Final Project Rubrics
Reflect
(5 points per question)
| Points | Description |
|---|---|
| 5 | Specific and reflective. Names concrete details (a feature, a bug, a tool, a moment, a decision) and shows genuine thinking about what happened or what it meant. Consistent with other evidence (commits, chat logs, class observations). |
| 4 | Specific but thin on reflection, or reflective but light on specifics. Clearly grounded in the student’s actual experience. |
| 3 | Generic but on-topic. Addresses the prompt but could have been written by almost anyone in the class. Few concrete details. |
| 2 | Off-topic, evasive, or contradicted by other evidence. Answers a different question than the one asked, or describes work the student demonstrably didn’t do. |
| 1 | Minimal effort. One or two sentences, copy-pasted boilerplate, or obvious AI-generated text. |
| 0 | No response. |
Process
(5 points per week)
| Points | Description |
|---|---|
| 5 | Active and substantive week. Multiple commits showing meaningful work (a feature built, a bug fixed, a refactor completed — not just whitespace or merges). Chat logs show the student engaging critically with AI: iterating on prompts, questioning output, or working through problems. Present and engaged in class. |
| 4 | Productive week with one weak dimension. For example: good commits and class presence but shallow AI use, or thoughtful AI engagement but light commit activity. The student clearly moved the project forward. |
| 3 | Light but present. A commit or two of modest scope, some AI use without much iteration, attended class without notable engagement. Did some work but not a full week’s worth. |
| 2 | Concerning gaps. Commits don’t match what was claimed in lab, AI logs show the student outsourcing thinking rather than learning, or attended class but appeared disengaged. Evidence partially contradicts the student’s claimed contribution for the week. |
| 1 | Minimal activity. One trivial commit or none, little or no chat log activity, and/or absent or disengaged in class. |
| 0 | No evidence of work this week. |
Present
| Criterion | Score | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Functionality demo — walks through the app; advanced features shown clearly (mobile vs. desktop, intermediate and stretch claims) | ___ / 5 | |
| Source code excerpts — focused (not whole codebase); illustrates reuse, modularization, or best practices; well explained | ___ / 5 | |
| Data flow — explains the role of the 3P API(s) used and what data is persisted in localStorage / handled by import/export | ___ / 5 | |
| Reflection & problem-solving — names real challenges, how they were solved, and meaningful takeaways about the process | ___ / 5 | |
| Delivery — every member contributes substantively; transitions are cohesive; pacing is clear | ___ / 5 |