Grading

Overview

You will receive a decimal grade for this class. 

Your written work will be graded based on its clarity, organization, balance, amount of pertinent detail included, depth and clarity of evaluative and analytical comments, and preparation. It will also be graded on the extent to which a good understanding of the material presented in the course is shown and on the extent to which directions are followed. If evaluative or analytical comments are required, they should be supported by factual evidence, either from readings or other documents. Other aspects of individual assignments may also be included in the grading.

Written work that shows a lack of understanding of subject matter, is unclear or poorly organized, contains few or irrelevant details, does not follow directions, contains little or unsubstantiated evaluative commentary, or is poorly written, prepared (e.g. typos, grammatical errors), or documented will receive low grades.

Evaluation of Student Work:

You may expect to receive comments on and evaluations of assignments and submitted work in a timely fashion. All work from the course will be returned, with comments, within two weeks of the last class of the quarter.

top of page

iSchool Graduate Work Grading Criteria

 General grading information for the University of Washington is available here. The iSchool has adopted its own criteria for grading graduate courses (see below).

4.0

Exceptional work for a graduate student

sample

Work at this level is consistently [creative, original, thorough, well-reasoned, well-argued, insightful, well-written, clear, methodologically sound] and shows [clear recognition / an incisive understanding / excellent evaluation and analysis of salient issues; an excellent ability to draw relevant comparisons / examples; mastery of relevant aspects of technology introduced in class; creative application of relevant technology; sophistication in presentation and delivery of technological products]

[Work doesn’t get much better.]

3.7

Strong work for a graduate student

sample

Work at this level is mostly [creative, original, thorough, well-reasoned, well-argued, insightful, well-written, clear, methodologically sound] and shows [good recognition / a solid understanding / thorough evaluation and analysis of salient issues; a consistent ability to draw relevant comparisons / examples; competence in relevant aspects of technology introduced in class; useful application of relevant technology; an ability to logically present and deliver technological products]

[Work is very good, but it could be improved.]

3.3

Competent work for a graduate student

sample

Work at this level is often [creative, original, thorough, well-reasoned, well-argued, insightful, well-written, clear, methodologically sound] and shows mostly adequate [recognition / understanding / evaluation and analysis of salient issues; ability to draw relevant comparisons / examples; competence in relevant aspects of technology introduced in class ; application of relevant technology; ability to logically present and deliver technological products.] A few errors, inconsistencies, or other problems may be present.

[Work is competent, but neither exceptionally strong nor exceptionally weak.]

3.0

Acceptable work for a graduate student

sample

Work at this level is generally [creative, original, thorough, well-reasoned, well-argued, insightful, well-written, clear, methodologically sound] and shows acceptable [recognition / understanding / evaluation and analysis of salient issues; ability to draw relevant comparisons / examples; competence in relevant aspects of technology introduced in class ; application of relevant technology; ability to logically present and deliver technological products.] but errors, inconsistencies, or other problems are present.

[Work is competent but shows some flaws or difficulties.]

2.7

Minimally passing work for a graduate student

sample

Work at this level is occasionally [creative, original, thorough, well-reasoned, well-argued, insightful, well-written, clear, methodologically sound] and shows some signs of [recognition / understanding of salient issues; adequate reasoning; an ability to draw relevant comparisons / examples; adequate writing skills; competence in relevant aspects of technology introduced in class] but numerous errors, inconsistencies, or other problems are present.

[Work shows many weaknesses or difficulties.]

2.6 & below

Deficient work for a graduate student

sample

Work at this level does not meet the minimal expectations for graduate level work. Work is [inadequately developed; flawed by errors or inconsistencies;

Work lacks in [recognition of / understanding of salient issues; reasoning; adequate methodology; support for arguments made; ability to draw methodologically sound; demonstration of basic skills]

2.0

Unacceptable work for a graduate student

sample

Work at this level

1. misunderstood the nature of the work required

or

2. shows [very little recognition / understanding of salient issues; inadequate reasoning; inadequate writing skills; complete lack of support for arguments made; inappropriate methodology some level of incompleteness] Errors or inconsistencies throughout.

1.0

Incomplete / Totally inadequate work for a graduate student

sample

Work was turned in but [was mostly irrelevant to the course; showed a poor performance in all aspects of assigned work; there was little to no evidence of mastery of relevant aspects of material; was substantially incomplete]

0.0

Work was not turned in

top of page

Participation

Active class participation is critical to the successful learning environment in a class session. Your class participation grade reflects the quality of participation and the regularity of your involvement in discussion. The grade for participation will be based on:

top of page



HomeCourse OverviewScheduleAssignments
GradingReadings • Course Communications



Last updated: Monday, 14-Jan-2013 09:40:53 PST
© 2006 Information School of the University of Washington
All rights reserved