Engagement accounts for 27% of the final course grade. It recognizes the intellectual work students do for one another: preparing to discuss a classmate’s research, offering substantive and constructive feedback, and contributing thoughtfully to seminar learning throughout the semester.
Project checkpoints give each author structured opportunities to receive feedback as the empirical project develops. Presenting your own work and preparing checkpoint materials belong to the Project grade. The Engagement grade covers your work as a lead discussant and your broader participation in project discussions and other class sessions.
The author introduces the research problem and presents a focused plan for the empirical project. This first checkpoint is designed to clarify the project’s purpose, establish its relevance, and identify consequential design choices while revision is still easy.
The author presents the project’s operational research design and receives feedback before completing the main analysis. The goal is to test whether the available data, measures, and methods can credibly address the research question.
The author delivers a 15-minute, conference-style presentation of the completed research paper. The presentation should carry the audience from the project’s motivation and research question through the relevant literature, data, estimation methods, findings, and broader implications. It should include at least one clear visualization of the results and leave time for substantive peer discussion.
Engagement accounts for 27% of the final course grade. Within the Engagement grade, the Lead Discussant Role counts for 35%, Seminar Participation for 35%, and Semester-wide Engagement for 30%. Students receive grades and feedback for each workshop so they can apply the feedback in subsequent sessions. Semester-wide engagement is assessed holistically at the end of the semester.
35% of the Engagement grade. Close advance review, substantive project-specific discussant material in a written or presentation format, and effective leadership of approximately 15–20 minutes of discussion, evaluated for each workshop.
35% of the Engagement grade. Advance reading and prepared, attentive, and constructive participation, evaluated for each workshop.
30% of the Engagement grade. Prepared, attentive, and constructive engagement across class sessions throughout the rest of the semester.
The Lead Discussant Role and Seminar Participation criteria are applied to each workshop. Semester-wide Engagement is assessed across the semester. Performance bands describe the quality of work within each criterion; the Weight column shows each criterion’s share of the Engagement grade.
| Criterion | Exemplary 95–100% |
Proficient 80–94.9% |
Developing 40–79.9% |
Needs Improvement Below 40% |
Weight in Engagement grade |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lead Discussant Role | Demonstrates close reading of the assigned workshop materials, prepares incisive project-specific discussant material in an effective written or presentation format, identifies consequential issues, and facilitates focused 15–20 minute exchanges that help authors determine concrete next steps. | Is prepared for the assigned workshop discussion, brings relevant project-specific discussant material, and leads useful discussions. Minor gaps in depth, prioritization, follow-up, pacing, or facilitation do not substantially limit the value of the feedback. | Preparation, specificity, or facilitation is uneven during the workshop. Some feedback is broad, important issues are missed, or substantial instructor support is needed to produce actionable feedback. | Shows little evidence of reading the assigned materials, does not prepare substantive discussant material, offers feedback that could apply to any project, or does not fulfill the responsibility to lead discussion. | 35% |
| Seminar Participation | For the workshop, completes the advance reading, arrives prepared, listens closely, and offers timely questions, connections, critiques, clarifications, or suggestions that help authors improve their projects and deepen the wider discussion. | Participates constructively in the workshop discussions. Contributions are relevant and useful overall, with only minor variation in preparation, specificity, responsiveness, or depth. | Seminar participation is uneven. Advance reading is not consistently apparent, or contributions tend to be reactive, broad, surface-level, or only loosely connected to the author’s project and the ongoing discussion. | Provides little evidence of advance reading, attentive listening, or constructive participation during project discussions, or behaves in ways that impede respectful and productive discussion. | 35% |
| Semester-wide Engagement | Demonstrates sustained intellectual engagement in class sessions throughout the semester through preparation, attentive listening, and contributions that connect ideas, clarify difficult points, test interpretations, or advance collective learning. | Is prepared and constructively engaged across the semester. Contributions and responses support class learning overall, even if their form, frequency, or depth varies across topics and sessions. | Evidence of class-wide engagement is inconsistent. Preparation or attentive participation is not regularly apparent, and contributions are often surface-level, disconnected, or limited to prompting by the instructor. | Provides little evidence of preparation, attentive participation, or constructive contribution across the semester, or behaves in ways that impede respectful and productive seminar learning. | 30% |