Group assignment grading rubric

This document presents the grading rubric for the group assignment, in four components: (1) report quality, (2) code quality and implementation, (3) peer feedback quality, and (4) response letter. In total, 100 points can be obtained, and the final grade will be computed as 1 + TOTAL_POINTS * 0.09.

1 Report quality

60 points total

1.1 General

5 points

The report is written in correct English and generally adheres to the word count limits. The report looks good visually (e.g., layout), the different (sub)section headings are appropriate, the references are neat, and the abstract is well-written and contains all relevant information so that someone who has not read the report can assess the contents of the report.

1.2 Introduction

15 points

Explanation of the data is entirely correct, the features used in modelling are adequately discussed. The substantive research problem is adequately contextualized, and the introduction naturally leads to a clear research question.

1.3 Methods

15 points

The chosen analysis methods are correctly and concisely explained, as well as their rationale and relevance to this research problem. The parts about method comparison defines a clear metric, and the validation approach takes into account bias-variance trade-off / overfitting / generalization to unseen data.

1.4 Results

10 points

The results section is well-connected to the methods section (flows naturally), it focuses on the main findings while using appropriate presentation methods (i.e., text / table / figure depending on ease of understanding) with accurate descriptions.

1.5 Conclusion

15 points

The conclusion summarizes the work in an understandable way, provides a well-defined answer to the research question that follows from the results in the report. A discussion adds context to the findings, includes theoretical interpretations beyond the factual results, and shows good understanding of issues in high-dimensional analysis and its application in substantive research.

2 Code quality and implementation

20 points total

2.1 Implementation

8 points

Data is loaded and processed appropriately. The implementation of the different methods is without errors in e.g., pre-processing or (hyper)parameter settings. The code aligns with what is promised / stated in the report.

2.2 Code style and organization

6 points

Code has consistent style, is understandably organized, legible, and variables have well-considered names. Where appropriate, descriptive comments are included. No irrelevant pieces of code are retained and no code is unnecessarily duplicated.

2.3 Project reproducibility

6 points

The project is reproducible, i.e., easy to run on a different computer without having to make changes to the code, after installing the required packages. The entire folder works as a stand-alone project, and includes a working R project file. The quarto file compiles the report.

3 Peer feedback quality

15 points total

3.1 General

2 points

The peer feedback is constructive, concise (no more than a few paragraphs; bullet-points are allowed for small comments) and written in correct English.

3.2 Summary

3 points

The peer feedback starts with a well-written paragraph summarizing the project described in the draft report.

3.3 Main comments

6 points

The feedback accurately identifies and describes one or a few of the most relevant or pressing issues or shortcomings in the draft report generally, and suggests ways in which this can be improved.

3.4 Rubric-based feedback

4 points

With reference to the final grading rubric, the peer feedback systematically provides useful suggestions for improvement in the different sections / planned sections of the draft report.

4 Response letter quality

5 points total

The response letter addresses the most important points raised in the peer feedback, and explains how these have been addressed in the final report. The response letter is written in correct English and is concise.