3 Course Assessments
3.1 Short Quizzes
Format:
In-class, handwritten, two questions per session.
Questions involve:
Coding: Write R code to solve the problem.
Discussion: Explain your solution in terms of:
Economic theory behind the answer.
Econometric reasoning (why variables/methods were chosen).
Visuals can be shown to your buddy, who will check your work.
Buddy System:
Each student pairs with a seatmate to verify the discussion:
Underline economic theory and econometric reasoning in peer’s paper.
Place a check for each component found.
Class Monitor Responsibilities
One student monitor per session, rotating weekly or biweekly, will oversee the buddy system.
Responsibilities:
Collect all buddy-checked papers after class.
Record for each student:
Buddy’s name who checked the paper.
Number of checks received (0, 1, or 2).
Ensure all buddy system procedures are followed (underlines and check marks).
Submit a tally sheet to the professor by 6 PM of class day.
Important:
The monitor does not grade anything.
Failure to follow these steps may affect participation points for the monitor or the class.
Expectations:
Both checks must be present to receive full participation credit.
No shortcuts; discussion must reflect understanding.
3.2 Problem Sets (1 and 2)
Topic Assignment and Scope
Topics and scope for Problem Sets 1 and 2 will be assigned randomly on the first day of class.
Assignment will be done by drawing from prepared topic papers.
Assigned topics are final and will be finalized by Week 2.
Students may not change, narrow, or expand their assigned scope without instructor approval.
If two groups converge on substantively similar topics or datasets, both submissions will be penalized.
Format:
Hard copy submission only, with handwritten discussion.
R code can be typed and printed for submission.
Graphics must be printed and pasted into the submission.
Guidelines:
Problem Sets 1 & 2 questions are provided in the LBOMETR Course Book on the first day of class.
Each problem must include:
Discussion: Handwritten explanation of the solution.
R Script: Step-by-step, well-commented, reproducible code.
Graphics: Printed plots, properly labeled.
Submission deadlines:
PS1: Week 6 (covers material until Descriptive Statistics).
PS2: Week 12 (covers material from Descriptive Statistics to Formal Tests of Assumptions).
Expectations:
Students must demonstrate understanding of economic theory and econometric reasoning in discussion.
The same groupings apply in all group-related outputs.
Only essential outputs should be included; do not submit unnecessary or repetitive results.
Problem Set Rubric (Group Graded)
| Criteria | Exemplary (90–100) | Satisfactory (78–89) | Developing (72–77) | Beginning (<72) | Weight |
| Data Cleaning & Preparation | Data is fully imported, cleaned, and transformed. Missing values, inconsistencies, and errors are handled effectively. Decisions are logical and appropriate for messy datasets. | Mostly clean; minor errors or inconsistencies remain. Basic understanding of cleaning demonstrated. | Partially cleaned; several errors remain. Some steps missing or unclear. | Data largely unclean or incorrectly processed. Minimal understanding of preparation. | 25 |
| Coding & Step-by-Step Process | Code is correct, reproducible, well-organized, and clearly commented. Workflow is logical and easy to follow. | Mostly correct; minor errors or inefficiencies. Workflow mostly clear. | Code partially correct or poorly organized. Workflow unclear or incomplete. | Code largely incorrect, not reproducible, or disorganized. Workflow missing. | 30 |
| Analysis & Interpretation (Discussion) | Answers are complete, insightful, and clearly interpret results in context. Discussion shows critical thinking. | Answers mostly correct; interpretation present but limited. Some insights missing. | Answers partially correct; interpretation weak or incomplete. | Answers incorrect or missing; interpretation absent. | 25 |
| Graphics & Visualization | Visuals are clear, professional, and effectively support the discussion. Correctly printed and pasted. | Visuals mostly clear and relevant; minor issues. | Basic or unclear visuals; limited relevance. | Missing, incorrect, or irrelevant visuals. | 10 |
| Presentation & Documentation | Submission is neat, organized, and easy to follow. Typed code separated from handwritten discussion. All required components included. | Submission mostly organized; minor issues in clarity or order. | Submission somewhat disorganized; some components missing or hard to follow. | Submission poorly organized, incomplete, or difficult to follow. | 10 |
| Total | 100 points (group) |
3.3 Data Storytelling
Format:
Live in-person presentation, slides submitted electronically.
Mock Presentation Slides submitted via email at 21:00 a day before the mock presentation.
Final Presentation Slides submitted as a link via email at 21:00 a day before the scheduled presentation.
Guidelines:
Presentation duration: 10 minutes, followed by 5-minute Q&A.
Structure:
Introduction: Topic, research question, significance
Methods: Data and analysis methodology
Results: Key findings using R-generated visualizations
Discussion & Conclusion: Implications and actionable recommendations
Each group member must actively participate, meaning, speak during the presentation.
No cue cards or reading from their laptops, or cellphones; presenters must be familiar with their slides.
Slides must reflect economic reasoning and econometric reasoning.
Room to be used will be reserved for both online and in-person audiences.
Feedback will be given during the Data Storytelling and must be considered when making the Data Story Archive.
Data Storytelling Rubric (Individually Graded)
| Criteria | Exemplary | Satisfactory | Developing | Beginning | Weight |
| Content & Narrative Quality | Student clearly owns a specific section. Introduction, methods, and results are clear, concise, logically presented, and analytically interpreted. Conclusions or implications are insightful and actionable. | Section is clear and correct but mostly descriptive. Interpretation is present but limited. Conclusions are solid but not fully actionable. | Section is vague, rushed, or weakly connected. Interpretation is superficial. Conclusions are simplistic or partially missing. | Section is unclear, disorganized, or incorrect. Major parts of discussion or conclusions are missing. | 40 |
| Visualizations & Analytical Support | Student demonstrates clear ownership of visuals or analytical elements. Visuals are professional, polished, and strongly support the story. Any dynamic elements are used effectively. | Visuals are appropriate and support the analysis, but design or relevance could be improved. Minor flaws or missed opportunities. | Visuals are basic, poorly designed, or loosely connected. Some key visual aids missing. | Visuals are missing, irrelevant, or poorly designed. | 30 |
| Delivery, Engagement & Individual Contribution | Student presents confidently, speaks naturally, and clearly explains their section. Demonstrates preparation and understanding. Contribution is observable in the presentation itself. | Delivery is generally clear. Student shows understanding but occasionally relies on notes. Contribution is evident but not fully developed. | Delivery is hesitant or partially scripted. Understanding of section is weak. Contribution is unclear. | Delivery is minimal or absent. Student cannot demonstrate understanding of their section. | 30 |
| Total | 100 points (individual) |
3.4 Data Story Archive
Format:
- Single hard copy PDF submission for the instructor.
Content Requirements:
Cover Page: Title, group members, submission date.
Table of Contents: Clear page references.
Data Story Report: Maximum 12 pages.
Introduction: Problem statement and research question.
Methods: Data sources, methodology, analysis techniques.
Results: Key findings with R-generated visuals.
Discussion & Conclusion: Implications and recommendations.
References: Expected to have more than 10 references; APA format
Appendix: Maximum 5 pages, supporting tables or plots only.
R Scripts: Maximum 10 pages, rendered from Quarto Markdown. Must include data cleaning steps, outputs, and plots.
Group Reflection: Strictly 2 pages. Discuss teamwork, learning outcomes, and growth in data analysis during the whole duration of the course.
Submission Instructions:
- Deadline: 18:00 TUESDAY OF WEEK 14
Expectations:
Archive must reflect independent group work.
No generative AI or external assistance in final output.
