General Criteria for Visualizations
While there is no specific rubric, here is a basic outline of what to be looking out for in each task. Criteria will generally be graded on a competency-based scale roughly translating to
- A: Exceeds expectations,
- B: Meets expectations,
- C: Needs improvement,
- D: Unsatisfactory, and
- F: Overall Failing.
Of course this is a continuous scale so a combination of proficiencies may be assigned to work that falls between any two consecutive levels.
| Criteria/Benchmarks | Overall Failing | Generally Unsatisfactory | Needs improvement | Meets expectations | Exceeds expectations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Introduction | Introduction is not attepted or is incorrect | Introduction has multiple major flaws creating variables/data frames that mostly do not address the task | Introduction has a major flaw such as using variables not relevant to the visualization | Introduction has minor flaws such as being somewhat wordy not straight to the point | Introduction proviodes a clear explanation of the intent and the dataset used to address a given task |
| Justification of approach | Justification is not attepted or is incorrect | Justification of approach has multiple major flaws that affect the outcome | Justification of approach has one major flaw such as having a rendered visualization is not justified or is incorrectly defined | Justification has minor flaws such as being somewhat wordy not straight to the point | The chosen analysis approach and visualizations are clearly explained and justified |
| Code | Code is not attepted or is incorrect | Code has major flaws which lead to errors | Code has minor flaws, is difficult to follow, or includes lines or chunks that are unnecessary possibly leading to errors | Code is correct and runs without errors, but has minor problems with formatting or explanations | Code is correct, easy to read, properly formatted, runs without errors and properly explained |
| Visualization | Visualziation(s) are not attepted or are incorrect | At least one visualization has major flaws resulting in a barely comprehensible or entirely inappropriate rendering | At least one visualization has substantial flaw with legibility, labeling or rendering | The visualizations have minor flaw such as those with legibility, labeling, or the chosen geom is adequate but incurs data loss | The visualizations are appropriate, easy to read, properly labeled and utilize correct aesthetics |
| Outcomes | Explanation is not attepted or is incorrect | Explanation has at least one major flaw in logic affecting the outcome in a substantial way | Explanation has a secondary flaw in logic that does not affect the outcome in a substantial way | Explanation is mostly clear and correct, but has minor inaccuracies or lacks needed depth | Discussion of results is clear and correct with needed needed depth devoid of being wordy |
| Reproducibility | Ensuring reproducibility is not attepted | Ensuring reproducibility is not attepted | .R, .Rmd, or .twbx requires major modification to knit or compile without issues, or is not provided | .R, .Rmd, or .twbx requires minor modification to knit or compile without issues, or key datafile is missing | All required files except the resulting pdf/html are provided. .R, .Rmd, or .twbx file knits or compiles without issues and produces a pdf/html |
| Presentation | Presentation is not attepted or is unintelligible | Presentation is near impossible to comprehend | Presenation has several deficiencies such as excessive the need for additional materials, misplaced figures, code, or text, or is otherwise confusing | Presentation is mostly well structured, but some aspects are confusing or difficult to follow | Entire presentation is well structured and easy to follow without the use of additioinal Entire document is well structured and easy to follow. No extraneous materials |