Assessment and submission guide
All graded work is individual. In-class pair work and discussion are encouraged. Acknowledge borrowed code, collaboration, and substantial AI assistance. You should be able to explain and modify your submission. No marks are awarded for obtaining a significant effect.
| Component | Course points | Default deadline | Brief |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding assignment 1 | 10 | Before Meeting 2 | First task |
| Coding assignment 2 | 10 | Before Meeting 3 | Conditions and data |
| Coding assignment 3 | 10 | Before Meeting 4 | Practice and control flow |
| Project proposal | 5 | Before Meeting 4 | Proposal submission |
| Project pilot | 5 | Before Meeting 5 | Pilot submission |
| Final project | 60 | 14 days after Meeting 5, 23:59 Europe/Warsaw | Final project |
| Total | 100 |
The instructor translates these into calendar dates and posts upload links before the course begins. The three exercises collectively retain the original 30% weight; proposal/pilot retain 10%; the project retains 60%.
Grade bands apply to the unrounded total: below 50 = 2 (fail); 50 to below 60 = 3; 60 to below 70 = 3+; 70 to below 80 = 4; 80 to below 90 = 4+; 90 to 100 = 5. Attendance, reassessment, and integrity rules are in the syllabus. Do not interpret these task sheets as replacing binding programme rules.
Every coding submission
Submit an archive with runnable source, all required
assets/dependencies or a complete course-relative folder structure, a
short README with launch instructions, and a small synthetic/self-pilot
data export. Use a student identifier only in the learning platform’s
submission record or archive name, never in participant-facing
experiment code. Do not submit .git, passwords, API keys,
browser profiles, or other people’s raw research data.
Include a 100-200 word note: what you changed from the starter, one test you performed, one limitation, and attribution/AI assistance. “No external assistance” is acceptable. Templates are in templates.
How marks are awarded
Each rubric names observable evidence and its maximum points. Award full credit for complete correct evidence, about half for a recognizably implemented but incomplete criterion, and zero for absent or nonfunctional evidence; use intermediate points with a specific reason. Assess the submitted version rather than a verbal promise of a fix. Give one actionable next step per assignment. A single bug should not be deducted repeatedly unless it independently undermines multiple criteria (for example, wrong scoring and no pilot evidence).
Students can use the published rubric as a self-check.