RICH Summative Task
Self-Evaluation

 

 

Answer the Following Questions

(print a copy and submit)

1.       Explain what your game is and how you implemented it. 

2.       List and explain 3 new ideas/concepts that you learned and included in this project.

3.       How much time and effort did you put into this project?

4.       What do you think your strengths and weaknesses were in this project?

5.       How could you improve your project?

6.       What are the most valuable things you learned from this project?

7.       In the Evaluation Rubric below circle the level in each category that best describes your project.   

Complete the Rubric Below

Circle/Highlight the Level for each section that best applies to your game.

 

 

Level 4

Level 3

Level 2

Level 1

Level 0

Progression

The proposal and all weekly reports were completed on time.  Work was completed each class and no time was wasted.

The proposal and all weekly reports were completed on time.  Work was completed most classes and minimum time was wasted.

The proposal or some weekly reports were NOT completed on time.  Work was completed most classes and minimum time was wasted.

The proposal or some weekly reports were NOT completed on time.  Time was wasted and work was not completed in all classes.

The proposal and all weekly reports were NOT completed on time. 

Requirements

The program works and meets all of the requirements.(Random events, Graphics, User Input etc) The program has features above and beyond what was asked for.

The program works and meets all of the requirements.  (Random events, Graphics, User Input etc)

The program works and meets most of the requirements.  (Random events, Graphics, User Input etc)

The program does not work and meets only some of the requirements.  (Random events, Graphics, User Input etc)

The program does not work and is missing most of the required elements (Random events, Graphics, User Input etc)

Readability

The code is exceptionally well organized, well documented and very easy to follow.

The code is well organized, well documented and very easy to follow.

The code is well organized, but documentation is incomplete.

The code is poorly organized and very difficult to read. Documentation is incomplete.

The code is poorly organized and not documented.

Reusability

The code could be reused as a whole or each routine could be reused. (i.e. uses functions and variables)

Most of the code could be reused in other programs. (i.e. uses functions and variables)

Some parts of the code could be reused in other programs. (i.e. uses functions and variables)

The code is not organized for reusability. (does uses functions and variables)

The code is poor and incomplete

Efficiency

The code is extremely efficient without sacrificing readability and understanding.

The code is fairly efficient without sacrificing readability and understanding.

The code is brute force and unnecessarily long.

The code is huge and appears to be patched together.

The code  does not run.

Instructions

The instructions are extremely clear and explains in detail the game and how it works.

The instructions are clear and explains most details of  the game and how it works.

The instructions are unclear and explains very little of the game.

The instructions are incomplete.

No instructions were included.

Peer Evaluations Reports

The peer evaluations are complete and include in-house and outside testing.

The peer evaluations are adequate and include in-house and outside testing.

The peer evaluations include only one of the required testing.

Both types of peer evaluations are incomplete.

No peer evaluations were submitted.