IDP Final Project Rubric

Discovery Document

Below is the grading rubric for the Discovery Document, structured with three performance levels: “Exceeds Expectations,” “Meets Expectations,” and “Does Not Meet Expectations.” Each main requirement is assigned a maximum point value, totaling 100 points.

Requirement	Exceeds Expectations	Meets Expectations	Does Not Meet Expectations	Points
Title and Author(s)	Title clearly reflects specific research questions; author(s) properly credited.	Title reflects general research topic; author(s) credited.	Title is missing or does not reflect research topic; author(s) not credited.	5
Research Questions	Provides a numbered list of at least 3 well-defined, answerable research questions with 1–3 sentence descriptions.	Provides a numbered list of 3 research questions with brief descriptions; questions are somewhat clear.	Provides fewer than 3 research questions; questions are vague or lack descriptions.	15
Motivation	Clearly articulates the significance of the research questions in 1–2 well-developed paragraphs; explains relevance and potential impact.	Provides a general explanation of the significance of the research questions; relevance is somewhat clear.	Motivation is unclear or missing; does not explain the significance of the research questions.	10
Dataset Description	Thoroughly describes dataset(s) including exact URLs; dataset is real, contains over 500 lines, and is appropriate for research; explains data source, collection methods, and potential limitations.	Describes dataset(s) with URLs; dataset meets basic requirements; provides some information on data source and collection methods.	Inadequate description of dataset(s); missing URLs; dataset is inappropriate or insufficient for research; lacks information on data source and collection methods.	20
Data Understanding	Demonstrates deep understanding of the data by identifying and explaining relevant columns, formats, units, ranges, and cleanliness; discusses data reliability, accuracy, completeness, and potential challenges.	Identifies and explains some relevant columns and data attributes; mentions data reliability and potential challenges.	Limited or no explanation of data attributes; does not address data reliability or potential challenges.	20
Challenges Identification	Clearly identifies and explains potential issues or challenges in working with the data (e.g., size, formatting, missing information); provides insights into how these challenges might impact research.	Identifies some potential issues or challenges with the data; provides limited insight into their impact on research.	Does not identify potential issues or challenges with the data; lacks understanding of how challenges might impact research.	10
Challenge Goals	Selects at least 2 appropriate challenge goals; provides strong justification for their relevance and suitability to the project.	Selects 2 challenge goals; provides some justification for their selection.	Fails to select appropriate challenge goals; justification is weak or missing.	10
Overall Documentation	Documentation is well-organized, free of grammatical errors, and formatted professionally; tables and figures (if any) are clear and enhance understanding.	Document is organized and mostly free of grammatical errors; formatting is adequate; tables and figures (if any) are understandable.	Document is poorly organized, contains grammatical errors, and lacks professional formatting; tables and figures (if any) are unclear or absent.	10
Total Points				100

Data Organization

Requirement	Exceeds Expectations	Meets Expectations	Does Not Meet Expectations
Data Preparation and Code Submission (40 points)	Data is meticulously pre-processed, well-organized, and thoroughly documented. - Comprehensive, well-annotated code provided for data collection and organization.	Data is adequately pre-processed and organized. - Code for data collection and organization is complete but may lack detailed annotations.	Data is poorly organized or not pre-processed. - Code is missing, incomplete, or contains significant errors.
Plot Sketches and Visualization Planning (40 points)	All research questions are addressed through diverse, creative, and feasible plot sketches. - Sketches are detailed, with clear titles, labeled axes, appropriate use of color, legends, annotations, and statistical indicators. - Effectively highlights challenge goals, such as machine learning predictions or interactive controls.	Most research questions are addressed with a variety of plot types. - Sketches include titles and labeled axes but may lack some details like color or annotations. - Some challenge goals are incorporated into the sketches.	Few or none of the research questions are addressed. - Sketches are incomplete or missing essential elements like titles and labeled axes. - Challenge goals are not considered or addressed.
Overall Documentation and Clarity (20 points)	All sketches and documentation is clear, well-organized, and easy to interpret. - Documentation is professional, adheres to all guidelines, and effectively communicates the intended message. - All documentation is submitted per the requirements here	Sketches and documentation is generally clear with minor areas of confusion. - Documentation mostly adheres to technical writing standards and communicates the intended message.	Sketches and documentation is difficult to interpret due to poor organization or lack of clarity. - Presentation does not adhere to guidelines and fails to communicate the intended message.
Total Points:			100

Final Delivery (250 pts)

Your final delivery will be due according to the schedule posted and will be comprised of the following elements for grading.

