I reviewed my final project with both Ms. Pataki and Mihir Bapat, a student in another CSP period. These reviews were helpful in giving feedback, especially when the person has not seen our project before.
After these reviews, I refined my feature and my presentation before N@TM to be more engaging. For example, I was told to go more in depth about the backend and how requests are sent, so I incorporated this into my final N@TM presentation.
Mihir Bapat Peer Grading Rubric
| Category | Points | Description | Peer Grade |
|---|---|---|---|
| Five tasks over 12 weeks | 5 | List five things completed, including issues addressed, burndown tracking, and presentation work. | 4.7 |
| Full Stack Project Demo | 2 | Demonstrate the project, highlight CPT requirements, and incorporate N@tM feedback. | 1.6 |
| Project Feature Blog Write-up | 1 | Use CPT/FRQ language to write a structured blog post on project features. | 1.0 |
| MCQ Completion | 1 | Successfully complete and reflect on multiple-choice questions. | 0.9 |
| Retrospective Reflection | 1 | - Reflect on strengths and weaknesses - Create next steps plans for improvement - Engage with peer projects and document interests - Think about future steps in CompSci, classes, college, internships, or career - Help a new peer with final exam prep or conduct a live review with Ms. Pataki - Send a detailed summary of review points 24 hours in advance, including a self-grade assessment |
1.0 |
| Total | 10 | Maximum possible score. | 9.2 |
Mihir advised me to be more clear when presenting my 5 big things so that someone who has never seen my project before will understand my contributions. I incorporated this into my N@TM presentation to be more engaging.