## Introduction These are the rubrics used to assess _Research Project 1_. There are two things worth emphasizing about these rubrics: 1. The weights of the aspects within each individual rubric are not predefined. 2. The normative descriptions are abstracted and might require reinterpretation for any given project. Both these points can be explained by the diverse range of projects that are performed by students from the research master *Brain and Cognitive Sciences*. Different disciplines will place different requirements on student performance. Still, we believe that the use of rubrics contributes to comparable assessment of all students within the programme, regardless of their field or hosting lab. ## Rubrics There are three rubrics, corresponding to the three graded components: process, technical report and oral presentation. ### Process Process counts towards 40% of the final mark and can only be assessed by the internal assessor of the project. | Aspect | Poor (1.0 - 4.0) | Insufficient (4.5 - 5.0) | Sufficient (5.5 - 7.0) | Good (7.5 - 8.0) | Excellent (8.5 - 10) | | :-------------------- | :-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | :------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | :----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | :--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | :---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Collecting literature | The student did not engage with academic literature or demonstrated negligible understanding of the research project's context. This severely hindered their ability to comprehend the project's purpose or contribute meaningfully. | The student struggled to independently collect and/or critically evaluate appropriate literature in a timely manner. This resulted in an incomplete or superficial understanding of the project's context, as evidenced by interactions with the supervisor and negative impact on project performance. They lacked self-reliance in identifying key academic resources. | The student showed self-reliance in collecting relevant literature and demonstrates a basic understanding of the research context. Their critical engagement with the literature is limited — they can identify relevant sources but struggle to apply them to evaluate design choices, interpret findings, or assess the broader implications of their work. | The student independently collected and evaluated relevant literature, leading to a comprehensive understanding of both the theoretical framework and the empirical landscape surrounding the research project. This understanding allowed them to grasp the relevance of project tasks and justify their research questions and significant design choices based on existing knowledge. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The student demonstrated self-reliance and critical acumen in collecting and evaluating academic literature. They developed a nuanced overview of both the theoretical framework and the empirical state-of-the-art relevant to the research project, and could compare their project's approach with current methodologies found in peer-reviewed literature. | | Experimental skills | The student failed to perform the relevant technique(s) reliably, even under close supervision. Errors or inability to progress independently significantly impeded the project. | The student can perform the technique(s), but requires intensive supervision, or works with insufficient accuracy or timeliness to contribute effectively to the project. | The student reliably performs the relevant technique(s) with adequate accuracy and timeliness. They understand the basic principles behind the techniques and can work with only occasional guidance from the supervisor. | The student works accurately and timely with minimal supervision. They have a solid understanding of the relevant technique(s) and their underlying principles, and can justify procedural choices. They apply the techniques consistently and correctly across the range of situations encountered in the project. | All criteria for the previous level are met. When unexpected problems arise — equipment failures, anomalous results, procedural complications — the student responds effectively: diagnoses what went wrong, adapts their approach, and resolves the issue without requiring step-by-step guidance. | | Data Analysis | The student did not demonstrate the ability to perform data analysis steps relevant to the project. | The student struggles significantly with data analysis. They may not be able to select an appropriate method or, if a method is provided, cannot execute the analysis or interpret results without constant, step-by-step supervision. There's limited or no understanding of the method's principles or the meaning of the outputs. | The student is capable of selecting appropriate data analysis methods for the acquired data within the research project's domain. They can perform the analysis and derive interpretations, but this process requires considerable supervision. They may struggle to justify some analytical choices (e.g., choice of statistical test, handling of outliers, model selection) and may present interpretations without sufficient critical reflection on their validity. | The student demonstrates a solid ability to select appropriate data analysis methods for the acquired data within the research project's domain, providing sound reasoning for their choices. They have a good conceptual and practical understanding of the chosen analysis methods. They can independently perform the analysis, accurately interpret results, and articulate the implications of their findings. The student generally demonstrates awareness of potential limitations of the analysis. