Programming script and presentation for the attached problem statement

Presentation Rubric Topics Exceeds Expectations Meets Expectations Needs Improvement Unacceptable

95-100% 80-95% 70-80% 0-70%

Introduction Topic

• Problem

Clear introduction and problem background make a compelling case, make the need for a solution abundantly clear.

Introduction and problem background make the need for a solution adequately clear.

Introduction and problem background are addressed, but the logic and content used to argue the need for a solution is not clear.

The introduction and problem background do not make the need for a solution at all clear.

Methodology:

• Sample

• Questions

• Design

Data source is identified in the presentation in proper APA format. Data is presented in words. Research questions meet the objectives of sound questions. Design reflects all requirements, in addition to advanced methods of ensuring validity and reliability in the results.

Data source is identified in the presentation in proper APA format. Data is presented in words. Research questions meet the objectives of sound questions. Design reflects all requirements.

Data source is identified in the presentation, but may not be formatted properly per APA 7. Data sample is discussed, but not clear. Research questions might not meet the objectives, but are present. Design may be incomplete.

Data source, sample, or research questions, or design might not be present. More than two of these elements are unclear.

Results and Discussion Results are built upon high quality research and demonstrated excellence in judgement and logic. Interpretation of every analysis is clearly presented and accurate. Validity and reliability are improved by advanced analytical methods. The results contain all and only analyses identified in the design. Programming aligns with the presentation. High quality connection from analyses to questions. Excellent indication of whether analyses met the objective.

Results are built upon adequate research and demonstrate adequate judgement and logic. Interpretation is adequately presented for every analysis. The results contain all and only analyses identified in the design. Programming aligns with the presentation. Adequate connection from analyses to questions. Adequate indication of whether analyses met the objective.

Results are built upon research, but judgement and logic could be improved. Interpretation is not clearly presented or inaccurate. Interpretations are presented in terms of variates, instead of the data or generalizability is inaccurate. The design might not align with the presentation analyses. Programming might not align with the presentation. Connection from analyses to objective can be improved.

Results are not necessarily built upon research, and significant improvement is necessary. Interpretations are missing or inaccurate. Analyses conducted may not be part of the design. Programming does not align with presentation. Connection from analyses to objective needs improvement or does not exist.

Recommendations for further research

Two recommendations for further research are clearly presented and based on the research conducted.

Two recommendations are made, but not based on research.

Inadequate recommendations were made.

Conclusion Excellent and inclusive summary of the team, concepts, and results of the presentation.

Adequate summary of the team, concepts, and results of the presentation.

Summary is provided but could be improved.

Summary missing or needs improvement.

Teamwork Excellent teamwork demonstrated throughout the presentation. Every group member presented.

Adequate teamwork demonstrated throughout the presentation. Every group member presented.

Teamwork is demonstrated in the presentation but it could be improved. Every group member presented.

Teamwork either not demonstrated or needs improvement. Every member did not present.

Topics Exceeds Expectations Meets Expectations Needs Improvement Unacceptable

Mechanics of style

• Grammar on slides

• Transitions between o ideas o speakers o slides

• Organization

• APA formatting

Highly professional execution of the entire presentation. Verbal presentation is correct, complete, and convincing. Visual presentation is appealing, informative, and crisp. Verbal and visual presentation clearly related. Written details within slides are correct, complete, and convincing, and elegant. References used are identified and annotated accurately in APA format.

Professional execution of the entire presentation. Verbal presentation is correct, complete, and convincing. Visual presentation is appealing, informative, and crisp. Verbal and visual presentation clearly related. Written details within slides are correct, complete, and convincing. References used are identified and annotated in APA format, potentially with error in the annotation.

Execution of the presentation could have been more professional in places. Verbal presentation partially correct but incomplete or unconvincing. Visual presentation is readable and clear. Verbal and visual presentation related. Written details within slides are mostly correct and complete. References used are identified, in APA format, with numerous mistakes in formatting.

