## Introduction These are the rubrics used to assess _Research Project 2_. 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: experimental work, 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 (1.0 - 4.0 ) | Not sufficient (4.5 - 5.0) | Sufficient (6.0 - 7.0) | Good (7.5 - 8.5) | Excellent (9.0 - 10.0) | | :---------------------------------------------------- | :---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------: | :--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------: | :------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------: | :-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------: | :----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------: | | 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 managed to collect relevant literature, demonstrating a basic understanding of the research context. However, their theoretical understanding remained somewhat superficial, limiting their ability to critically evaluate important research tasks, design choices, or the broader implications of their work. Independent synthesis of the literature was limited. | 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 robust understanding allowed them to grasp the relevance of project tasks, and justify their research questions and significant design choices based on existing knowledge. | 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. This understanding enabled them to justify all research project steps with clear academic grounding, and compare their project's approach with current methodologies found in peer-reviewed literature. | | Experimental skills | Experimental work done by the student is inefficient, characterized by low accuracy, low speed, or the consistent requirement of direct supervision. The student struggles to follow protocols or execute basic experimental steps correctly, leading to unreliable or unusable data. | The student has learned to employ technique(s) relevant to this project, but important elements of proficiency are still missing. This might include issues with timeliness, inconsistent accuracy, or a superficial understanding of the underlying principles. The student often requires significant guidance to troubleshoot or adapt. | The student works in a timely and accurate fashion when applying technique(s) relevant to this project. They have a good understanding of how the techniques work and what their principles are. However, they are not yet able to apply them independently in novel or complex experimental settings without considerable guidance, or troubleshoot significant deviations. | The student has mastered the technique(s) relevant to this research project, demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of their principles and scope of applicability. They consistently work in a timely and accurate manner when conducting experimental work and can troubleshoot common issues independently. | The student demonstrates mastery and self-reliance in experimental skills. They can efficiently and precisely execute complex techniques, proactively troubleshoot and resolve unforeseen experimental challenges, and innovate existing methodologies for novel applications. They anticipate problems and potentially guide or train peers in experimental procedures, contributing significantly to research output and efficiency. | | Data Analysis | The student is not yet able to select a data analysis method and/or cannot analyse 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 analyse 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 analyse 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. | The student is able to find and choose methods of analysis that fit with the acquired data and the research questions under consideration. The student can clearly argue for a chosen approach and can independently find or develop new ways to analyze data. The student displays a critical attitude when evaluating the results of analyses and performs well, even if unsupervised. | | Learning skills | The student shows limited initiative in acquiring new knowledge or skills. They may attempt to learn but often require significant guidance. They struggle to 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, significantly hindering project progress. | The student demonstrates a willingness to learn new skills and acquire necessary knowledge, 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 seeks out and acquires new knowledge and skills required for the project. They demonstrate resourcefulness in finding and using appropriate learning materials and tools (e.g., tutorials, documentation, expert advice). They are generally quick to integrate feedback and adapt to unforeseen challenges or changes in the project direction. | The student demonstrates exceptional proactive learning and adaptability throughout the project. They independently identify knowledge gaps or skill requirements, and master new complex concepts or techniques with the right balance between independence and asking questions. They are highly resourceful, using self-directed thinking approach to learning to overcome significant challenges. They thoughtfully integrate feedback, adapt to major shifts or unexpected findings, and work independently, taking full intellectual ownership of the project. | The student demonstrates exemplary meta-cognitive learning skills. They master complex new concepts and techniques with efficiency and minimal oversight, and anticipate future learning needs, synthesising diverse knowledge sources into an understanding that advances the research. They self-assess their own learning, actively seek out and integrate feedback, and are able to contribute to the learning of others (e.g., by creating documentation, explaining complex topics to peers/supervisor, or identifying novel applications for learned skills). Their learning directly contributes to methodological or conceptual innovation. | | Original contribution | The student primarily followed instructions regarding experimental design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation. While tasks were completed, the student rarely contributed substantial independent ideas, insights, or modifications to the project's direction or execution. This limited contribution