## 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 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: experimental work, written work 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 ) | 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 showed self-reliance in collecting relevant literature and demonstrates a sound understanding of the research context. They can identify relevant sources and apply them to understand the project's context and rationale, though their critical engagement with the literature is limited — they may struggle to independently evaluate design choices, interpret findings against the literature, or assess the broader implications of their work. | The student independently collected and critically evaluated relevant literature, developing a comprehensive understanding of both the theoretical framework and the empirical landscape. They actively used the literature to inform research decisions — including justifying design choices, interpreting results, and identifying relevant methodological approaches — rather than relying solely on supervisor direction or using sources only to retrospectively support conclusions. | All criteria for the previous level are met. Beyond developing a nuanced overview of the theoretical and empirical state-of-the-art, the student independently identified insights, gaps, or contradictions in the literature that shaped the direction of the research. Their critical engagement with the literature contributed directly to how the project was conducted, interpreted, or framed — and they could compare their approach with current methodologies at a level of depth appropriate for a journal publication. | | 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 the relevant technique(s), but important elements of proficiency are still missing — such as timeliness issues, inconsistent accuracy, or a superficial understanding of the underlying principles. They often require significant guidance to troubleshoot or adapt. | The student works accurately and efficiently with minimal supervision. They have a solid understanding of the relevant techniques and their underlying principles, and can justify procedural choices. They apply techniques consistently and correctly across the range of situations encountered in the project. | The student works with a high degree of accuracy and efficiency. They demonstrate thorough understanding of the relevant techniques and their underlying principles. When unexpected problems arise — equipment failures, anomalous results, procedural complications — the student responds effectively: they diagnose what went wrong, adapt their approach, and resolve the issue without step-by-step guidance. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The student's experimental proficiency goes beyond reliable execution: they proactively anticipate potential sources of error or failure and take steps to prevent them before they arise. They can adapt or extend existing techniques for novel applications within the project's scope, and contribute meaningfully to the lab's methodological capability — for example by optimising protocols, training peers, or developing solutions that may outlast their own involvement in the project. | | Experimental design | The student cannot explain the rationale for the experimental design. They struggle to identify why key choices were made or what the design is intended to test. | The student has a basic understanding of the experimental design but cannot articulate the reasoning behind key choices beyond superficial description. They cannot meaningfully evaluate the design's suitability for the research question or identify its limitations. | The student understands the experimental design and can explain the reasoning behind key choices, connecting them to the research question and relevant prior work. They can identify the main strengths and limitations of the design. Students who did not conceive the design demonstrate this level through critical engagement with its rationale rather than mere description. | The student demonstrates thorough understanding of the experimental design, including the trade-offs and constraints that shaped it. They can evaluate design choices against alternatives, identify potential confounds and limitations, and explain what those limitations mean for interpreting results. Students who contributed to the design did so with clear reasoning grounded in the research question and existing methodology. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The student demonstrates a sophisticated grasp of experimental design: they can situate their design within the methodological landscape of the field, identify what would be required to address its limitations in future work, and justify choices against alternatives with reference to the research question, methodological literature, and practical constraints. Their engagement with design reflects the level of thinking required to produce a study suitable for publication. | | Data Analysis | The student is unable to select a data analysis method and/or cannot analyse and interpret results without step-by-step supervision. | The student can select appropriate data analysis methods and execute the analysis, but requires considerable supervision to do so and is not capable of motivating important choices. | The student independently selects appropriate data analysis methods for the acquired data, with sound reasoning for their choices. They execute the analysis and interpret results accurately, and demonstrate awareness of the main limitations and assumptions of their analytical approach. | The student demonstrates thorough and independent command of data analysis. They provide well-argued justifications for all critical analytical choices, critically evaluate and interpret results within the broader context of the research, and proactively identify and address potential biases, assumptions, and limitations of their analytical approach. When the data or findings call for it, they can adapt or extend established methods. