Econn-08/Discussion

Exemplary

Proficient

Needs Improvement

Not Evident

Data: Limitations 

Points:

7.5 (10%)

Meets “Proficient” criteria and supports discussion with scholarly research

Feedback:

Good discussion!

Points:

6.75 (9%)

Identifies limitations of the data structure on the choice of empirical methods and details the effects of these limitations

Points:

5.25 (7%)

Identifies limitations of the data structure on the choice of empirical methods but does not detail the effects of these limitations, or discussion misses key limitations

Points:

0 (0%)

Does not identify limitations of the data structure on the choice of empirical methods

Empirical Approach: Method 

Points:

7.5 (10%)

Meets “Proficient” criteria and explains the reasons for the superiority of the chosen method(s) over other methods

Feedback:

Nice discussion

Points:

6.75 (9%)

Proposes advanced empirical method(s) to use in the study and clearly defends method(s), stating the considerations leading to the choice, including why simpler models were not employed

Points:

5.25 (7%)

Proposes advanced empirical method(s) to use in the study and defends these method(s) but does not address considerations leading to the choice, or defense of proposed methods is lacking in detail

Points:

0 (0%)

Does not propose and defend advanced empirical method(s) to use in the study

Empirical Approach: Limitations 

Points:

7.5 (10%)

Meets “Proficient” criteria and supports discussion with scholarly research

Feedback:

Good!

Points:

6.75 (9%)

Identifies limitations of the proposed model, delineating between issues with the data and interactions between variables, and addresses the appropriateness of alternative methods/models

Points:

5.25 (7%)

Identifies limitations of the proposed model but does not delineate between issues with the data and interactions between variables or does not address the appropriateness of alternative methods/models

Points:

0 (0%)

Does not identify limitations of the proposed model

Empirical Approach: Specification 

Points:

7.5 (10%)

Meets “Proficient” criteria, and justification is supported through research

Feedback:

Good

Points:

6.75 (9%)

Outlines the empirical approach in a clear manner, providing specifications in the form of an equation and justifying the transformation

Points:

5.25 (7%)

Outlines the empirical approach but does not provide specifications in the form of an equation or does not justify the transformation

Points:

0 (0%)

Does not outline the empirical approach

Results and Robustness: Preliminary Results 

Points:

11.25 (15%)

Meets “Proficient” criteria and discusses any counterintuition in the results or possible inconsistencies

Points:

10.13 (13.5%)

Utilizes statistical software to produce an initial report of results, details those results, and determines the relationship of the results to the hypothesis and research question, disclosing differences in baseline estimation and ultimate choice of model

Feedback:

I understand you don't have the data lined up. Be sure to run the analysis for the next submission.

Points:

7.88 (10.5%)

Utilizes statistical software to produce an initial report of results but does not present those results beyond simple statements of fact or does not determine the relationship of the results to the hypothesis and research question

Points:

0 (0%)

Does not utilize statistical software to produce an initial report of results

Results and Robustness: Violations

Points:

11.25 (15%)

Meets “Proficient” criteria, and examination addresses the effects that identified ordinary least squares violations would have on results

Points:

10.13 (13.5%)

Identifies violations and chooses appropriate statistical tests based on initial examination of results

Points:

7.88 (10.5%)

Identifies violations but does not choose appropriate statistical tests to run or employ a complete battery of tests

Feedback:

You should have a discussion of OLS violations.

Points:

0 (0%)

Misinterprets results of the tests or uses inappropriate tests

Results and Robustness: Secondary Results 

Points:

11.25 (15%)

Meets “Proficient” criteria, and interpretation is highly specific and detailed

Points:

10.13 (13.5%)

Conducts, interprets, and reports results from secondary tests correctly and determines the presence or absence of problem(s)

Feedback:

Spend some more time of hypothesis testing.

Points:

7.88 (10.5%)

Conducts and reports results from secondary tests, but interpretation of test results is limited/incorrect, or the presence/absence of problem(s) is not determined

Points:

0 (0%)

Does not conduct or report results from secondary tests

Results and Robustness: Affected

Points:

7.5 (10%)

Meets “Proficient” criteria and provides illustrative examples of impact of changes on overall conclusions

Feedback:

You discuss this in the summary of others' research.

Points:

6.75 (9%)

Determines the effects of corrective actions by noting changes (or lack thereof) and the magnitude in coefficients of these changes in statistical significance of key independent variables

Points:

5.25 (7%)

Determines the effects of corrective actions but does not note changes (or lack thereof) or does not note the magnitude in coefficients of these changes in statistical significance of key independent variables, or the determination of effects is flawed

Points:

0 (0%)

Does not determine the effects of corrective actions

Articulation of Response

Points:

3.75 (5%)

Submission is free of errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, and organization and is presented in a professional and easy to read format

Feedback:

Good work

Points:

3.38 (4.5%)

Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization

Points:

2.63 (3.5%)

Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas

Points:

0 (0%)

Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that prevent understanding of ideas