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The student provides clear, well-argued justifications for all critical analytical choices. They independently execute analyses, critically evaluate and interpret results within the broader context of the research, and proactively identify and address potential biases, assumptions, or limitations of their analytical approach. | | Ownership of learning | The student demonstrates significant difficulty in acquiring new knowledge or skills independently. They frequently rely on constant instruction and struggle to grasp new concepts or techniques relevant to the project, showing resistance to feedback or new approaches. Progress is severely hampered by an inability to overcome learning obstacles, indicating low ownership of the project. | The student shows limited initiative in acquiring new knowledge or skills. They may attempt to learn but often require significant guidance and explicit step-by-step instructions. They struggle to effectively identify necessary resources or apply new concepts without direct prompting, and may only partially integrate feedback. They are slow to adapt to new information or challenges. | The student demonstrates a willingness to learn new skills and acquire necessary knowledge, often seeking guidance when encountering difficulties. They can identify some relevant resources and apply newly learned concepts with moderate supervision. They generally integrate feedback, and can adapt to minor changes or new information, but may struggle with more complex or unexpected learning challenges independently. | The student actively seeks out and effectively acquires new knowledge and skills required for the project. They demonstrate resourcefulness in finding and utilising appropriate learning materials and tools (e.g., tutorials, documentation, expert advice). They are generally quick to integrate feedback, adapt to unforeseen challenges or changes in the project direction, and independently apply new concepts to solve emerging problems. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The student independently identifies knowledge gaps and skill requirements and addresses them with the right balance of self-directed effort and asking questions. They consistently integrate feedback and adapt rapidly to new challenges, without needing to be directed about what to learn or when. | | Research attitude | The student is passive and shows little intellectual engagement with the research project. They wait for direction rather than exploring ideas, and are resistant or indifferent to unexpected findings or new approaches. | The student completes assigned tasks but shows limited curiosity or initiative beyond what is required. They tend to follow given approaches without exploring alternatives and engage only superficially with unexpected results or feedback. | The student demonstrates genuine engagement with the research problem — asking relevant questions, responding constructively to unexpected findings, and showing openness to new approaches. They bring some ideas of their own and can make independent choices when given the space to do so. | The student is consistently curious and open-minded. They explore questions and ideas beyond the immediate scope of their tasks, respond to unexpected results with interest rather than frustration, and engage genuinely with feedback that challenges their assumptions. They bring independent ideas to experimental setup, analysis, or interpretation. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The student's curiosity and open-mindedness are a genuine asset to the project — they seek to understand deeply rather than simply complete tasks, treat unexpected findings as opportunities for insight, and bring a combination of initiative and intellectual humility that positively shapes the research. | ### Technical report The [[Technical report]] counts towards 50% of the final mark and is assessed by both the internal and the external assessor of the project. | Aspect | Poor (1.0 - 4.0) | Insufficient (4.5 - 5.0) | Sufficient (5.5 - 7.0) | Good (7.5 - 8.0) | Excellent (8.5 - 10) | | :--------------------------------------- | :------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | :----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | :------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | :-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | :--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Structure of the report | Sections are poorly defined, illogical or entirely absent, leading to a fragmented report. The connections between ideas are unclear or non-existent and the reader struggles to follow the overall argument or purpose. | While somewhat coherent, the report deviates significantly from the technical report template or an alternative logical flow. Sections may be present, but are not always coherent or internal organisation is confusing. Understanding the connections between elements in the text requires too much effort from the reader. | The report adheres to a recognizable technical report template or employs a logical, consistent structure that generally serves the report's purpose. Main sections are present and ordered acceptably. While generally understandable, transitions between sections or ideas may sometimes be abrupt or require minor effort from the reader. | The structure of the report actively supports comprehension and guides the reader through the content. It adheres to technical report conventions (or a well-justified alternative) with clear, logical connections between major sections. Paragraphs are well-organized and contribute effectively to the larger narrative. The reader can follow the main arguments and findings without significant effort. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The structure of the text is clear and logical at all levels — from major sections down to individual paragraphs. The organisation highlights key findings, enhances readability, and supports the conclusion and recommendations. Effective use of headers and logical sequencing make the report easy to navigate and help with retention of the content. | | Introduction | The introduction does not establish why the research project is being conducted. The research question is absent or unclear, and there is insufficient context for the reader to understand the project's purpose. | The research question is stated but poorly grounded. Background information is too limited or too general to explain why this specific question is being studied. The connection between existing knowledge and the chosen research question is asserted rather than demonstrated. | The research question and hypotheses (if any) are clearly stated and connected to the work of the hosting environment. Sufficient background is provided for the reader to understand the project's context, though the theoretical framework may be incomplete or some key elements underdeveloped. | The introduction provides a complete theoretical framework and reviews the relevant literature in sufficient depth to identify the specific gap or problem motivating the study. The research question follows clearly from that gap. Relevance is demonstrated both to the host environment and to the broader academic field. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The introduction is particularly well-integrated: background, gap, and research question form a coherent narrative that makes the project's significance immediately clear. The reader understands not only what is being studied, but why it matters and what answering the question would contribute. | | Methods | Operationalization is lacking: it is not clear how data was gathered and/or what the overall design of the project was. Replication would be impossible on the basis of this report. | It is clear what the experimental procedures were, how samples were collected (e.g. how subjects were included, cells were obtained, etc.), and what the overall design of the project was, but vital information that would be necessary for replication is missing. | The description of data acquisition is complete enough to allow other scientists to replicate the study. Operationalisation of key concepts is mentioned explicitly. The choice of methods is not fully justified through logical argumentation or citations. | The methods section provides a clear and complete description of data acquisition, enabling full replication of the study. Operationalisation choices are clearly described and justified. Methodological choices are grounded in logical argumentation or citations. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The relationship between the concepts under investigation and their operationalisation is clearly articulated, and every methodological choice — including design decisions and any deviations from standard practice — is explicitly justified. The section is free of errors and omissions. | | Results | The results section shows incomplete, inaccurate or irrelevant information, thus preventing the reader from evaluating the subsequent conclusion and recommendations. | The results section contains information about the data collected, the analysis carried out, and the findings, but the presentation is insufficiently clear or organised for the reader to evaluate the subsequent conclusion and recommendations meaningfully. | The information about the data that was collected, the data analysis that took place and the results are all clearly and efficiently communicated, preparing the reader for the subsequent conclusion and recommendations. However, because of incomplete statistics, data tabulation, use of graphs or other obstacles, it is difficult for the reader to critically examine the results independently. | The results section provides an accurate, complete, and parsimonious description of the data, the analysis, and the findings. All key statistics are reported and the presentation is clear enough for the reader to critically evaluate the findings independently. Figures and graphs are present and support the results, though minor improvements could be made. | All criteria for the previous level are met. All relevant statistics are reported correctly and completely. Figures and graphs are clear, informative, and chosen specifically for their relevance to the research question. The section is focused on findings without straying into interpretation. | | Conclusion and recommendations | The results are not interpreted (or to a very limited degree), so that it is not clear what the project has added to the existing body of knowledge. Alternatively, the recommendation section offers no actionable directions. | The conclusion provides a clear interpretation of the results. This interpretation is linked to the aims of the study and some recommendations are made, but this is done in a too superficial manner, leaving important implications unmentioned. | The conclusion provides a clear interpretation of the results, and links this to the aims of the study effectively. Recommendations address the most important concerns, but the suggestions are either not concrete or are not actionable for other reasons. | The conclusion provides a clear interpretation of the results, and links this to the aims of the study effectively. Recommendations are concrete and actionable and address the most important concerns. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The conclusion situates the findings within the broader theoretical and empirical context, going beyond linking results to study aims. It acknowledges what can and cannot be concluded given the study's limitations. Recommendations are comprehensive and specifically grounded in the results, addressing a wide range of concerns and reflecting forward-thinking about what the findings imply for future research or practice. | | Writing | The technical report is not readable at a glance. Language use is unclear or the structure of the text does not aid the reader to quickly parse the information. | While mostly readable at a glance, there are sections in which language use or structure negatively affect the flow of the text. As a consequence, the report as a whole suffers. | The report is clearly readable and information can be found without difficulty. Language use is generally appropriate, though a number of sentences or paragraphs would benefit from revision. | The report uses clear, precise language and is well-organised. It is easy to interpret and navigate. The writing is of a consistently high standard throughout. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The writing is parsimonious and clear at the sentence and paragraph level. The text flows naturally and engages the reader, and information is presented in a way that is easy to find and retain. | | Disclosure and transparency of GenAI use | No statement on GenAI use is present. | A statement is present but too vague to be informative — GenAI use is mentioned in general terms without identifying the tools used or the purposes for which they were employed. | The statement clearly identifies which GenAI tools were used (or confirms that no GenAI was used), specifies the tasks for which each tool was employed, and briefly notes how outputs were reviewed before use. Students who did not use GenAI achieve this level upon providing a clear statement to that effect. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The statement provides sufficient detail for the reader to assess the role GenAI played in the research and writing process — including a clear account of the verification steps taken and any limitations of the GenAI outputs that were encountered. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The disclosure is thorough and well-integrated: it gives a transparent and complete account of GenAI involvement across all stages of the project, enabling the reader to form a clear and accurate picture of the extent and nature of GenAI use. | | Ethical considerations | Fails to identify significant ethical considerations relevant to the research project. | Presents a very limited and superficial understanding of ethical issues. May simply list general ethical principles without connecting them to the specific research context. | Identifies some general ethical considerations but may overlook specific or significant ethical challenges directly related to the research project. Discussion may be superficial, lacking depth in analyzing potential impacts or proposing adequate mitigation strategies. | Identifies most of the key ethical considerations relevant to the research project. Discusses potential impacts on stakeholders, data privacy, and informed consent. May miss some more subtle ethical nuances or broader societal implications. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The student identifies both common and less obvious ethical considerations relevant to the research project, proactively addressing their potential impacts — including on stakeholders, data privacy, bias, informed consent, and societal implications. | ### Oral presentation The presentation counts towards 10% of the final mark and is assessed by the internal assessor. | Aspect | Poor (1 - 4) | Insufficient (4.5 - 5.0) | Sufficient (5.5 - 7.0) | Good (7.5 - 8.0) | Excellent (8.5 - 10) | | :---------------------------- | :----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | :------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | :--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | :------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | :----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Structure of the presentation | The presentation lacks a discernible or logical structure, with essential elements (e.g., introduction, question, methods, results, conclusion) either missing, severely disorganized, or disproportionately allocated time. This makes it too difficult for the audience to follow the research narrative or understand the core message. | The presentation covers the necessary elements (e.g., research question, methods, results, discussion/conclusion), but their order or emphasis is illogical or poorly balanced. Key components may be rushed or excessively detailed, leading to confusion, disengagement, or an inability for the audience to grasp the main points effectively. | The presentation includes all necessary elements and generally follows a logical order (e.g., standard scientific presentation flow). The audience can generally follow the project description, but the flow between sections might be somewhat abrupt, or the differentiation between primary and secondary information is not consistently clear, requiring some effort from the audience to integrate ideas. | The presentation features a clear, logical, and engaging structure that effectively guides the audience through the research. It begins with a compelling opening, clearly articulates the research question, design, and findings, and leads to a coherent discussion and conclusion with recommendations. Transitions between sections are mostly smooth, and key information is appropriately highlighted, enabling the audience to follow the story and main arguments with ease. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The presentation is purposefully structured for clarity and impact. It opens effectively, develops a coherent narrative connecting the research question, methodology, results, and discussion, and ends with a clear conclusion. Transitions are smooth and enhance comprehension, and the structure ensures the audience leaves with a clear understanding of the key findings. | | Demonstration of relevance | The relevance of the research project is not made clear through the presentation. | The presentation shows how the question of the research project relates to existing knowledge and applications, but not (very) persuasively or comprehensively. | The presentation persuades the audience that the research question is (somewhat) important, but there are clear missed opportunities to do so. | The presentation demonstrates the relevance of the research question in a persuasive, comprehensive manner, but should have better situated the research project in its theoretical framework. | The presentation clearly shows why the research question is worth investigating. It comprehensively shows the place of the research project in the existing body of knowledge and clearly delineates what the research project adds to this body and/or its applications. | | Clarity of research design | The research design