significantly constrained the project's potential. | The student demonstrated the ability to make informed choices regarding experimental design, data analysis, and interpretation of results, but typically only when directly prompted or guided by the supervisor. They could articulate reasoning for these choices once a direction was suggested, but lacked consistent proactive ideation and independent problem-solving. | The student consistently demonstrated the ability to make independent decisions about the project's direction and methodology, often initiating discussions with the supervisor to refine these ideas. They contributed valuable independent thoughts for experimental setup, analytical approaches, or interpretation, actively shaping significant aspects of the project. | The student took remarkable initiative and made significant original contributions to the project. For example, they formulated insightful hypotheses, conceived and articulated well-reasoned design choices, or brought forward novel ideas that demonstrably enhanced data collection, analysis, or interpretation. | The student made outstanding original contributions, shaping the research project. They not only formulated hypotheses and independently proposed and justified design choices, but also introduced novel methodologies, analytical frameworks, or conceptual insights that pushed the boundaries of the project. Their intellectual leadership led to unexpected discoveries, a re-evaluation of assumptions, or the opening of new research avenues, demonstrating true academic autonomy. | | Collaboration | 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 organised 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. | 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. Moreover, the student clearly valued other group members, identified useful changes and encouraged others for actions that improved group performance. | | Independence | 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. | The student can work independently and adaptively to the extent that you would expect from a first-year PhD candidate. | | Personalised Learning Objective (from RP1 Reflection) | The student did not (clearly) articulate a personalised learning outcome, or the stated outcome is vague or irrelevant to growth as a researcher. Alternatively, there is no demonstrable effort made towards self-improvement, or little to no evidence is provided to show any progression on the personal learning outcome. | The student states a personalised and research-relevant learning outcome, but it is poorly defined or generic. Efforts to pursue this outcome are inconsistent or superficial, and the evidence provided for achieving it is limited. Reflection on the learning process is minimal. | The student articulated a clear and research-relevant personalised learning outcome. They demonstrate some conscious effort and employ appropriate strategies to work towards this outcome. Measurable progress is evident, supported by some concrete examples. The student provides a basic reflection on what was learned and how it applies to their project. | The student defined a specific, challenging, and research-relevant personalized learning outcome. They showed sustained effort towards achieving this outcome. Strong and clear evidence of substantial progress is presented, accompanied by thoughtful reflection on the learning process. | The student formulated an ambitious personalised learning outcome, demonstrating self-awareness. They showed initiative and persistence to overcome obstacles while achieving the outcome. There is clear evidence of strong growth or full achievement. The student provides a critical reflection on the learning journey, detailing how the acquired skill or knowledge enhanced the current research project and articulating its implications for their further career. | ### 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 (1.0 - 4.0) | Not sufficient (4.5 - 5.0) | Sufficient (6.0 - 7.0) | Good (7.5 - 8.5) | Excellent (9.0 - 10.0) | | :--------------------------------------- | :---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | :------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | :--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | :---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | :--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Structure of the report | The report lacks a clear, logical structure. Connections between research questions, hypotheses, methods, results, and discussion are weak or absent, making the paper difficult to follow. Sections may be missing or poorly defined, and internal organisation (e.g., paragraphing) is illogical, impeding comprehension. The report does not adhere to standard journal article conventions. | The report attempts a standard structure, but coherence is inconsistent. While core elements are present, their order or emphasis may be suboptimal, leading to a choppy flow. Sub-sections or paragraphs might lack internal logic, requiring the reader to exert considerable effort to grasp the overall argument or key findings. Adherence to journal article conventions is superficial. | The report demonstrates a logical and coherent structure, generally following standard journal article conventions and covering the elements outlined in the project manual. All essential elements are present and placed in appropriate sections. The flow between major sections is mostly natural, allowing for effective communication of the research, though some transitions could be smoother, or opportunities for clearer emphasis might be missed. | The report is well-structured at all levels—from the overall layout to individual paragraphs and sentences. It adheres meticulously to journal article conventions, expertly guiding the reader through a compelling research narrative. The logical connections between questions, design, results, and discussion are seamless, and the text clearly differentiates between major and minor issues, ensuring the reader grasps the core contributions without effort. The structure actively enhances the clarity and persuasiveness of the arguments. | The structure of the report is exemplary, meeting or exceeding the standards for submission to a relevant journal in the field. The