Add marking rubric for the report

report-rubric.md

@@ -0,0 +1,133 @@
+# Rubric for marking the remote sensing report
+
+Report marking rubric with level descriptors and respective marks for different
+categories.
+
+<table border=1>
+  <thead>
+    <tr>
+      <th></th>
+      <th>Inadequate</th>
+      <th>Highly deficient</th>
+      <th>Deficient</th>
+      <th>Adequate</th>
+      <th>Good</th>
+      <th>Very good</th>
+      <th>Outstanding</th>
+    </tr>
+  </thead>
+  <tbody>
+    <tr>
+      <th scope="row">Marks (%)</th>
+      <td>0-34</td>
+      <td>35-39</td>
+      <td>40-49</td>
+      <td>50-59</td>
+      <td>60-69</td>
+      <td>70-79</td>
+      <td>80-100</td>
+    </tr>
+    <tr>
+      <th scope="row">Code: Structure, reproducibility, style, and documentation</th>
+      <td>Code does not run and there is no documentation/text to accompany it</td>
+      <td>There is some documentation/text explaining the logic behind the code but the code does not run or produces the wrong output</td>
+      <td>Code runs and produces the expected output but there is no documentation/text</td>
+      <td>Code runs correctly and there is some documentation/text explaining the logic with some formatting issues</td>
+      <td>Code runs correctly and there is enough properly formatted documentation but code is awkward, inefficient, or uses a limited range of features</td>
+      <td>Code runs correctly, has appropriate documentation, and appropriately uses a range of skills presented in class (functions, string formatting, etc)</td>
+      <td>Code runs correctly, has appropriate documentation, and extends/improves upon the examples presented in class (more concise code, better methods, etc)</td>
+    </tr>
+    <tr>
+      <th scope="row">Presentation: Legibility, length, layout, use of headings</th>
+      <td>No discernible structure or organisation. Information mixed up, illogical order, completely disorganized</td>
+      <td>Many inadequacies, difficult to follow, very poor organisation and style but not totally inadequate</td>
+      <td>Poor presentation, structure and organisation require improvement, order or use of headings, layout, length, or style of figures/tables are inappropriate</td>
+      <td>Some deficiencies in style, adequate but not optimal, may require better layout, length, style of figures/tables, or use of headings</td>
+      <td>Logical presentation, appropriate length, but still requires some re-organising or editing</td>
+      <td>Logical presentation, appropriate length, very good but not necessarily at publishable quality</td>
+      <td>Organised and presented appropriately, clearly, succinctly, professionally, at a high standard with only a few minor corrections to style</td>
+    </tr>
+    <tr>
+      <th scope="row">Visual material: Use of figures/maps/tables, which should be labelled, captioned, and referenced in the text</th>
+      <td>No use of figures, diagrams, tables, etc.</td>
+      <td>Only or two figures/tables, no caption and not referred to in the text</td>
+      <td>Insufficient figures/tables with sloppy labelling, attribution, captioning, and referral</td>
+      <td>Insufficient figures/tables but most with proper labelling, attribution, captioning, and referral</td>
+      <td>Range of figures/tables with some significant errors in labels, etc.</td>
+      <td>Range of figures/tables, but some minor errors in labels, etc.</td>
+      <td>Appropriate and well designed figures/tables, all having labels, captions, attribution, and referred to in the text</td>
+    </tr>
+    <tr>
+      <th scope="row">Writing: Quality, fluency, spelling and grammar</th>
+      <td>Extremely difficult to follow, inadequate expressions/style/grammar</td>
+      <td>Very hard to follow with excessive need to rewrite, highly deficient expressions/style/grammar</td>
+      <td>Can be read and followed with difficulty, unclear style, much need to correct spelling/grammar</td>
+      <td>Can be followed okay, but some need to correct spelling/grammar, repetition of content or poor organisation of ideas/content</td>
+      <td>Well written, easy to read but some need to correct spelling/grammar, a little repetitive or obscure in places</td>
+      <td>Clear and easy to read, minimal corrections required but not necessarily of publishable quality</td>
+      <td>Very well written, no repetition, very little required to improve for professional work</td>
+    </tr>
+    <tr>
+      <th scope="row">Referencing: Correct, consistent referencing of appropriate range of sources</th>
+      <td>No literature awareness or sources entirely restricted to web pages. Referencing totally inadequate throughout the document, very poor paraphrasing with whole sentences or quotes used in the majority of the document</td>
+      <td>Minimal literature awareness, incomplete/incorrect referencing, highly deficient style, very weak paraphrasing with many whole sentences from sources throughout</td>
