Labs Rubric
Evaluation Criteria for Lab Assignments
Labs Assignment Overview
The five labs (6% each, 30% total) are structured, hands-on exercises that progressively build skills in project organization, version control, reproducible reporting, licensing, and refinement. Each lab builds directly on the previous one, culminating in a polished open project repository ready for public sharing.
Labs Rubric (Each Lab - 6 points)
Each lab is scored on a 4-point scale across four equally weighted criteria (25% each):
| Criterion | 4 – Exemplary (100%) | 3 – Proficient (85%) | 2 – Developing (70%) | 1 – Beginning (50%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Task Completion | All required elements complete and correct | Most elements complete; minor issues | Partial completion; key elements missing | Minimal completion or incorrect |
| Technical Execution | Works perfectly; clean, efficient implementation | Works with minor issues; functional | Works with significant issues | Doesn’t work or fundamentally broken |
| Documentation | Clear commit messages, README updates, code comments | Adequate documentation; some gaps | Limited or unclear documentation | No documentation or misleading |
| Open Practices | Excellent Git use; meaningful version history and structure | Basic Git use; reasonable history | Minimal Git use or poor history | No version control or disorganized |
Criterion Details
Task Completion (25%)
Did you complete all specific deliverables for that lab? - Lab 1: Complete project folder structure with directories and initial README - Lab 2: Git repository with multiple meaningful commits and branch/merge demo - Lab 3: Working Quarto document that renders from raw data to final output - Lab 4: Appropriate licenses added with clear documentation/rationale - Lab 5: Completed checklist with documented improvements implemented
Technical Execution (25%)
Does the work function as expected and demonstrate the target skill? - Code runs without errors - Outputs match expectations - Implements the specific technical skill being taught
Documentation (25%)
Are changes tracked and explained clearly? - Meaningful Git commit messages that describe what changed and why - Updated README with clear reproduction instructions - Inline code comments where complexity warrants explanation
Open Practices (25%)
Does the work demonstrate emerging habits of open, reproducible science? - Logical repository organization - Version control used throughout the process - Evidence of iterative development through commit history - Structure supports future collaboration or reuse
Grading Process
- Completion focus: Labs emphasize skill acquisition over perfection
- Holistic scoring: Each criterion scored independently, then averaged
- Feedback: Brief comments via GitHub issues highlighting strengths and 1-2 areas for improvement
- Late policy: 10% per day penalty (up to 50% maximum deduction)
Submission Expectations
Submit all labs to Canvas (in .html) and by pushing your work to your designated course GitHub repository. Name files clearly (e.g., lab1-project-skeleton/, lab3-repro-report.qmd) and tag each lab completion with a release or clear commit message.