Scientific Communication CITS4008 – Marking Criteria

 

Technical Topic Paper

0Failed to hand in this item.
1Handed in the item, but almost no content, for example, only section heading titles, or simply a few paragraphs of text.
2Inadequate content, with or without section structure. No coherent argument, no references, contains typos and errors.
3Marginal content, but no clear structure. No header, no abstract, no references. Poor language construction with many errors.
4Sufficient content, with a header, but no abstract, no clear structure, no clear argument.
5Sufficient content. Contains a header, abstract and is a structured document with section headings and references. No claim is made in the abstract. There is no clear argument. There are many typos and errors in language and grammar. References are done poorly and inconsistently. There are no citations in the text.
6Sufficient content. Paper has a header, abstract and clear section structure with references. There is no claim made in the abstract. Citations are used and there is some structure to the argument. However, there is no contribution to the literature and the paper is just repeating existing ideas. There are typos and errors.
7Sufficient content. Paper has a header, abstract, structure and references. A claim of a contribution to the discussion about this topic is made in the abstract. Citations are used and an argument is laid out, but the argument doesn’t really support the claim. There are still some typos and errors.
8As above, although now the argument does support the claim. There are still a few typos or errors.
9As above, with only minor typos. At this level, the paper is a pleasure to read.
10Perfect and pleasurable to read.

Literature Review Paper

0Failed to hand in this item.
1Handed in the item, but almost no content, for example, only section heading titles, or simply a few paragraphs of text.
2Inadequate content, with or without section structure. No coherent argument, no references, contains typos and errors.
3Marginal content, but no clear structure. No header, no abstract, and fewer than 6 references. Poor language construction with many errors.
4Sufficient content, with a header, but no abstract, no clear structure, no clear argument. Content simply repeats a summarized version of each paper, and mistakenly reviews the writing style, rather than the scientific content.
5Sufficient content. Contains a header, abstract and is a structured document with section headings and references. No claim is made in the abstract. There is no clear argument. There are many typos and errors in language and grammar. References are done poorly and inconsistently. There are no citations in the text. There is no overview of the science, and no unified approach to notation.
6Sufficient content. Paper has a header, abstract and clear section structure with references. There is no claim made in the abstract. Citations are used and there is some structure to the argument. However, there is no contribution to the literature and the paper is just repeating existing ideas. There are typos and errors. There is no original contribution made.
7Sufficient content. Paper has a header, abstract, structure and references. A claim of a contribution to the discussion about this topic is made in the abstract. Citations are used and an argument is laid out, but the argument doesn’t really support the claim. There are still some typos and errors.
8As above, although now the argument does support the claim. There are still a few typos or errors.
9As above, with only minor typos. At this level, the paper is a pleasure to read.
10Perfect and pleasurable to read.

Experimental or Research Paper

0Failed to hand in this item.
1Handed in the item, but almost no content, for example, only section heading titles, or simply a few paragraphs of text.
2Inadequate content, with or without section structure. No coherent argument, no references, no tables, images or graphs, paper contains typos and errors.
3Marginal content, but no clear structure. No header, no abstract, and no non-textual items like images or graphs. Poor language construction with many errors.
4Marginal content, with a header, but no abstract, no clear structure, no clear argument. There is no experimentation, nor development of any theory or method. There are no claims made.
5Marginal content. Contains a header, abstract and is a structured document with section headings and references. No claim is made in the abstract. There is no clear argument. There are many typos and errors in language and grammar. References are done poorly and inconsistently. There are no citations in the text. There is no overview of the science, and no unified approach to notation. Maybe has a token non-textual item.
6Sufficient content. Paper has a header, abstract and clear section structure with references. There are clear non-textual items inserted in the text, all with captions. There is no claim made in the abstract. Citations are used and there is some structure to the argument. An experiment or research idea is presented although you are not convinced by the argument. There are typos and errors. There is no original contribution made (either positive or negative).
7Sufficient content. Paper has a header, abstract, structure and references. A claim of a contribution to the discussion about this topic is made in the abstract. Citations are used and an argument is laid out, but the argument or the experimental results don't really support the claim. There are non-textual items, all with well-structured and meaningful captions. All axes are labeled, all legends are clear. There are still some typos and errors.
8As above, although now the argument does support the claim. There are still a few typos or errors.
9As above, with only minor typos. At this level, the paper is a pleasure to read.
10Perfect and pleasurable to read.

CV and Professional Web Page

0Failed to hand in this item.
1Handed in the item, but almost no content, for example, only a name and address with no educational or professional background. No skills. No hobbies or interests. No generic skills. No evidence. No referees listed.
2Poor layout, no clear structure. Typos. No listed skills. No referees.
3Some attempt to layout material, but mixed success with design. Different fonts or header styles used. Missing information. Typos. No listed skills. No referees.
4Slightly better than above but you still struggle to get the required information.
5A readable CV but you wouldn't shortlist this person for a job.
6Enough information to consider a person for a job, but doesn't paint a full picture of the candidate.
7Clear layout and design of CV. Educational and professional experience listed, with a claim of skills and demonstrable evidence of those skills. Fails to mention any technical skills in computing or fails to mention any hobbies, interests or other skills. Lists referees.
8Clear layout and design of CV. Educational and professional experience listed, with a claim of skills and demonstrable evidence of those skills. Mentions list of technical skills in computing. Outlines hobbies, interests or other skills and how they relate to leadership, communication, management, or other generic skills. Lists referees.
9As above, with some design flair, but a small number of typos.
10Perfect and pleasurable to read.