Home |
Syllabus |
Grading |
Schedule |
Textbook |
Videos |
Rubrics |
Grading Rubrics
How It Works
All rubrics are scored on 5-point scales, based on the following grade equivalents:
To compute your numerical grade based on rubric scores, we will first calculate the mean score across dimensions, round to one decimal point, and then convert the score to a percentage based on the following conversion table:
| 0.0 |
1.0 |
2.0 |
3.0 |
4.0 |
4.5 |
5.0 |
| 0% |
50% |
60% |
70% |
80% |
90% |
100% |
Some examples of how this works:
- your mean is 1.75; your grade is 50% of the available points for that assignment
- your mean is 1.98; your grade is 60% of the available points (because 1.98 rounds to 2.0)
- your mean is 4.4; your grade is 80% of the available points
- your mean is 4.9; your grade is 90% of the available points
Project 1 Presentation
Introduction
| Score |
Criteria |
| 5 |
Clearly introduces the experiment, research question, and hypotheses with strong context and relevance. |
| 4 |
Introduces the experiment and research question; hypotheses are present but may lack clarity or depth. |
| 3 |
Basic introduction with minimal explanation of research question or hypotheses. |
| 2 |
Introduction is unclear or missing key components. |
| 1 |
Introduction is missing most of the key components (e.g., research question and hypotheses) |
| 0 |
Introduction is missing or contains irrelevant content. |
Analysis
| Score |
Criteria |
| 5 |
Thorough explanation of data cleaning and organization process; demonstrates strong understanding and rationale. |
| 4 |
Good explanation of data cleaning and organization; some rationale provided. |
| 3 |
Basic description of process; lacks depth or clarity. |
| 2 |
Minimal or unclear explanation of data handling. |
| 1 |
Disorganized explanation of the data cleaning and analysis, does not describe their process. |
| 0 |
No explanation of data cleaning or analysis. |
Discussion of Results
| Score |
Criteria |
| 5 |
Insightful interpretation of results; connects findings to research question and hypotheses effectively. |
| 4 |
Clear discussion of results; some connection to research question and hypotheses. |
| 3 |
Basic discussion; limited interpretation or connection to research question. |
| 2 |
Results are presented without meaningful discussion or interpretation. |
| 1 |
Results are unclear and missing the interpretation of the findings. |
| 0 |
No discussion of the results. |
Coding Reflection
| Score |
Criteria |
| 5 |
Deep reflection on coding experience; thoughtful insights on Copilot-generated code, challenges, and lessons learned. |
| 4 |
Good reflection; mentions Copilot and challenges with some insights. |
| 3 |
Basic reflection; limited discussion of Copilot or challenges. |
| 2 |
Reflection is superficial or missing examples. |
| 1 |
Minimal reflection is made and/or is unclear. |
| 0 |
No reflection provided. |
Conclusion
| Score |
Criteria |
| 5 |
Strong summary that ties together all sections; reinforces key takeaways and implications. |
| 4 |
Clear summary; touches on main points. |
| 3 |
Basic conclusion; may miss some key takeways (e.g., the findings). |
| 2 |
Conclusion is unclear and does not summarize the key takeways. |
| 1 |
A conclusion is barely made with little attempt to summarize the project. |
| 0 |
No conclusion is provided. |
Presentation Skills
| Score |
Criteria |
| 5 |
Clear, engaging delivery; excellent pacing, and visuals. |
| 4 |
Good delivery; mostly clear and engaging with appropriate visuals. |
| 3 |
Adequate delivery; some issues with clarity or engagement. |
| 2 |
Poor delivery; difficult to follow and/or lacking visuals. |
| 1 |
Little effort in presentation and/or is often unclear. |
| 0 |
No effort in presentation and/or completely unclear. |