Grading

The grades of each team are available in this spreadhseet.

Grading criteria

The grading criteria for each iteration are as follows:

• 1st iteration - 10pt
• 2nd iteration - 15pt
• Intermediate demo - 5pt
• 3rd iteration - 25pt
• Peer review - 5pt
• 4th iteration - 35pt
• Final demo - 5pt

Bonus points

After fourth iteration, the mentor can give a team up to 4 bonus points to a team to reward the following qualities:

• Assiduity. The team showed continuous progress throughout the semester. All or most team members came to the meetings with the mentor (except when the meeting was cancelled by mutual agreement with the mentor). The team came to the meetings well prepared, showing clear progress and/or questions that showed that significant effort had been put since the previous meeting.
• Dedication and effort. The team showed a lot of dedication, putting much more effort into the project than the minimum required to obtain the credit points. The project had some clear challenges and the team worked hard to overcome them. The team showed initiative and creativity.

Differentiated grading

By default, all team members will get the grade assigned to their team. However, the mentors will keep track of the contributions of each individual and their participation in the consultation sessions. The mentor can recommend applying an "adjustment" multiplier to each individual team member as follows:

• x 1.1 multiplier if the contribution of the individual team member is outstanding. It is clear that the team member went well beyond duty throughout the semester and his contribution to the final product is preponderant.
• x 0.9 multiplier if the contribution of the individual team member in one or two of the iterations was below expectations and/or the team member did not sufficiently engage in the team's work. This multiplier can also be applied if a team member did not attend the consultation sessions on a regular basis and did not have a valid excuse for non-attendance.
• x 0.7 or 0.8 multiplier if the contribution of the individual team member throughout the semester was below expectations and the team member did not show dedication to the project (evidenced by regular push/commits, editing of documents, activity recorded in the issue tracker and other activity recorded in the team's chat or email trails), and/or was not sufficiently proactive when needed. A multiplier in this range can also be applied to a team member who missed the large majority of the consultation sessions without a valid excuse.

In extreme cases (e.g. students who are repeatedly designated by their team members as not contributing to the team and without any significant recorded activity), the course coordinator can decide to apply a lower multiplier.