Execution of the presentation needed to be much more professional. Verbal presentation is illogical, incorrect, or incoherent. Visual presentation is cluttered, disjoint, or illegible. Verbal and visual presentation unrelated. Written details within slides are not necessarily correct or complete. Reference(s) is missing or misidentified. A reference listed as a website.

Audience questions An advanced understanding of the content is demonstrated by the group and those within the group.

A clear understanding of the content is demonstrated by the group and those within the group.

The understanding of the content could be improved by the group and those within the group.

The understanding of the content is not demonstrated by the group as a whole or as individuals.

Programming Rubric

Topics Exceeds Expectations Meets Expectations Needs Improvement Unacceptable

95-100% 80-95% 70-80% 0-70%

Readability Code very well organized. No irrelevant or distracting code. Variable and function names have clear relationship to their purpose in the code. Code is easy to read and understand.

Code is reasonably well organized. There is little unused or irrelevant code, or this code has been moved out of the main project files. Variable and function names generally meaningful and helpful for understanding.

Code is messy and poorly organized; unused or irrelevant code distracts when reading code. Variables and functions names do not helpful to understand code.

Code is not readable. Program may not be presented from R.

Reproducibility All files necessary to run program were included in the submission. Program ran without issues. Code structure aligned seamlessly with the presentation. All data analysis in presentation is present in the program, using advanced analytical techniques. All objectives of the analysis are met in the program.

All files may not have been included in submission. Program ran without issues. Code structure aligned with presentation. All analysis is present in the program, using standard techniques. All objectives of the analysis are met in the program.

All files may not have been included in the submission. Program may have needed adjustment to run, or it may have been unclear which file to run. Code structure was not aligned with presentation. Analysis in program is not identical to analysis in presentation. Some objectives of the analysis may have been missed.

Code didn't run. All required files were not submitted. Program does not follow presentation. Program does not contain analyses within presentation. Objectives of the analysis are not met. Program may not be presented from R.

Storytelling The stages: problem, question(s), and collection, cleaning, and profiling, preparing, and analyzing, and conclusions, are clearly identified in the programming

There is sufficient evidence of a problem, question(s), and collection, cleaning, and profiling, preparing, and analyzing, and conclusions in the programming.

Most stages of data analysis were identifiable in the programming.

There is no evidence that the stages of analysis were considered in the programming. Program may not be presented from R.

Analyses All analyses conducted are programmed exceptionally well, based on the interpretations in the presentation. All analyses necessary to support conclusions is present in the programming.

All analyses conducted are programmed accurately, based on the interpretations in the presentation. All analyses necessary to support conclusions is present in the programming.

All analyses conducted are not programmed accurately, based on the interpretations in the presentation. All analyses necessary to support conclusions may not be present in the programming.

Programming does not support the analyses or results in the presentation. Insufficient evidence to support the conclusions. Program may not be presented from R.

Commenting Commenting of who, when, and purpose are clearly identified in the program. Inline comments in program clearly identifies the purpose of all steps. In the case of multiple file submission, comments explaining are included in the program. All group members are named in the program.

Commenting of who, when, and purpose are identified in the program. Inline comments in the program identifies the purpose of most of the programming steps. In the case of multiple file submission, comments explaining are included in the program. All group members are named in the program.

Commenting of who, when, and purpose are identified in the programming. Inline comments in the program identifies the purpose of some programming steps. In the case of multiple file submission, there is no explanation in the program. Names of group may be missing.

Commenting of who, when, and purpose is not clear or not present. Inline comments may or may not be present. Program may not be presented from R. Names of group members may be missing.

Peer Assessments – Individual Recipient

Topics Exceeds Expectations Meets Expectations Needs Improvement Unacceptable

95-100% 80-95% 70-80% 0-70%

Within group assessment

How your group peers graded your work on this assignment. Only submissions with sufficient evidence will be considered. Assessments’ markings will be used to determine grade, with averages amongst submissions. Professional comments submitted by peers will be provided as anonymous feedback, if anonymity can be maintained