## 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 reinterpration 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, written report and oral presention. ### Process Process counts towards 40% of the final mark and can only be assessed by the internal assessor of the project. | Aspect | Poor (<4) | Not sufficient (4-5) | Sufficient (6) | Good (7-8) | Excellent (9-10) | | | :-------------------- | :------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | :------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | :----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | :---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | :------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | | Collecting literature | The student did not collect literature and had no or very limited understanding of the context of the project. | The student did not manage to collect and evaluate appropriate literature in time, leading to an incomplete understanding of the context of the project. This hampered performance on the project as a whole. | The student collected relevant literature, but did not arrive at a demonstrable, full understanding of the theory that was relevant to this project. This prevented the student from fully motivating all the important choices relevant to the research question and experimental design. | The student collected and evaluated relevant literature, leading to a good understanding of the theoretical framework and empirical space in which the project took place. The student can motivate the choice of research questions and important design choices. | The student collected literature that was relevant for the research project, critically assessed this literature and obtained a strong overview of both the theoretical framework and empirical space in which the research project took place. The student can clearly argue what the value of the research question under consideration is, and can motivate all steps in the experimental design. Moreover, the student is capable of comparing the approach taken within the project with those in peer-reviewed literature. | | | Experimental skills | The student has failed to consistently display proficiency in the relevant experimental skills, even under supervision. | Experimental work done by the student is not efficient, either because of low accuracy, low speed or the requirement of intensive supervision. | The student learned to employ the techniques that were necessary to gather data, but there is considerate room for improvement with regards to timeliness or accuracy or the student lacks sufficient understanding of the principles behind the techniques. | The student worked in a timely and accurate fashion when applying the techniques relevant to this project. The student has a good idea of how the techniques work and what their principles are, but is not yet able to apply them independently or in a novel setting. | The student mastered the techniques that were necessary to gather data and understands their principles and their scope of applicability. The student works timely and accurately when doing such experimental work. | | | Data Analysis | The student did not demonstrate the ability to perform data analysis steps relevant to the project. | The student is not yet able to select a data analysis method and/or cannot analyze and interpret results without step-by-step supervision. | The student is able to select appropriate data analysis methods for acquired data in the domain of the research project and is also able to analyze and interpret the results, but still requires considerable supervision to do so, and is not capable of motivating important choices during the analysis. | The student is able to select appropriate data analysis methods for acquired data in the domain of the research project. The student has shown a good understanding of the workings of the analysis methods and is able to analyze and interpret results independently. | The student is able to select appropriate data analysis methods for acquired data in the domain of the research project, and can provide clear argumentation to support a choice. The student is able to perform analysis and interpret the results critically, while relatively unsupervised. | | | Learning skills | The student did not take ownership of the project and showed little effort or motivation to move it forward. | The learning process of the student was unnecessarily hindered for a long time and/or the student could not be relied upon when agreements or deadlines were set. Feedback had little effect to improve the learning of the student. | The student stayed in control of the learning process, seeking out information independently or by asking questions. However, the learning process was unnecessarily hindered at times and/or the student had difficulties upholding agreements and deadlines. | The student showed initiative in learning, seeking out information independently or by asking questions. The student responded well to feedback and upheld agreements and deadlines. | The student has demonstrated to be inquisitive during the learning process, keeping the right balance between asking questions and learning independently. The student upheld agreements and deadlines, responded well to feedback and took initiative to structure the internship, set personal goals and optimize learning. | | | Original contribution | Even if instructed or prompted, the student took little initiative to improve on the work. | Throughout the project, the student mostly followed instructions with regards to experimental design, data analysis and interpretation. The student did not bring in any substantial ideas for the project. | The student demonstrated the ability to make choices for the experimental design, data analysis and interpretation of results, but only when prompted by the supervisor. | The student demonstrated the ability to formulate good hypotheses and make design choices independently, in collaboration with the supervisor. | The student can formulate good hypotheses and make design choices independently, and can articulate (good) reasoning behind those choices. The student came up with original insights or ideas that clearly aided data collection, analysis or interpretation. | | | Collaboration | The student's attitude or behaviour during the project negatively influenced the work of others on a regular basis. | The student does not clearly keep the larger goal of the group and the objectives of colleagues in mind when working and has failed to consider the tasks and schedules of others on