organisation aligns with the research narrative to maximize clarity and impact. Each section and sub-section serves a precise purpose, building a persuasive argument. The internal logic is impeccable, and the flow guides the reader through complex information, fully appreciating the nuances and significance of the research. | | Introduction | The introduction lacks essential components or presents them in a highly disorganised manner. The relevance of the research is unclear or absent, and the theoretical framework has significant gaps or is not established. The research question and hypotheses (if present) are either missing, poorly articulated, or bear no clear connection to the stated context, making the purpose of the study obscure. | The introduction addresses basic elements, but with noticeable deficiencies. Some relevance is mentioned, and an overview of the theoretical framework is attempted, but it contains major gaps or misinterpretations. The research question and hypotheses (if any) are present but their link to the theoretical framework is weak or illogical, failing to establish a compelling rationale for the study. The narrative flow is often choppy. | The introduction is adequately structured and covers the necessary components. The relevance of the research project is generally addressed, and a sufficient overview of the theoretical framework is provided, with minor gaps. The research question and hypotheses clearly tie into this framework, establishing a logical basis for the study. The text flows reasonably well, but could be more concise, persuasive, or impactful in its delivery. | The introduction is well-crafted and effective. It persuasively and comprehensively demonstrates the relevance of the research project, clearly articulating its contribution to the field. The theoretical framework is comprehensive and well-synthesized, logically leading into a precisely articulated research question and testable hypotheses. The narrative flow is smooth, and the introduction effectively sets the stage for the rest of the article. | The introduction is compelling and meets the standards of a key journal in the relevant field. It captures the reader's attention and establishes the broad significance and specific novelty of the research. The theoretical framework is presented with exceptional clarity, conciseness, and depth, seamlessly synthesising prior work to identify a critical gap. This foundation leads into a focused, original research question and precisely formulated, testable hypotheses, clearly delineating the study's unique contribution and potential impact. | | Methods | The methods section is significantly incomplete, vague, or disorganised. Vital information for replication is broadly missing across experimental procedures, sample collection, and overall design. It's unclear how data was acquired, or there's no discussion of operationalisation. The research cannot be fully understood or reproduced. | The methods section provides a partial overview of the experimental procedures and data acquisition. While some aspects are described, crucial details necessary for even partial replication are absent. The link between theoretical concepts and their operationalisation is either missing or unclear, and the choice of methods is not justified, relying purely on description rather than scientific rationale. | The description of data acquisition, experimental procedures, and overall design is largely complete, enabling another scientist to generally replicate the study. The relationship between concepts under investigation and their operationalisation is clear. The choice of methods is justified through logical argumentation or relevant citations. However, there are still minor omissions or areas lacking sufficient detail that might impede exact replication or understanding of nuances. | The methods section provides a comprehensive, precise description of data acquisition, experimental procedures, and overall design, making the study fully replicable. The operationalisation of theoretical concepts is clearly defined. All methodological choices are justified with logical argumentation and appropriate citations. The section is clearly written, demonstrating a strong grasp of scientific rigour. | The methods section is exemplary in its clarity, precision, and comprehensiveness, meeting or exceeding the standards for submission to a key journal in the field. It provides an unambiguous, detailed, and fully replicable account of all experimental procedures and research design. The operationalisation of concepts is clearly articulated, and each methodological choice, including any deviations or limitations, is critically justified with robust scientific reasoning and relevant literature. | | Results | The results section is disorganised, incomplete, or contains irrelevant information. It is difficult to discern what data was collected, how it was analysed, or what the key findings are. Essential statistics, figures, or tables are missing or flawed, preventing any independent evaluation of the results or preparation for discussion. | The results section provides some information about data, analysis and initial findings, making it broadly possible to evaluate the subsequent discussion. However, due to incomplete statistics, poorly designed or labeled figures/tables, or a lack of clarity in data presentation, it is difficult for the reader to critically examine the results independently. There's a lack of focus on answering the research question. | The description of the collected data, analysis methods, and key results is generally accurate and clearly communicated, preparing the reader for the subsequent discussion. All primary findings are presented. While most relevant statistics are included and figures/tables are adequate, there might be minor omissions in reporting or small flaws in graph design that hinder independent critical evaluation. | The results section provides an accurate, parsimonious description of all collected data, the analysis, and the findings. All relevant statistics are clearly and correctly reported. Figures and tables are well-designed, clear, and aligned with the research question and hypotheses. The presentation is focused solely on findings, setting