ISYE 6414

User accounts will be set up and emailed byJune 1.

Your Analysis Plan, Final Report, and Peer Reviews will be submitted via this account.

Your individual code will be submitted via your group's GitHub repository, which we'll invite you to after your account is created.

Analysis Plan Guide

Overview

The Analysis Plan is your roadmap for the Final Project. Its purpose is to:

Perform background research on a problem (this is the literature review)
Review what others have already done to address it
Identify the dataset(s) you'll work with
Lay out the analytical approach(es) your group will take
Explain the rationale for those approaches

Write the report as though your intended audience is an academic or a boss at work who really enjoys academic research.

Analysis Plan Requirements

The Analysis Plan accounts for 35% of your Final Project grade and sets the foundation for your entire project.

Key Dates

Opens: Jun 9, 12:00 AM US Eastern Time
Due: Jun 30, 11:59 PM US Eastern Time
Feedback & grades returned by: Jul 8, 11:59 PM US Eastern Time

Sections

1. The Problem

Open with a focused literature review that frames the problem your project addresses — a synthesis of prior research (mostly peer-reviewed journal articles) showing how your data and questions fit into the existing body of knowledge.

Include:

Problem description: its origin, how it has evolved to the present, and its impact — the good that could come from addressing some aspect of it.
Review of previous efforts: 2–3 prior attempts to solve the problem, each with its merits and shortcomings. Focus on studies that used data analysis, statistical modeling, or machine learning — not public-policy measures.

Citations

You need 12+ citations, mostly peer-reviewed research papers, appearing in the literature review portion of The Problem. (The Final Report requires 20+ — the Analysis Plan is your head start on that.) Datasets should also be cited in the References section (with DOIs where possible), but they don't count toward the 12-source requirement. Your literature review should be quite densely cited: if you're not familiar with literature reviews, find a few examples and emulate them.

2. The Plan

Essentially: we've decided to use these modeling approaches, and here's why.

Your 3 models — for each one:

Name it with a subheader (e.g., Model #1: Poisson Regression).
In 2–3 paragraphs, detail the model, its outcome variables, and the data sources (which must be cited).
Use 10+ predictors (a categorical variable counts as 1, regardless of its number of levels).

What we mean by a "model"

A model is a specific instance of an analysis — not just a model family. Your 3 models could be Multiple Linear Regression + Poisson + Logistic, or three flavors of MLR with different predictors and/or outcomes. Either is fine.

Why 10+ predictors?

We want to see meaningful variable selection applied — start broad, then let the data guide you toward a parsimonious final model.

Rationale:

Why your approaches might succeed where previous attempts failed.
The challenges you anticipate.
At least 2 other approaches you considered, and why you chose not to pursue them.

Rubric

This rubric shows how your Analysis Plan will be graded. Each criterion has multiple scoring levels with descriptions of what constitutes each level of performance.

The Problem

Problem Origin

2 pts

Proficient— Clearly establishes where the problem came from, with specific, grounded context.

1 pts

Developing— Gestures at the problem's origin, but vaguely or without grounding.

0 pts

Emerging— Does not establish the origin of the problem.

Problem Progression

2 pts

Proficient— Explains how the problem has evolved from its origin to the present.

1 pts

Developing— Touches on how the problem has changed, but incompletely.

0 pts

Emerging— No discussion of how the problem has progressed over time.

Problem Impact

2 pts

Proficient— Reader clearly understands why solving this problem matters.

1 pts

Developing— Importance is asserted but not convincingly established.

0 pts

Emerging— Does not convey why the problem matters.

Previous Attempts: Research

4 pts

Proficient— Discusses 2 or more prior attempts to address the problem.

2 pts

Developing— Describes only 1 prior attempt.

0 pts

Emerging— No prior attempts to solve the problem are described.

Previous Attempts: Discussion

2 pts

Proficient— Describes the merits and shortcomings of each prior attempt.

1 pts

Developing— Describes merits and shortcomings, but not for each attempt.

0 pts

Emerging— No discussion of the merits or shortcomings of prior attempts.

Citations & Research

Literature Citations

6 pts

Complete— 12+ peer-reviewed sources, all cited in-text via biblatex; the research is thorough and on-point.

4 pts

Substantial— Meets the 12-source bar with minor issues (a few uncited entries, thin spots, or small formatting lapses).

2 pts

Partial— Noticeably fewer than 12 sources, or citations feel haphazard and poorly integrated.

0 pts

Insufficient— Very few citations and little evidence of genuine literature research.

The Data

Data Requirements

5 pts

Met— Satisfies all data requirements: 3 sources, a 10,000+ row core dataset, sensible pre-filtering with at least a few thousand rows remaining, and a plan for 10+ predictors per model.

3 pts

Partially met— Most requirements met, but one is missing or unclear (e.g., borderline row counts, or fewer than 10 predictors on a model).

0 pts

Not met— Multiple data requirements are unmet, or the data plan is too thin to support the project.

The Plan

Group Approaches

6 pts

Excelling— 3 models, each named and detailed with outcomes, data sources, and 10+ predictors; the plan reads as complete.

4 pts

Proficient— Approaches enumerated and mostly detailed, but one or more feels thin or under-specified.

2 pts

Developing— Approaches listed but incomplete or vague, missing key detail (outcomes, sources, or predictors).

0 pts

Emerging— No usable description of the group's analytical approaches.

Rationale

2 pts

Proficient— Gives a convincing, specific reason the approach should succeed where prior attempts fell short.

1 pts

Developing— Offers a rationale, but it is generic or only weakly tied to the problem.

0 pts

Emerging— No rationale for why the approach should work.

Anticipated Challenges

2 pts

Proficient— Identifies real, specific challenges the group expects and engages with them thoughtfully.

1 pts

Developing— Names a challenge, but superficially or generically.

0 pts

Emerging— No anticipated challenges discussed.

Alternatives Considered

2 pts

Proficient— Describes 2+ alternative approaches considered AND why they were not chosen.

1 pts

Developing— Notes only 1 alternative, or does not explain why alternatives were set aside.

0 pts

Emerging— No alternative approaches considered.

Penalties

Page Length

−3 pts

0 pts

Within range— Report is 4 pages of content (excluding references and appendices).

-3 pts

Out of range— Report is fewer than 4 or more than 4 pages of content (excluding references and appendices).

biblatex Citations

−2 pts

0 pts

Used appropriately— Citations are handled through biblatex (the template's citation package), producing correct APA formatting.

-2 pts

Not used appropriately— biblatex was not used appropriately.

Total Possible Points35

Maximum Penalty−5

Grading Note

The Analysis Plan accounts for 35% of your Final Project grade. Emphasis is placed on thoroughly and thoughtfully addressing each criterion above.

Analysis Plan Guide

Overview

Sections

1. The Problem

2. The Plan

Format

Rubric