Assessment

GEOG246-346

Overall Grades

Final letter grades will be assigned as follows

lower	94	90	88	83	80	78	73	70	68	63	60	0
upper	100	94	90	88	83	80	78	73	70	68	63	60
grade	A	A-	B+	B	B-	C+	C	C-	D+	D	D-	F

Participation

Participation is worth 10% of your final grade and has two components. - Attendance. You are expected to attend each class. If you cannot make it for some reason, please arrange ahead of time. - Engagement with the course material, including any coding work assigned for homework. It is essential to read and work through the class material between classes. You will not be able to learn everything just from class. Additionally, you will at times be asked to work on practical problems between classes, for which you should be prepared to share your code and provide examples of errors/obstacles. - Reading quizzes. Periodically, short quizzes may be given on core concepts from readings. These quizzes will be closed-book and not exceed 10 minutes. (e.g. explain in general terms how an apply function works). Students receiving 60% or higher on a quiz receive a “Complete” grade.

For assignments

Assessment: Can we load the data you used, run your code, and arrive at the same result you reported? Does your code conform to the style guide (note: we are a little obsessive about this)

We will grade using this rubric (or one close to it that captures the results/style/reproducibility dimensions).

Accuracy	Acc. points	Reproducibility	Repro. points	Elegance	Ele. points
Results all wrong (0-5%)	0	Can’t be made to run	0	Indecipherable code, no comments/documentation	0
Results mostly wrong (5-25%)	4	Doesn’t work	4	Indecipherable code, no comments/documentation	2
Results more wrong than right (25-50%)	8	Doesn’t run without numerous fixes	8	Code indecipherable/no comments/documentation	4
Results more right than wrong (50-75%)	12	Runs after a handful of fixes	12	Code readable but wrong style/some commenting/doc’tation	6
Results almost entirely correct (75-95%)	16	Runs after some minor tweaks	16	Code mostly conformant/adequate commenting/documentation	8
Results all correct (95-100%)	20	Runs out of the box	20	Code conformant and stylish/well commented/documented	10

Final project overview

For the project overview assignment, assessment will be out of 50 points using simplified and somewhat different categories than the unit assignments, as shown below. The required content for this particular assignment in the Final Projects section.

Note that the minimum number of points assigned per category assume that the final project overview was completed and handed in.

Quality of Plan	QPts	Structure/completeness	Cpts	Reproducibility	RPts
No plan (analysis/coding approach and timelines) provided	5	Doesn’t follow required structure or provide requested information	2	Can’t be built/no R package structure	2
Plan (analysis/coding approach and timelines) is provided but mostly unworkable, many holes or inconsistencies in logic or approach	15	Barely follows required structure or provides requested information	4	Runs after many fixes	4
Probably workable plan, but with a fair number of holes or inconsistencies that need to be addressed	20	Partially follows structure and provides part of the information	6	Runs after 4-6 fixes	6
A pretty well thought-out and workable plan, with just a handful of holes or inconsistencies	25	Mostly follows structure and provides most of the required information	8	Runs after 1-3 fixes	8
Excellent, well thought plan, no obvious flaws in approach	30	Perfectly follows structure and provides all of the required information	10	Runs out of the box/with no fixes needed	10

Final project

Assessment is out of 70 pts (note that there a minimum points floor, which assumes that a final project has been submitted), and will be based on four categories:

Quality evaluates the content of the material in your package, focusing on the information and ideas conveyed in your descriptions, figures, and tables. How well did you understand and execute the project, and how well did you convey what you did?
Progress evaluates whether you achieved the objectives put forward in your Assignment 6 and final presentation, focusing more on the latter due to course corrections (and incorporating any necessary changes we discussed)
Clarity examines the clarity of the writing (is it easy to understand, no typos or missed words), the visual aspects of figures (does the color choice make sense, legend sensible, size appropriate, text readable?), formatting (did html lists end up as lists? do headings make sense?), and code syntax. This basically covers the stylistic components of your vignettes and code.
Reproducibility relates to the now familiar criteria about whether your package builds for another user without error, and with browsable vignettes.

Note that the minimum number of points assigned per category assume that the final project was completed and handed in.

Quality	QPts	Progress	PrPts	Clarity	Cpts	Reproducbility	RPts
Objectives/methods/results/interpretations unclear, poor understanding conveyed replete with analytical/methodological errors Findings/interpretations/examples absent	10	None since presentation	5.0	Vignette(s) a complete mess, graphics absent/totally confusing, text a word salad, narrative impossible to follow code a mess/doesn’t follow style	5.0	Can’t be built/no R package structure	3.0
Objectives/methods/results/interpretations cloudy, understanding of project less than half many analytical/methodological errors Findings/interpretations/examples present but weak/wrong	15	Only a little	7.5	Vignette(s) more unclear than clear; graphics present but hard to decipher; text somewhat confusing; narrative hard to follow code messy/mostly doesn’t follow style	7.5	Runs after many fixes	5.0
Objectives/methods/results/interpretations 50% clear, project about 50% understood some analytical/methodological errors Findings/interpretations/examples about half wrong	20	Modest progress	10.0	Vignette(s) not unreasonable; graphics so-so, not spectacular, maybe hard to decipher; text still a bit distracting, causes some confusion; narrative mostly clear code sloppy/half follows style	10.0	Runs after 4-6 fixes	7.0
Objectives/methods/results/interpretations 75% clear, project about 75% understood few analytical/methodological errors Findings/interpretations/examples interesting/correct	25	Project mostly complete	12.5	Vignette(s) good; graphics mostly clear, no major questions; text understood and gets the job done; narrative clear code clear/mostly follows style	12.5	Runs after 1-3 fixes	8.5
Objectives/methods/results/interpretations crystal clear, project completely understood no obvious analytical/methodological errors Findings/interpretations/examples novel/really well done	30	Much greater than expected	15.0	Vignette(s) outstanding; graphics spectacular, tell a clear and easily understood story supporting text; text crystal clear and right amount; gripping narrative code tight, perfect style	15.0	Runs out of the box/with no fixes needed	10.0