Presentation (100 pts) link

Category	Excellent	Good	Adequate	Needs Work
Speaking & Engagement	Clear, confident, and polished delivery. Engages the audience effectively.	Mostly clear delivery; occasional hesitations. Some engagement.	Somewhat unclear or monotone delivery. Limited audience connection.	Unclear or overly quiet; little effort to engage.
Clarity & Structure	Presentation has a strong flow and clearly communicates purpose and outcomes.	Mostly clear with logical structure; a few transitions are rough.	Somewhat hard to follow; lacks organization or clarity in places.	Difficult to follow; unclear organization or missing key ideas.
Visual Aids / Slides	Slides are clean, relevant, and enhance the explanation. Visuals aid comprehension.	Slides are mostly effective and support the talk.	Slides are inconsistent or distract from the message.	Slides are poorly prepared or missing key visuals.
Team Collaboration	All team members present and contribute meaningfully. Seamless transitions.	All members present; most contribute clearly.	Some imbalance in contribution; awkward transitions.	One or more members absent or significantly underparticipating.

Report (100 pts) link

Category	Excellent	Good	Adequate	Needs Work
Project Description	Clear explanation of purpose, features, and goals. Easy to understand.	Generally clear with some minor gaps in explanation.	Some confusion or missing context.	Very unclear or missing key parts of the explanation.
Process & Timeline Reflection	Strong insight into team workflow, design iterations, and challenges.	Reasonable reflection on progress and work division.	Basic timeline or process mentioned.	Little to no discussion of the process.
Technical Insight	Effectively explains key technical decisions and features with diagrams or code samples.	Describes most important features and logic.	Superficial overview; lacks detail.	Minimal or no technical explanation included.
Formatting & Writing Quality	Professionally formatted; clear, free of errors. Images, diagrams, or links are well integrated.	Mostly well written and formatted; few errors.	Some formatting issues or grammar problems.	Sloppy, hard to read, or disorganized.
Challenge Goals	Successfully implements two or more of the listed challenge goals beyond core features. Clearly documented in README or demo.	One challenge goal fully implemented and documented.	No challenge goals fully implemented or the attempt at challenges does not meet sufficient effort to satisfy the challenge description.	No evidence of stretch goals attempted or documented.

Code (50 pts)

Category	Excellent	Good	Adequate	Needs Work
Documentation & Project Structure	Main README clearly explains project purpose, folder layout, and how to run the program. Includes diagrams or a written explanation of how data is processed or flows through the system. All folders have clear README files. Organized data is clearly documented with column information used in generating plots.	README includes key information and shows some awareness of structure and flow.	README is present but incomplete or unclear in how components fit together.	README is minimal or missing. Folder structure is unclear or undocumented.
Code Quality & Structure	Code is clean, modular, readable, and well-commented. Uses good naming and consistent formatting.	Code is mostly organized with good naming and some comments.	Some disorganization or inconsistent naming. Limited comments.	Code is messy, inconsistent, or hard to read. Few or no comments.
Plot generation	Plots can be regenerated by following reproducible directions.	Plots can mostly be regenerated with some minor issues or error on 1 or 2 plots.	Unable to generate plots. Code is missing or manual steps to generate plots cannot be followed.	Plots are missing, or no steps to generate plots.

Ongoing (50)

Professionalism (50 pts)

This section will be ongoing through the entire project lifecycle and count towards the final grade.

Category	Excellent	Good	Adequate	Needs Work
Professionalism	No instances of being off task. Asks for hints occasionally, independently researches, demonstrates problem-solving abilities.	1 or 2 reminders needed to be on task. Needs help with difficult issues but demonstrates ability to debug and grow independently.	3+ reminders to get back on task. Consistently unable to resolve (minor) issues without assistance.	Frequently off task. Cannot make progress without assistance.