multiple occassions. Contributions to the group were limited and required prompting. | The student is aware of the larger goals of the group and of the objectives of colleagues, but still did not show significant contribution to the group. | The student is clearly aware of the larger goal of the group and the objectives of colleagues. The student organized the project work in such a way that it contributed to reaching those goals and objectives. The student contributed to group discussions. | The student is clearly aware of the larger goals of the group and the objectives of colleagues. The student contributed to reaching those goals and objectives via the research project, and also by helping out others and working in the interest of the group as a whole. | | | Independence | Even after the halfway point of the project, the student needed step-by-step instructions on tasks that had been performed regularly before. | The student could perform some tasks independently after instruction, but there were also key aspects of the projects that required more supervision/guidance than is common for a master student throughout the project. | The student showed increasing autonomy as the project progressed and is currently able to perform project-relevant tasks without supervision. | The student quickly mastered project-relevant tasks and managed to work with relatively little supervision. | The student did not only work independently on project-specific tasks, but displayed adaptive thinking and decision-making while doing so. | | ### Written work The written work counts towards 50% of the final mark and is assessed by both the internal and the external assessor of the project. |Aspect|Poor (<4)|Not sufficient (4-5)|Sufficient (6)|Good (7-8)|Excellent (9-10)| |:--|:----|:----|:--|:----|:----| |Structure of the report|Sections are poorly connected, or not connected at all. Questions, hypotheses,design, results and discussion do not form a coherent whole.|The different elements of the report are connected, with questions, hypotheses, design, results and discussion forming a coherent whole. However, the order of paragraphs or the structure within paragraphs is not logical.|The different elements of the report are logically connected and sections are organized to explicate key points. Questions, hypotheses, design, results and discussion form a coherent whole. The flow of the text is natural.|The different elements of the report are logically connected and sections are organized to explicate key points. Questions, hypotheses, design, results and discussion form a coherent whole and content is placed in the appropriate sections. The flow of the text is natural and affords effective communication, but there are some missed opportunities in terms of structuring the text.|The different elements of the report are logically connected and sections are organized to explicate key points. Questions, hypotheses, design, results and discussion form a coherent whole and content is placed in the appropriate sections. The flow of the text is natural and affords effective communication, clearly diferentiating between major and minor issues. The text is neatly structured at the paragraph, section and report level.| |Introduction|It is insufficiently clear why the research project is relevant and/or the theoretical framework is not explained clearly enough to warrant the research question and hypotheses (if any).|Some relevance of the research project is addressed and an overview of the theoretical framework is given, but the framework has major gaps, or the research question and hypotheses (if any) do not clearly tie into this framework.|The relevance of the research project is addressed persuasively, but not exhaustively. The research question and hypothesis (if any) clearly tie into the theoretical framework, which is sufficiently elaborated upon, but still has minor gaps.|The relevance of the research project is addressed persuasively and exhaustively and a good overview of the theoretical framework is given, with the research question and hypotheses (if any) tying into this framework.|The relevance of the research project is persuasively and completely demonstrated and it is clear how the project contributes to the field as a whole. The theoretical framework is given in a comprehensive, clear manner and naturally leads into the research question and hypotheses.| |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. The relation between the concepts under investigation and their operationalization is discussed, but in need of more explication/elaboration. The choice of methods is not fully justified through logical argumentation or citations.|The description of data acquisition is complete enough to allow other scientists to replicate the study. The relation between the concepts under investigation and their operationalization is clear. The choice of methods is justified through logical argumentation or citations. Still, there are missed opportunities to give a full, replicable account of the methods that were employed during the project.|The description of data acquisition is complete enough to allow other scientists to replicate the study. The relation between the concepts under investigation and their operationalization is clear and the choice of methods is justified through logical argumentation or citations.| |Results|The results section shows incomplete, inaccurate or irrelevant information, thus preventing the reader from evaluating the subsequent discussion.|There is information about the data that was collected, the data analysis that took place and the results, allowing the reader to evaluate the subsequent discussion.|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 discussion. However, because of incomplete statistics, data tabulation or use of graphs, it is difficult for the reader to critically examine the results independently.|The description of the data and subsequent analysis is accurate, complete and parsimonious, allowing to reader to critically evaluate the findings and prepare for the subsequent discussion. Still, some relevant statistics are missing or there are flaws with regards to graphs and figures.|The description of the data and subsequent analysis is accurate, complete and parsimonious, allowing to reader to critically evaluate the findings and subsequent discussion. All relevant statistics are given. Graphs are clear and informative and chosen for their relevance to answer the research question under consideration.