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The student demonstrates analytical thinking at the level expected for a journal publication: they can independently identify and apply analytical approaches beyond those established at the start of the project, develop solutions when standard methods are insufficient, and situate their choices and findings within the methodological landscape of the field. Their analytical contribution meaningfully enhances the quality and interpretability of the research. | | Ownership of learning | The student does not take ownership of their own learning. When knowledge gaps or skill deficiencies arise, they wait for the supervisor to identify them and provide solutions rather than seeking out resources or strategies independently. They struggle to integrate feedback or adapt to new demands. | The student shows willingness to learn but relies on significant external prompting. They can identify some resources and apply newly learned concepts with moderate supervision, and generally integrate straightforward feedback, but struggle to navigate more complex or unexpected learning challenges independently. | The student proactively seeks out the knowledge and skills the project requires. They are resourceful in finding appropriate learning materials and tools, integrate feedback effectively, and adapt to unforeseen challenges or changes in project direction without needing to be directed. | The student independently identifies their own knowledge gaps and skill requirements, and addresses them efficiently — finding the right balance between self-directed effort and asking questions. They adapt rapidly to major shifts or unexpected findings, integrate feedback thoughtfully, and take full intellectual ownership of their learning trajectory within the project. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The student's approach to learning goes beyond reactive skill acquisition: they anticipate future learning needs, synthesise knowledge from diverse sources in ways that advance the research, and contribute to the learning of others — for example by creating documentation, explaining complex topics to peers or supervisors, or identifying novel applications for acquired skills. Their learning directly contributes to the project's methodological or conceptual development. | | Research attitude | The student treats the project as a collection of assigned tasks rather than a coherent research endeavour. They complete what is asked but do not engage with the project's broader goals or take initiative when problems arise. The supervisor must identify issues and direct the student's attention to what matters most. | The student shows limited ownership of the project. They engage with tasks they have been explicitly assigned but rarely consider the broader implications or requirements of the project. Problems are flagged only when they become unavoidable, and the student relies on the supervisor to maintain a sense of direction and priority. | The student takes responsibility for the components of the project assigned to them, and shows awareness of how their work contributes to the project as a whole. They communicate proactively about progress and problems, and address issues before they escalate. They do not require repeated reminders about expectations or deadlines. | The student shows broad ownership of the project: they consider the project's goals beyond their immediate tasks and take initiative on relevant aspects even when not explicitly directed to do so. They monitor the quality of their own work, identify risks or gaps proactively, and propose solutions. Their engagement reflects genuine investment in whether the project succeeds. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The student operates with a degree of independence and ownership expected of a junior researcher rather than a supervised student. They independently identify what the project needs and act on it — whether that involves reconsidering a methodological choice, collecting additional data, or reflagging a theoretical concern — without waiting to be directed. Their sense of responsibility extends to the integrity and value of the research as a whole, and their contribution meaningfully shapes the project's direction and quality. | | Collaboration | The student does not keep the larger goals of the group and the objectives of colleagues in mind when organising their work, and has failed to consider others' tasks and schedules on multiple occasions. Contributions to the group were limited and required prompting. | The student is aware of the larger goals of the group and the objectives of colleagues but made limited contributions to advancing them. | The student keeps the goals of the group and the objectives of colleagues in mind when organising their own work. They contribute to group discussions and coordinate their project activities in ways that support the group's shared objectives. | The student actively contributes to the group beyond their own project — helping colleagues, sharing relevant knowledge, and working in the group's interest when it matters. Their involvement in group discussions is substantive, and they take shared goals into account when making decisions about their own work. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The student shows a level of collaborative maturity expected of a junior researcher in a lab setting: they proactively identify what the group needs — whether support for a colleague, a process improvement, or knowledge that would benefit others — and act on it without being asked. Their presence in the group has a discernible positive effect on collective performance. | | Independence | The student regularly requires more supervision than expected for a research master student. Key aspects of the project could not progress without direct guidance, and the student was unable to self-direct their work for extended periods. | The student can perform assigned tasks with limited supervision but still needs regular check-ins or direction to maintain momentum. They do not yet take initiative in determining what needs to be done next or in navigating unfamiliar situations on their own. | The student works independently on project-relevant tasks without needing constant direction. They can navigate routine challenges on their own and are proactive about seeking guidance when genuinely needed rather than waiting to be told what to do. | The student demonstrates a high degree of independence — not only in executing tasks but in determining what needs to be done and how to approach it. They manage their own workflow, navigate complex or unfamiliar situations without supervisory scaffolding, and make sound judgements independently. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The student works with the independence expected of a first-year PhD candidate: they define and pursue their own sub-goals within the project, handle setbacks and uncertainty without needing direction, and engage with supervision to advance the work rather than to receive instruction. Their autonomy meaningfully expands what the project can accomplish. | | 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 personalised 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. | All criteria for the previous level are met. 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 to journal article conventions, guiding the reader through a clear research narrative. The logical connections between research question, design, results, and discussion are clear and explicit, and the text differentiates between major and minor points, allowing the reader to grasp the core contributions without effort. