You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
If multiple tables within dataset, try limiting longer cell outputs. I would add sub-headings to certain places, like "Filtering", "Dropping NAs", something like this to give context to the reader. Comments are helpful when something examining the code, but for a glance, sub-headings provide direction.
Comments
Proposal Regrade Feedback
Rubric
Unsatisfactory
Developing
Proficient
Excellent
Data relevance
Did not have data relevant to their question. Or the datasets don't work together because there is no way to line them up against each other. If there are multiple datasets, most of them have this trouble
Data was only tangentially relevant to the question or a bad proxy for the question. If there are multiple datasets, some of them may be irrelevant or can't be easily combined.
All data sources are relevant to the question.
Multiple data sources for each aspect of the project. It's clear how the data supports the needs of the project.
Data description
Dataset or its cleaning procedures are not described. If there are multiple datasets, most have this trouble
Data was not fully described. If there are multiple datasets, some of them are not fully described
Data was fully described
The details of the data descriptions and perhaps some very basic EDA also make it clear how the data supports the needs of the project.
Data wrangling
Did not obtain data. They did not clean/tidy the data they obtained. If there are multiple datasets, most have this trouble
Data was partially cleaned or tidied. Perhaps you struggled to verify that the data was clean because they did not present it well. If there are multiple datasets, some have this trouble
The data is cleaned and tidied.
The data is spotless and they used tools to visualize the data cleanliness and you were convinced at first glance
Grading Rules
Scoring: Out of 5 points
Each Developing => -1 pts
Each Unsatisfactory=> -2 pts
until the score is 0
If students address the detailed feedback in a future checkpoint they will earn these points back
DETAILED FEEDBACK should be left in the data section AND anywhere the student addressed proposal feedback but did not do it to your satisfaction
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Project Checkpoint Feedback
Score (out of 5 pts)
Score = 5
Data Checkpoint Feedback
Comments
Proposal Regrade Feedback
Rubric
Grading Rules
Scoring: Out of 5 points
Each Developing => -1 pts
Each Unsatisfactory=> -2 pts
until the score is 0
If students address the detailed feedback in a future checkpoint they will earn these points back
DETAILED FEEDBACK should be left in the data section AND anywhere the student addressed proposal feedback but did not do it to your satisfaction
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: