Assignments will be posted here as they are made available.
(Information about the peer review can now be found on the peer review page.)
Here are the deadlines for assignments, with links (to appear after assignments are released). All submissions are due by 23:59.
|Assignment||Assignment Due Date|
|Homework 01||September 18, 2018|
|Homework 02||September 25, 2018|
|Homework 03||October 02, 2018|
|Homework 04||October 09, 2018|
|Homework 05||October 19, 2018|
|Assignment||Assignment Due Date|
|Homework 06||November 09, 2018|
|Homework 07||November 13, 2018|
|Homework 08||November 20, 2018|
|Homework 09||November 27, 2018|
|Homework 10||December 06, 2018|
Here is the general flow that will happen for the assignments.
Watching the Discussion-Internal repo, or did not inform me of your GitHub username).
Components of each assignment will be graded on a 3-point scale. Here is the general rubric (also consult any specific guidance given in the relevant assignment itself).
|Topic||Excellent: 3||Satisfactory: 2||Needs work: 1|
|Coding style||Student has gone beyond what was expected and required, coding manual is followed, code is well commented||Coding style lacks refinement and has some errors, but code is readable and has some comments||Many errors in coding style, little attention paid to making the code human readable|
|Coding strategy||Complicated problem broken down into sub-problems that are individually much simpler. Code is efficient, correct, and minimal. Code uses appropriate data structure (list, data frame, vector/matrix/array). Code checks for common errors||Code is correct, but could be edited down to leaner code. Some "hacking" instead of using suitable data structure. Some checks for errors.||Code tackles complicated problem in one big chunk. Code is repetitive and could easily be functionalized. No anticipation of errors.|
|Presentation: graphs||Graph(s) carefully tuned for desired purpose. One graph illustrates one point||Graph(s) well chosen, but with a few minor problems: inappropriate aspect ratios, poor labels.||Graph(s) poorly chosen to support questions.|
|Presentation: tables||Table(s) carefully constructed to make it easy to perform important comparisons. Careful styling highlights important features.||Table(s) generally appropriate but possibly some minor formatting deficiencies.||Table(s) with too many, or inconsistent, decimal places. Table(s) not appropriate for questions and findings. Major display problems.|
|Achievement, mastery, cleverness, creativity||Student has gone beyond what was expected and required, e.g., extraordinary effort, additional tools not addressed by this course, unusually sophisticated application of tools from course.||Tools and techniques from the course are applied very competently and, perhaps,somewhat creatively. Chosen task was acceptable, but fairly conservative in ambition.||Student does not display the expected level of mastery of the tools and techniques in this course. Chosen task was too limited in scope.|
|Ease of access for instructor, compliance with course conventions for submitted work||Access as easy as possible, code runs!||Satisfactory||Not an earnest effort to reduce friction and comply with conventions and/or code does not run|
The grade mapping is as follows:
Intermediate points are allowed, and follow a linear scale in between each point, so that the full mapping is depicted in the following chart:
Information about the peer review can now be found on the peer review page.