| |Discussion|The discussion offers limited reflection on the results, so that it is unclear what the research has added to the existing body of knowledge, or what critical comments should be placed to interpret the research findings.|The research question is answered on the basis of the results and the discussion evaluates what this means for the theoretical framework.|The research question is answered on the basis of the results and the discussion evaluates what this means for the theoretical framework. The internal validity and external validity of the project are discussed.|The research question is answered on the basis of the results and the discussion evaluates what this means for the theoretical framework. The internal validity and external validity of the project are discussed. Follow-up research is identified.|The research question is answered on the basis of the results and the discussion evaluates what this means for the theoretical framework, while critically considering the strong and weak points of the approach taken in the research project. The internal validity and external validity of the project are discussed. Open questions are identified and follow-up research is clearly suggested in a comprehensive analysis of the results that were obtained.| |Writing|The report deviates from style and language demands as defined in the style guide of the journal that was chosen as exemplary for the field or is written in such a way that understanding the text is especially difficult or bothersome.|The report follows the style guide of the journal that was chosen as exemplary for the field, language generally follows academic standards, but there are too many stylistic or grammatical errors.|The report follows the style guide of the journal that was chosen as exemplary for the field and language and grammar follow academic standards.|The report follows the style guide of the journal that was chosen as exemplary for the field. Its use of language is stylistically pleasing, without sacrificing accuracy and precision. The writing is parsimonious and language and grammar follow academic standards.|The report follows the academic standards for style, language and grammar, while remaining a pleasure to read. The writing is lucid and maintains flow, with smooth connections between paragraphs, an overall argumentation line and clearly motivated statements. The style fits the journal that was chosen as exemplary for the field.| ### Oral presentation The presentation counts towards 10% of the final mark and is assessed by the internal assessor. |Aspect|Poor (<4)|Not sufficient (4-5)|Sufficient (6)|Good (7-8)|Excellent (9-10)| |:--|:----|:----|:----|:----|:----| |Structure of the presentation|The structure of the presentation is insufficient, because elements are missing or because their order, length or interconnectedness hinders communication.|The presentation covers the necessary elements (e.g. question, methods, results, discussion/conclusion), but the chosen structure still stands in the way of clear communication.|The presentation covers the necessary elements and addresses them in a logical order, but the audience could be guided through the project description in a smoother fashion (e.g. by clearer differentiation between important and minor issues, or by more elaboration on specific elements).|The presentation has an engaging opening and tells a coherent, clear story that explains the research question, research design, results and their discussion and conclusion.|The presentation has an engaging opening and then tells a coherent, clear story that explains the research question, research design, results and their discussion and conclusion while focusing on the important issues. The transitions between different elements of the presentation are smooth and the presentation builds towards clear conclusions and discussion points.| |Demonstration of relevance|The relevance of the research questions is not made clear through the presentation.|The presentation shows how the question of the research project relates to existing knowledge and what could be its application, but not (very) persuasively or comprehensively.|The presentations persuades the audience that the research question is (somewhat) important, but there are missed opportunities to do so.|The presentation demonstrated the relevance of the research question in a persuasive, comprehensive manner, but could have better situated the research project in its theoretical framework.|The presentation clearly shows why the student’s research question is worth investigating. The student 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 this is the case.|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 there are significant missed opportunities with regards to clarity|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. It makes good use of graphs and illustrations, contains no unnecessary information and is easily readable.| |Results|The results are not clear from the presentation.|The presentation lists the important results, but the steps that were made to arrive at the results are (partially) omitted or not clearly explained.|The presentation lists the important results and it's clear how these results were obtained. However, the presentation of the results (graphs, illustrations) could 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 important 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.| |Q&A|The student is not able to provide satisfactory answers to questions about the research.|The student is able to answer basic questions about aims and design choices, but is not able to critically reflect on the research.|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 also offer ideas for future research, but is not able to critically reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of the research project.|The students 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 ideas for future research, 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.| |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 correct English, so that everyone can easily follow the presentation. The student maintains appropriate eye contact with the group, while making little use of notes or presentation slides to stay on track.|Student uses a clear voice and correct English, so that everyone can easily follow the presentation. The student maintains appropriate eye contact with the group, while making little use of notes or presentation slides to stay on track. Through engaging exampled 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% written work, 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.