DASCpedia | FAQs

Q1: In the Assignment Description in MS Teams it states that the instructions are still preliminary, and may be changed. Do you know what these changes may be, or if there is anything else we should take into account before starting working on the colloquium?

A1: Since this is the first time we design this colloquium for the Data Science Master’s program, I made some decisions regarding how the process should be for students. You shouldn’t expect any changes to the content, instructions for generating the video, evaluation criteria, or any other essential details. Everything is based on what is stated in Osiris. Any potential changes would be related to logistical/process aspects, such as how I distribute the videos to students and manage the evaluation process. However, I do not anticipate any major changes at this point.

Q2: Are we supposed to evaluate other students presentations after we submit ours, or is it possible to first do the evaluation, and then submit our own presentation?

A2: Because we need presentations to evaluate, students must first create and submit their own video before evaluating three other presentations. At the moment, no videos have been submitted, so we face a cold-start problem—without initial submissions, no student can evaluate others’ work. So, you will have to wait until we have at least three additional submitted videos (excluding yours) to evaluate them and receive a final grade. In general, you must submit your own presentation first and then select three other videos to evaluate by sending me an email.

Q3: Currently, I cannot see any published presentations. I just want to make sure that this is because either nobody has submitted yet or they aren’t visible until I submit my presentation, and not due to an issue on my side?

A3: There are no published presentations yet because no students have submitted their videos. Until students complete and submit their presentations, I cannot share them on MS Teams or allow evaluations. This question is related to the previous one, please take a look at Point 3.

Q4: I saw the grading rubric for the colloquium – I am assuming the review will also follow this rubric? Are there any guidelines on how the review will be graded, or the approximate level of depth that is expected?

A4: Yes, the rubric applies to both the presentation and the peer evaluations. I expect each review to highlight several strengths and weaknesses (e.g., three of each) in a structured format, followed by a more detailed justification, including how would you improve the presentation you just evaluated. Your review should cover the following aspects:

(a) Content of the presentation
(b) Context
(c) Structure
(d) Quality of slides/media
(e) Presentation skills
(f) Suitability for the audience

Your feedback should be concise and concrete rather than overly verbose, which is something that ChatGPT tends to do. I want students to express their observations freely regarding the strengths and weaknesses of each presentation. There is no strict guideline beyond these instructions.

Q5: Is our presentation grade based entirely on the peer evaluation, or is it also completed by you and/or our thesis supervisor?

A5: The final grades will be determined entirely by me by using the rubric. While I will review the peer feedback, it will not directly influence the grading. The first thesis supervisor is not involved in this process: they are responsible for Part 1 and Part 2 of your thesis and will grade your Master’s thesis project in collaboration with the second supervisor.

Q6: Is the target audience of the presentations fellow students in the DASC program, or a general audience (not necessarily from the field)?

A6: The target audience consists of your fellow students in the DASC program. However, since they may work in different subfields, they might not be familiar with the specific concepts covered in your literature review. I recommend treating them as a slightly more knowledgeable general audience that is familiar with the field but not necessarily with the specific details of your topic. Providing sufficient context is essential here.

Q7:Is it possible to consult the presentation with you before submitting it? Or should this be done independently, or with our thesis supervisor?

A7: You should consult your peers and thesis supervisors for feedback. Since I am responsible for grading, I will not provide guidance before submission. Once you have a draft, I strongly recommend asking your supervisors for input before recording your final version.

Q8: I saw that 5% of the final grade is documentation, what specifically does this entail? I know we are supposed to submit all of the materials we used for the presentation, is this the documentation? Should we just provide a folder with the relevant research papers, or also a document in which we describe the sources we used – if so, what format would be best for this?

A8: For documentation, students must submit all materials used to create their presentation and the presentation itself. A well-organized README file is recommended to explain the contents of each folder and the purpose of each file, similar to documentation in GitHub/GitLab. While you do not need to include PDFs of research papers, you should provide a list of references. Any external resources should be cited in the presentation itself, and adding a “Related Papers Used for Creating this Presentation” section in the README file is a good practice.