is not apparent from the presentation. There is information missing, too much unnecessary information or there are other reasons why overall design is unclear. | The presentation contains all necessary information about the design of the experiment, but important choices were left unexplained or were not communicated clearly. | The presentation offers a complete and motivated view of the research design, but it is insufficiently clear why this design was chosen over other options. | The presentation offers a complete, motivated and clear view of the research design. | The presentation clearly conveys the design that was used to answer the research question(s), including the underlying motivations. Design is clarified through graphs and illustrations, contains no unnecessary information and is easily understood. | | Results | The results are not clear from the presentation. | The presentation lists the results from the project, but the steps that were made to arrive at the results are (partially) omitted or not clearly explained. | The presentation lists the results from the project and it's clear how these results were obtained. However, the presentation of the results (graphs, illustrations) should have been better. | The presentation clearly conveys the important results from the project and how they were obtained. Whenever relevant or necessary, the presentation addresses the steps of analyses and this explanation is supported through good use of graphs and figures. | The presentation clearly conveys the results from the project and how they were obtained. The presentation clearly and succinctly addresses the steps of analyses whenever needed, and this explanation is supported through good use of graphs and figures. There is a clear focus on the most important results, showing the student could differentiate between major or minor importance. | | Q&A | The student is not able to provide satisfactory answers to questions about the research project. | The student is able to answer basic questions about aims and design choices, but is not able to critically reflect on the research, place it in its research context or elaborate on recommendations for the future. | The student is able to answer basic questions about aims and design choices and can place the research project in a broader context. The student can offer some recommendations, but is not able to critically reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of these suggestions or the research project itself. | The student is able to answer basic and advanced questions about aims and design choices and can place the research project in a broader context. The student can also offer recommendations, and is able to critically reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of the research project. | The student is able to engage in a productive discussion about all aspects of the research project, can place it in a broader context, can critically reflect on its strengths and weaknesses, and can aptly respond to questions and suggest new research directions that could further elucidate the research question. | | Form and style | The student mumbles or is otherwise difficult to follow, and makes too much use of notes or other supportive material to stay on track. | Student is mostly clear, but makes (too much) use of notes or other supportive material, or at times has trouble expressing ideas. Engagement with the audience is limited. | Student engages with the audience and is clear, but could improve elocution. | Student uses a clear voice and clear English, so that everyone can easily follow the presentation. Student makes little use of notes or presentation slides to stay on track. | Student uses a clear voice and clear English, so that everyone can easily follow the presentation. The student makes little use of notes or presentation slides to stay on track. Through engaging examples and good elocution, the audience is captivated during the presentation. | # Using the rubrics To assess work using the rubrics, first determine how much weight you'd give each aspect in the respective rubric. Once you have determined this, pick the normative descriptions that best describe the level of the work for each aspect. When doing so, you will end up in a specific column for each aspect, which corresponds to a bandwidth of grades. You have discretion to choose the lower bound, the upper bound or somewhere else within this bandwidth. Once you have determined all the grades, you can use the weights of the aspects to arrive at a partial marks per rubric. These partial marks per rubric are then averaged according to preset weights, to arrive at a final mark: 50% technical report, 40% process and 10% presentation. You can fill in the rubrics on the [[Datanose project page]] of the Research Project, once the time to assess has come (i.e. once the student has submitted the report). # Dutch grading system The Dutch grading system scores on a 1-10 scale, with 6 being the minimum pass mark. See the following website for more information: https://www.nuffic.nl/en/education-systems/netherlands/grading-systems. The University of Amsterdam has listed how the different grades in the Dutch system compare to international standards. This list can be found here: https://student.uva.nl/en/topics/the-marking-assessment-and-registration-of-your-academic-results Note that works that score higher than 8.0 are remarkable and that the grade 9 is reserved for the top 3% of students, while only the top 0.5% scores 10. # Disclosure of GenAI use The above rubrics were first created with the help of GenAI (UvA AI Chat, using ``gpt-3.5-turbo``), using a procedure of row-by-row manual writing, which was then rephrased by UvA AI Chat for clarity. Subsequently, ``claude-sonnet-4.6`` was used within Anthropic's Claude Cowork environment to tighten the text, ensure clear constructive alignment between grading criteria and intended learning outcomes, and ensure meaningful differentiation between *Research Project 1* and *Research Project 2*. All output was manually reviewed.