up the discussion effectively, and allowing the reader to critically evaluate the data independently. | The results section is exemplary in its clarity, precision, and comprehensive reporting, meeting the standards for submission to a key journal in the field. Data, analytical steps, and findings are presented with accuracy, conciseness, and transparency. Every relevant statistic is correctly reported, adhering to disciplinary standards. Figures and tables are well-crafted (e.g., professional quality, self-explanatory, optimal data visualisation), adding significant value and facilitating independent critical appraisal of the data. The section is devoid of interpretation, focusing entirely on presenting evidence that addresses the research question and hypotheses. | | Discussion | The discussion is superficial, disorganised, or largely missing. The research question is not clearly answered, or the answer is unsupported by the presented results. There's no evaluation of the findings in relation to the theoretical framework, or no mention of the project's validity or limitations. The section offers little to no insight into the research's meaning or implications. | The discussion attempts to answer the research question based on the results and makes a superficial attempt to connect to the theoretical framework. There's a basic mention of internal and/or external validity, but the depth of analysis is very limited. The section may lack critical evaluation, fail to address key limitations, or provide suggestions for future research that are vague or generic, failing to provide substantial insight. | The discussion clearly answers the research question based on the results and evaluates implications for the theoretical framework. Internal and external validity of the project are discussed. Follow-up research is identified. While generally sound, the discussion may miss opportunities for deeper critical analysis of findings, struggle to fully integrate results with existing literature, or offer future directions that are not fully justified or prioritised. | The discussion provides a comprehensive and insightful answer to the research question, evaluating its meaning within the theoretical framework and critically considering strengths and weaknesses of the research project. Both internal and external validity are discussed. Open questions are identified, and compelling, well-reasoned suggestions for follow-up research are articulated, demonstrating a strong grasp of the field and the project's place within it. The discussion effectively integrates the findings with relevant prior literature. | The discussion is exemplary in its depth, critical insight, and persuasive argumentation, meeting or exceeding the standards for submission to a key journal in the field. It provides a definitive and nuanced answer to the research question and integrates findings with the existing theoretical framework and relevant literature to reveal novel insights and advancements. The student offers a balanced critical self-assessment of the project's methodology, acknowledging and addressing all potential sources of bias or alternative interpretations. Furthermore, the discussion proposes innovative and impactful future research directions. The writing is exceptionally clear, concise, and compelling. Consequently, the discussion makes strong case for the significance of the research project. | | Disclosure and transparency of GenAI use | No statement on GenAI is present as a distinct section in the report. | A statement on GenAI use is present, but it lacks specificity. It may mention the use of GenAI generally without identifying specific tools, or it provides a list of tools without clear indication of _how_ or _for what purpose_ they were used in the research or report writing process. Does not address potential limitations or verification. | A clear statement on GenAI use is present, accurately listing the specific GenAI tools and version (e.g., ChatGPT-4, Midjourney v5.2, UvA AI Chat) and models. It details the _specific purposes_ for which each tool was employed (e.g., "for brainstorming initial ideas for the literature review," "to assist with grammatical editing and phrasing of the introduction," "for generating sample data for testing a specific algorithm," "to create initial drafts of figures based on provided data"). The statement may briefly acknowledge the need for human oversight but does not elaborate on verification. | A comprehensive statement on GenAI use is present, providing precise details on: <br>- **Tools and Versions:** Specific GenAI tools (including version numbers and models). <br>- **Purpose and Scope:** Detailed explanation of _how_ and _for what specific tasks_ each tool was utilized. <br>- **Human Oversight & Verification:** Explicitly describes the process of critical evaluation, but may lack depth in explaining the _methods_ of verification. It does not consistently address limitations or provide prompts. | A comprehensive and transparent statement on GenAI use is present, providing precise details on: <br>- **Tools and Versions:** Specific GenAI tools (including version numbers and models) <br>- **Purpose and Scope:** Detailed explanation of _how_ and _for what specific tasks_ each tool was used.<br>- **Human Oversight & Verification:** Explicitly describes the process of critical evaluation and the limitations of specific GenAI use.