The following rubric will be used to grade the project work.
| Component | Insufficient | Satisfactory | Excellent |
|---|---|---|---|
| General | Poor structure, unclear line of thought, inconsistent referencing, severe grammar mistakes | Legible structure, mostly clear line of thought, consistent referencing, spell-checkers do not detect errors | Excellent structure, easy to follow line of thought |
| Introduction | Does not describe the topic and goal of the project, contains irrelevant information | Clearly describes the topic and goal of the project | Describes a "broad picture" perspective of the project work (e.g. relation to other techniques and clinical applications) |
| Methods | Does not convey understanding of the material, descriptions of methods appear to be copied from another source | Conveys good understanding of the material, descriptions of the methods in own words | Conveys excellent level of understanding, makes connections between methods |
| Results | Poor choice of experiments and description, poor presentation of the results of the experiments | Good choice of experiments and description, clear and concise presentation of the results | Extensive set of experiments, excellent presentation of the results |
| Discussion | Repetitive, analysis is missing, missing discussion of strengths and weaknesses | Concise analysis of the results, discussion of strengths and weaknesses | In-depth analysis and discussion of the results, critical tone, summary of gained insights into the methodology, suggestions for further analysis |
| Tables and figures | Inconsistent formatting, not referenced in text, present irrelevant/incorrect information, poor captioning | Consistent formatting, correctly referenced in text, present relevant information, captions contain all necessary information | Excellent formatting, self-contained (can be easily understood on their own) |
| Code | Missing or incomplete code structure, runs with errors, lacks documentation | Self-contained, does not result in errors, contains some documentation, can be easily used to reproduce the reported results | User-friendly, well-structured (good separation of general functionality and experiments), detailed documentation, optimized for speed |
The assessment rubric was partially based on the UU Graduate School of Life Sciences writing assignment rubric available here.