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The structure meets the standards for submission to a relevant journal in the field. The organisation is tightly aligned with the research narrative — each section and sub-section serves a clear purpose, and the flow through complex material is consistent and easy to follow. The reader is never left uncertain about where the argument is going or what has been established. | | 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 clearly demonstrates the relevance of the research project and its contribution to the field. The theoretical framework is well-developed and logically leads into a precisely articulated research question and testable hypotheses. The introduction effectively sets the stage for the rest of the article. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The introduction 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 clarity and conciseness, synthesising prior work to identify a critical gap. This leads into a focused, original research question and precisely formulated hypotheses that clearly delineate the study's unique contribution. | | 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 and demonstrates scientific rigour. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The methods section meets 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 sound 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. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The results section meets 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 — professional quality, self-explanatory, and optimally visualised — 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 thorough answer to the research question, situating findings within the theoretical framework and critically evaluating the project's strengths and limitations. Both internal and external validity are addressed. The discussion integrates findings with relevant prior literature and identifies open questions, with well-reasoned and specific suggestions for follow-up research. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The discussion meets the standards for submission to a key journal in the field. It provides a nuanced answer to the research question and integrates findings with the theoretical framework and relevant literature in a way that makes the project's contribution to the field clear. The student offers a balanced critical evaluation of the project's methodology, explicitly acknowledging potential sources of bias and alternative interpretations. Proposed future directions are specific and directly grounded in what the current study can and cannot conclude. | | 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 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 that ethical principles were applied thoughtfully to the project's specific context. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The student identified both common and less obvious ethical considerations relevant to the research project — including those related to data use, potential societal impact, or research integrity — and proposed well-reasoned mitigation strategies. They weighed potential benefits against potential harms, articulated a clear and defensible ethical position, and reflected on the longer-term ethical implications of the research. | ### 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) | | :---------------- | :----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------: | :--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------: | :----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------: | :---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------: | :-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------: | | Oral presentation | The presentation is disorganised or difficult to follow. The student is unable to communicate the key aspects of their research clearly and makes no meaningful effort to adapt the content for an interdisciplinary audience. | The presentation has some structure, but the delivery is unclear or inconsistent. Key aspects of the research are communicated only partially, and the explanation of complex concepts for an interdisciplinary audience is insufficient. The audience is likely to lose the thread of the argument. | The presentation is clear and follows a logical structure. The research is communicated adequately — the audience can follow the argument and understand the main findings or current progress. The student makes a genuine effort to explain complex concepts for an interdisciplinary audience, and the delivery is professional (audible, appropriately paced). | The presentation is clear and engaging. Complex ideas are explained concisely and adapted effectively for an interdisciplinary scientific audience. The delivery is confident, well-paced, and maintains audience engagement throughout. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The presentation is compelling — complex research is made genuinely accessible without oversimplification, and the student's command of the material is evident from the way they explain and connect ideas. The audience is left with a clear and accurate picture of the research and its significance, regardless of the project's stage of completion. | | Q&A | The student is largely unable to answer basic questions about their project. Responses are confused, inaccurate, or irrelevant, and the student cannot adapt explanations for an interdisciplinary audience. | The student can answer some direct questions but struggles with follow-up inquiries, conceptual questions, or those from outside their immediate area. Responses are hesitant or vague, and they show limited ability to clarify or rephrase for an interdisciplinary audience. | The student answers most direct questions about their project accurately. They engage constructively with the audience, though they may occasionally struggle to articulate nuanced points or respond to challenging questions without further prompting. | The student answers questions thoughtfully and accurately, demonstrating strong command of their research. They elaborate clearly, adapt explanations for an interdisciplinary audience, and respond constructively even to challenging or unexpected inquiries, linking answers back to the broader context of the research. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The student demonstrates clear and confident thinking in the moment: they provide well-reasoned responses to questions across disciplinary perspectives, including critical or challenging ones. They reformulate complex ideas on the fly, address uncertainty and limitations honestly, and defend their approach or conclusions at a level appropriate for a junior researcher. | # 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 here for more details: [[Grading System]]. # 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.