Homework Rubric

ECON 311: Analytical Tools for Economists

Author
Affiliation

Alex Cardazzi

Old Dominion University

Each graded homework (HW 1–4) is worth 90 points: a 60-point written report and a 30-point recorded presentation. The rubric applies to the whole report, not to individual sections. Onboarding HW is graded on completion and is not scored with this rubric.

Written report (60 points)

Each of the four dimensions is scored from 0 to 15, and the bands below are anchors at 0, 5, 10, and 15. Scores are holistic: find the band that best describes the report as a whole. The bands are guides, not checklists.

Scores between the anchors are possible. For example, a report that falls between the 10 and 15 descriptions might earn a 12 or a 13.

1. Presentation (15)

Does the rendered .html read like a report a stranger could follow?

  • 15: Renders without errors. The report follows a clear order (data, analysis, findings). Every figure and table is labeled (axes, units, titles or captions), is referred to in the text, and earns its place. Code is organized and commented so a reader can follow it, and it folds neatly: a reader who leaves the code folded sees a clean report, and one who opens it finds each output tied to a specific chunk, with no output whose source is unclear.
  • 10: Renders, and is mostly clear. A few figures or tables are unlabeled, unreferenced, or hard to read, or the order sometimes gets confusing. Some code does not fold cleanly, or some output cannot easily be matched to the chunk that made it.
  • 5: Renders, but the report is hard to follow: output dumped without explanation, unlabeled or default-looking figures, disorganized code, code that is not folded or is scattered across chunks, or output that cannot be tied to the code that produced it.
  • 0: Does not render, or is not a report (raw code and output with no structure).

2. Analysis (15)

Is the approach appropriate for the question, and does it use what the course taught? An analysis can miss in either direction: it can be too simple for the question, or too advanced for it. There is elegance in simplicity, so a simple analysis can earn full marks as long as it fits the question and everything in it works.

  • 15: The methods fit the question and draw on the tools listed in “This week’s tools” (and earlier modules). The choices made about the data (what was dropped, recoded, transformed, or weighted, and why) are documented. The student chose what was worth looking into, and the analysis is as simple as it can be while still answering the question well. Any method from outside the course is flagged and explained in plain words.
  • 10: Methods are appropriate and mostly from the course, but the analysis is too thin for the question or reaches for more than the question needs, or some data choices are undocumented or unexplained.
  • 5: Methods are partly inappropriate for the question, or major course tools are missing, or the analysis is far too simple or far too advanced for what was asked, or data choices are hidden. Out-of-scope methods are used without explanation.
  • 0: No real analysis, or an analysis unrelated to the question or data provided.

3. Interpretation (15)

Are the results understood and communicated honestly?

  • 15: Results are interpreted correctly in plain language, with direction, magnitude, and units. The report says what the results do and do not show (uncertainty, causal versus descriptive, what is missing from the data), and ties findings back to the question asked.
  • 10: Interpretations are mostly correct, but some are vague, missing units or magnitude, or somewhat overstated. Limitations are mentioned but thin.
  • 5: Several interpretations are incorrect or only restate numbers (“the coefficient is 0.4”). Limitations are absent, or claims go well beyond the evidence.
  • 0: Little or no interpretation, or interpretation that contradicts the results shown.

4. Reflection (15)

Does the Process Reflection show real, specific engagement with Claude?

  • 15: Written in the student’s own words. It describes specifically what they asked Claude, where Claude’s first attempt fell short, and what they changed or rejected and why. It shows the student checking Claude against the course material, not just accepting it.
  • 10: Specific in places, but generic elsewhere. Describes what happened more than why, or shows little pushback on Claude.
  • 5: Vague or generic (“I used Claude to help me and it was useful”), with few or no concrete examples.
  • 0: Missing, or reads as though it was written by the AI.

Recorded presentation (30 points)

Presentation (20 points)

Two parts, each scored 10, 7, 4, or 0.

Content (10)

  • 10: States the question, the data, the methods, the findings, and what the findings do and do not mean. Accurately represents the submitted report.
  • 7: Covers most of these, with one thin or missing piece.
  • 4: Covers only some of these, or is mostly a description of what was done with little on what was learned.
  • 0: Missing, off topic, or does not reflect the submitted report.

Articulation (10)

  • 10: Explains the work in their own words, at a pace a boss or client could follow, without reading from the report. Shows they understand what the numbers mean.
  • 7: Mostly clear and in their own words, but with some reading from the report, or with places where the explanation is shaky.
  • 4: Largely reads from the report or a script, or cannot explain key results in plain words.
  • 0: Cannot explain the work.

Questions (10 points)

Two questions asked by Claude, generated via this prompt, each scored 5, 3, or 0.

  • 5: The answer shows the student understands the result or choice being asked about, in plain words.
  • 3: Partially correct or hesitant, or the student explains the choice but not what would change if it had been made differently.
  • 0: No answer, or an answer that shows the student does not understand their own work.

Notes for grading

  • The recording must show the whole screen (with the time) and include the student’s voice. Recordings outside the five-to-twenty-minute range, or that do not show the full screen, may be penalized at my discretion.
  • I may request a short meeting with any student about a submitted assignment (see the syllabus). Scores on the underlying assignment may be revised afterward.