16.622 Experimental Projects Lab I,II Subject Syllabus, page 15