Q9: In the Assignment Description in MS Teams it states that the instructions are still preliminary, and may be changed. Do you know what these changes may be, or if there is anything else we should take into account before starting working on the colloquium?

A9: Since this is the first time we design this colloquium for the Data Science Master’s program, I made some decisions regarding how the process should be for students. You shouldn’t expect any changes to the content, instructions for generating the video, evaluation criteria, or any other essential details. Everything is based on what is stated in Osiris. Any potential changes would be related to logistical/process aspects, such as how I distribute the videos to students and manage the evaluation process. However, I do not anticipate any major changes at this point.

Q10: Are we supposed to evaluate other students presentations after we submit ours, or is it possible to first do the evaluation, and then submit our own presentation?

A10: Because we need presentations to evaluate, students must first create and submit their own video before evaluating three other presentations. At the moment, no videos have been submitted, so we face a cold-start problem—without initial submissions, no student can evaluate others’ work. So, you will have to wait until we have at least three additional submitted videos (excluding yours) to evaluate them and receive a final grade. In general, you must submit your own presentation first and then select three other videos to evaluate by sending me an email.

Q11: Currently, I cannot see any published presentations. I just want to make sure that this is because either nobody has submitted yet or they aren’t visible until I submit my presentation, and not due to an issue on my side?

A11: There are no published presentations yet because no students have submitted their videos. Until students complete and submit their presentations, I cannot share them on MS Teams or allow evaluations. This question is related to the previous one, please take a look at Point 3.

Q12: I saw the grading rubric for the colloquium – I am assuming the review will also follow this rubric? Are there any guidelines on how the review will be graded, or the approximate level of depth that is expected?

A12: Yes, the rubric applies to both the presentation and the peer evaluations. I expect each review to highlight several strengths and weaknesses (e.g., three of each) in a structured format, followed by a more detailed justification, including how would you improve the presentation you just evaluated. Your review should cover the following aspects:

(a) Content of the presentation
(b) Context
(c) Structure
(d) Quality of slides/media
(e) Presentation skills
(f) Suitability for the audience

Q13: Is our presentation grade based entirely on the peer evaluation, or is it also completed by you and/or our thesis supervisor?

A13: The final grades will be determined entirely by me by using the rubric. While I will review the peer feedback, it will not directly influence the grading. The first thesis supervisor is not involved in this process: they are responsible for Part 1 and Part 2 of your thesis and will grade your Master’s thesis project in collaboration with the second supervisor.

Q14: Is the target audience of the presentations fellow students in the DASC program, or a general audience (not necessarily from the field)?

A14: The target audience consists of your fellow students in the DASC program. However, since they may work in different subfields, they might not be familiar with the specific concepts covered in your literature review. I recommend treating them as a slightly more knowledgeable general audience that is familiar with the field but not necessarily with the specific details of your topic. Providing sufficient context is essential here.

Q15:Is it possible to consult the presentation with you before submitting it? Or should this be done independently, or with our thesis supervisor?

A15: You should consult your peers and thesis supervisors for feedback. Since I am responsible for grading, I will not provide guidance before submission. Once you have a draft, I strongly recommend asking your supervisors for input before recording your final version.

Q16: I saw that 5% of the final grade is documentation, what specifically does this entail? I know we are supposed to submit all of the materials we used for the presentation, is this the documentation? Should we just provide a folder with the relevant research papers, or also a document in which we describe the sources we used – if so, what format would be best for this?

A16: For documentation, students must submit all materials used to create their presentation and the presentation itself. A well-organized README file is recommended to explain the contents of each folder and the purpose of each file, similar to documentation in GitHub/GitLab. While you do not need to include PDFs of research papers, you should provide a list of references. Any external resources should be cited in the presentation itself, and adding a “Related Papers Used for Creating this Presentation” section in the README file is a good practice.