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 For webscraping challenge; document the site for scraping URLs and expected format of future scraped data. | 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. Deep understanding and documentation of data columns, formats, accuracy and caveats | 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. | 30 |
| 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 is well-organized, free of grammatical errors, and formatted professionally; tables and figures (if any) are clear and enhance understanding. All sections are complete with sufficient details (such as: Task List, Challenges working with the data...) | Document is organized and mostly free of grammatical errors; formatting is adequate; tables and figures (if any) are understandable. Some details lacking | Document is poorly organized, contains grammatical errors, and lacks professional formatting; tables and figures (if any) are unclear or absent. | 30 |
| 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. | - 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) ¶
| 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) ¶
| 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 | For this portion we approved use of AI so I will not be grading the code quality. The code itself will not count towards the grade this year. What I will look for is that you have the code you do have organized in a coherent way and documented it sufficiently, such that I would consider it maintainable. | Code is mostly organized but lacking in directions and documentation. | Code is disorganized with minimal to no documentation but can be followed to run with effort. | No organization, impossible to follow |
| 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. |