Data Story Archive Rubric (Group Graded)
| Criteria | Exemplary | Satisfactory | Developing | Beginning | Weight |
| Content & Storytelling (Report) | Report is clear, concise, logically structured, and fully explains the analysis. Results are interpreted correctly, insights are highlighted, and conclusions are actionable. No irrelevant or redundant material included. | Report is generally clear and correct but may be somewhat descriptive or slightly unorganized. Interpretation of results is present but not fully analytical. | Report has gaps in clarity, logic, or completeness. Results are mostly descriptive. Conclusions are weak or partially missing. | Report is unclear, incomplete, or disorganized. Major parts of analysis, results, or conclusions are missing or incorrect. | 40 |
| Technical Work (Code & Analysis) | Code is correct, fully reproducible, neat, well-commented, and logically structured. Step-by-step workflow is clear. Only relevant outputs are shown; no unnecessary tables or raw dumps. | Code is mostly correct and reproducible, but minor inefficiencies, clutter, or documentation gaps exist. Some irrelevant outputs may be present. | Code runs but has errors, poor structure, weak documentation, or unclear workflow. Outputs may be excessive or partly irrelevant. | Code is largely incorrect, incomplete, not reproducible, or disorganized. Outputs are missing or meaningless. | 45 |
| Presentation & Organization (Archive) | Archive is professional, well-organized, and easy to navigate. Report and code are clearly separated. File naming and readability are consistent and logical. | Archive is generally organized but may have minor inconsistencies or minor clutter. Separation of report and code is acceptable. | Archive is somewhat confusing or inconsistent. Report and code separation is unclear. | Archive is poorly organized, confusing, or incomplete. Report and code are difficult to access or understand. | 15 |
| Total | 100 points (group) |
3.5 Participation
Buddy System Form:
- Attendance & Engagement and Buddy System Participation will be monitored and checked through the Buddy System Evaluation Form.
Individual Evaluation Form:
Each student must also complete a Group Work Evaluation Form assessing group mates .
The form must be signed to certify accuracy and truthfulness.
Submission Requirements:
- Submit the signed evaluation forms alongside your Data Story Archive Report.
Grading Notes:
Attendance & Engagement: Tracked via buddy form (presence in class/workshop, active participation).
Buddy System Participation: Accuracy of buddy checks, initials, and verification.
Group Work Contribution: Quality, quantity, and timeliness of contributions to problem sets and presentations.
Collaboration & Communication: Professional, constructive, and coordinated communication within the group.
Participation Rubric (Individually Graded)
| Criteria | Exemplary (90–100) | Satisfactory (78–89) | Developing (72–77) | Beginning (<72) | Weight |
| Attendance & Engagement | Attends all meetings/classes and actively participates in discussions, activities, and workshops. Demonstrates initiative and preparedness. | Attends most meetings/classes (≥80%) and participates adequately. Minor lapses in engagement. | Attends some meetings/classes (≥60%) or participates inconsistently. Minimal contribution in discussions. | Frequently absent (<60%) or disengaged. Rarely participates. | 25% |
| Buddy System Participation | Always performs buddy responsibilities accurately: checks seatmate’s discussion, underlines components, initials verification, ensures accountability. | Usually performs buddy responsibilities correctly; occasional minor lapses. | Sometimes performs buddy responsibilities; inconsistencies in marking or verifying. | Rarely or never performs buddy responsibilities; no accountability. | 20% |
| Group Work Contribution | Actively contributes to group activities (problem sets, data storytelling). Attends meetings, shares workload equitably, helps group succeed. | Participates in group activities most of the time. Completes assigned tasks with minor support needed. | Limited participation in group activities. Contributes only partially to assigned tasks. | Minimal or no participation in group activities. Does not contribute to group tasks. | 30% |
| Collaboration & Communication | Communicates effectively and professionally within the group. Supports peers, resolves conflicts constructively, and helps coordinate tasks. | Communicates adequately within the group. Minor issues in coordination or collaboration. | Communication within the group is inconsistent; conflicts or coordination issues sometimes occur. | Poor or absent communication. Causes confusion or conflict in group. | 25% |
| Total | 100 points |