<br>- **Prompts (optional but encouraged for key uses):** For significant contributions by GenAI, provides examples of prompts used to generate outputs in an appendix. | | Ethical analysis | The student did not demonstrate an awareness of the ethical considerations at play in this research project. | The student provided some ethical considerations related to the research project, but failed to identify several key ethical issues pertinent to the research design, data handling, or potential impact. The discussion is superficial, lacking depth or specific connection to the project. | The student identified all important ethical considerations concerning the research project. However, the discussion is primarily descriptive, and they did not fully elaborate on concrete ways to mitigate these challenges or justify the chosen mitigation strategies. | The student identified all important ethical considerations relevant to the research project and clearly explained which specific mitigating actions were taken, could be taken, or should be taken. They demonstrated a good understanding of ethical principles and their application to the project's context. | The student demonstrated a critically reflective understanding of ethical considerations within the research project. They not only accurately identified all relevant and nuanced ethical concerns (including less obvious ones related to e.g. data use, potential societal impact, or research integrity) and proposed mitigation strategies, but also critically weighed potential benefits against potential harms. The student articulated a clear, defensible ethical position for the project, discussed potential long-term ethical implications, and perhaps even identified broader ethical dilemmas inherent in the research field or methodology itself. | ### Public defence The student presents their work during one of the symposiums organised by the programme. The project does not have to be completed for the presentation to take place and focus on project _progress_ rather than full results. The presentation contributes 10% of the final mark. | Aspect | Poor (1.0 - 4.0) | Not sufficient (4.5 - 5.0) | Sufficient (6.0 - 7.0) | Good (7.5 - 8.5) | Excellent (9.0 - 10.0) | | :------------------- | :----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------: | :------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------: | :-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------: | :---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------: | :----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------: | | Presentation quality | The presentation is disorganised, difficult to follow, or lacks essential components. Visual aids (slides, demos) are absent or uninformative. Delivery may be unclear (e.g., mumbling, too fast/slow), engagement may be minimal, and the content is not adapted for an interdisciplinary audience. | The presentation has some structure, but may lack clarity, especially for an interdisciplinary audience. Visual aids are present but may be cluttered, poorly designed, or superfluous. Delivery issues (e.g., inconsistent pacing) may detract from the message, and complex concepts may not be sufficiently simplified. | The presentation is generally clear, coherent, and follows a logical flow. Essential elements of the research are covered. Visual aids are adequate and support the content, though they might not always be optimally designed. The delivery is generally professional (e.g., audible, reasonable pace), and the student makes an effort to explain complex concepts for an interdisciplinary audience, allowing the audience to follow the main points. | The presentation is clear and engaging, effectively communicating the research progress to an interdisciplinary scientific audience. Complex ideas are explained concisely. Visual aids enhance understanding without overwhelming. Delivery is confident, well-paced, and maintains good audience engagement, making the presentation informative and easy to follow. | The presentation is exceptionally clear, highly engaging, and structured to captivate and inform a diverse scientific audience. Complex concepts are elucidated with clarity, precision, and conciseness, making advanced research accessible without oversimplification. Visual aids elevate the presentation's impact. The delivery is confident and perfectly paced, demonstrating strong rhetorical skills. | | Q&A | During the Q&A, the student is largely unable to answer basic questions about their project, demonstrating a lack of understanding or preparation. Responses may be confused, inaccurate, defensive, or irrelevant. There is no attempt to adapt explanations for an interdisciplinary audience, leading to further confusion. | The student can answer some direct questions but struggles with follow-up inquiries, conceptual questions, or those that require stepping outside their immediate area of expertise. Responses may be hesitant, vague, or overly reliant on notes. They show limited ability to clarify or rephrase information for an interdisciplinary audience, and may appear uncertain when challenged. | The student can answer most direct questions about their project accurately. They engage well, but may occasionally struggle to articulate nuanced points or to convincingly defend all aspects of their approach without further prompting. Their adaptation to interdisciplinary questions is moderate. | The student answers questions thoughtfully and accurately, demonstrating a strong command of their research. They effectively elaborate, clarify concepts for an interdisciplinary audience, and provide justifications. They anticipate common questions and respond constructively, even to challenging inquiries, effectively linking answers back to the broader context of their research. | The student demonstrates sophisticated communication skills during the Q&A. They provide insightful, concise, and articulate responses to all questions, including those that are critical, complex, or from different disciplinary perspectives. They anticipated potential criticisms or conceptual challenges and address them with confidence. They can adapt explanations, synthesise information on the fly, and defend their methodology or conclusions at an outstanding professional level. | # 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% experimental work 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 here for more details: [[Grading System]]. # Disclosure of GenAI use The above rubrics were created with the help of GenAI (UvA AI Chat, using ``gpt-3.5-turbo``). The purpose of this use was to rephrase descriptions and to ensure different levels of performance were sufficiently differentiated. The overall process of generation consisted of: 1. Manual writing of the rubrics 2. Row-by-row rephrasing using UvA AI Chat 3. Manual review and revision of the Gen-AI assisted formulations The prompting used for rephrasing was as follows: >I am creating grading rubrics at the level of a master's programme in brain and cognitive sciences. The following rubric row is meant to measure (insert ILO). Can you improve it?