Guidelines for Grading of Team Project

Please review the "Team Final Tasks" as defined on the course Assignments page.

General Principles: Due to the varied nature of these team projects, the overall grade will be determined holistically.  That is, projects will be judged on their quality as a whole, rather than by adding up points according to a system.  But the following are what the instructor will be focusing on:

1. Overall Conception of the Project: The original assignment states, "Each team will design a project exploring one of the alternative paradigms of literary interpretation discussed in the course (e.g., graphing, mapping, modeling, simulating, text-analysis, deformance, etc.)"  To what extent does the project truly explore an alternative paradigm of literary interpretation? Are the tools chosen for interpretation and presentation of findings appropriate to the work and the ideas being investigated? Does the project have sufficient depth and interest to warrant the work involved in creating it? The instructor will answer these questions by looking mainly at the rationale and design of the project on the Team Project Page. In addition, the Team Annotated Bibliography will help the instructor determine the thoroughness and thoughtfulness of the team's preparation for the project and their understanding of its context.

    

2. Quality of Execution: The assignment also states, "Due to the shortness of development time in a 10-week quarter, teams are not necessarily expected to finish with a fully-realized, working product (though, of course, the closer to that goal the better)." The instructor will examine how well, and to what degree, your project was realized, even if its idea might logically lead to something much larger under different conditions. He will be looking mainly at the prototype itself to establish the extent to which you followed through on your plans, keeping  in mind a reasonable standard for work by three or four people over the course of a quarter.  Design or aesthetic polish will also be a plus.

    

3. Clarity of Presentation and Language: How well written are your materials? How clear was your presentation? As a work of literary interpretation, your project--and your team presentation--should demonstrate mastery of the language and conventions of the discourse of academic work in this field, even if it is relatively new.

    

Grading Criteria: Again, these are general principles, applied holistically.

• A, A+: The project has an interesting, original idea and answers a substantial question in literary interpretation. The team project page demonstrates a clear understanding of the tool or tools used and serious consideration of its choice and any significant alternatives. The execution of the project shows care and intelligence, resulting in either a significant conclusion or the beginning of a larger, viable, and worthwhile project. The annotated bibliography contains a wide variety of useful sources and shows depth and seriousness of purpose. The writing and overall presentation are clear, correct, and professional.

   

• A-: An "A" project with only a few minor flaws, either in conception or execution. The project has an original idea and its research and execution demonstrate thought and care.

   

• B+: This is a good project, with several virtues and relatively few flaws. The main difference between a "B+" and an "A-" lies in the combination of interest and execution.

   

• B, B-: A project at this level fulfills the conditions of the assignment, but has either several significant flaws or a general lack of interest. Nothing terrible is wrong, but nothing exciting is happening, either. A "B-" has deeper and more numerous flaws than a "B."

   

• C+, C, C-: Projects on this level have serious problems, but still fulfill the bare conditions of the assignment, in varying degrees.

   

• D and F: "D" is for disaster; "F" is for "Fail."