+      <td>Deficient range of sources, considerable errors and inconsistencies in style, citations are given but paraphrasing is poor in long sections of the document, references are missing when expected</td>
+      <td>Just the minimum reading required, style requires improvement, small sections of text written in own words but with missing references, poor paraphrasing in one/two places</td>
+      <td>Good evidence of reading, with a few missing references when expected, very good paraphrasing with no long phrases or whole sentences cited, style is good but requires improvement</td>
+      <td>Evidence of supplementary reading, very good style, paraphrasing very good, some corrections of citations may be required for professional-level quality</td>
+      <td>Ideal level of supplementary reading, all sources cited and references presented in correct style, written in own words with excellent summarising of sources with minimal matches in text</td>
+    </tr>
+    <tr>
+      <th scope="row">Evidence: Breadth, depth, and accuracy of evidence presented, knowledge of the methodology (pros/cons)</th>
+      <td>Largely irrelevant or no relevance to the question/topic, little or no factual material, inadequate level of data/evidence collected to support interpretations</td>
+      <td>Poorly directed at question/topic, highly deficient level of data/evidence collected, many omissions/errors but some correct relevant facts</td>
+      <td>Broadly relevant to the topic/question but information is fairly sparse, some inaccuracies, deficient coverage of relevant material, little awareness of literature or how the work may develop</td>
+      <td>Accurate, but some errors or key facts missing, not always that well directed at the question/topic, breadth of evidence covered a little limited</td>
+      <td>Factually sound, with sufficient facts/information/data and no serious errors, good coverage of relevant evidence, generally well directed at the question/topic</td>
+      <td>Types of evidence used are well chosen from a wide range of sources and support the main ideas well, breadth and depth of analysis is excellent but may require some improvement for publication, very well directed at the question/topic</td>
+      <td>Extremely well directed at the question/topic, breadth and depth of evidence/analysis is ideal, factually faultless, and at a professional standard in terms of content covered</td>
+    </tr>
+    <tr>
+      <th scope="row">Interpretation: Evaluation of findings including level of understanding, originality, and insight</th>
+      <td>The approach may be all wrong or at least is very poor, inadequate to totally inadequate handling of data/results/findings, most to all of data/information wrongly interpreted or left uninterpreted</td>
+      <td>Handling of results/findings shows many inadequacies, sizeable proportion of the data/information is wrongly interpreted, generally may appear sensible but understanding is highly deficient</td>
+      <td>Deficient handling of data/results, evidence incorrectly interpreted, evidence and interpretation not clearly separated, analysis is incorrect but data/findings can be comprehensibly presented at a descriptive level, little awareness of the broader relevance of work presented</td>
+      <td>Data and literature handled adequately, but some of the data/evidence handled poorly, incomplete use of literature, interpretations sometimes presented as though they are evidence, no originality or insight</td>
+      <td>Data and literature handled very well but full implications of the data/evidence not appreciated, some over-enthusiastic interpretation, clear separation of evidence and interpretation, some original ideas but not particularly insightful</td>
+      <td>Very good coverage and handling of own information/data, excellent at times but there may be some errors or omissions, some originality of thought/approach, occasionally reading more into the data/evidence than warranted, clear separation of evidence and interpretation</td>
+      <td>Outstanding handling of data/sources, innovative and original, maximum information obtained from results/review, at most a few omissions in treatment of information, full statistical treatment employed where appropriate, excellent handling of findings and implications in light of relevant sources, excellent insight and originality of ideas, publishable with minor changes required in terms of interpretation</td>
+    </tr>
+    <tr>
+      <th scope="row">Marks (%)</th>
+      <td>0-34</td>
+      <td>35-39</td>
+      <td>40-49</td>
+      <td>50-59</td>
+      <td>60-69</td>
+      <td>70-79</td>
+      <td>80-100</td>
+    </tr>
+  </tbody>
+  <tfoot>
+    <tr>
+      <th scope="row">Undergraduate</th>
+      <td>Fail</td>
+      <td>Narrow Fail</td>
+      <td>Third</td>
+      <td>2.2</td>
+      <td>2.1</td>
+      <td>First</td>
+      <td>High First</td>
+    </tr>
+    <tr>
+      <th scope="row">Postgraduate</th>
+      <td>Fail</td>
+      <td>Narrow Fail</td>
+      <td>Fail</td>
+      <td>Pass</td>
+      <td>Merit</td>
+      <td>Distinction</td>
+      <td>High Distinction</td>
+    </tr>
+  <tfoot>
+</table>