Final Project: Independent Method Exploration (Due Dec 5)
Contributing to Course Knowledge Base
The field of hydroclimate risk assessment draws from a vast array of statistical and machine learning techniques. While this course covers foundational methods, many specialized approaches remain unexplored. This project provides an opportunity to independently investigate a method not covered in class while contributing to the collective learning experience through teaching and knowledge sharing.
1 Topic Selection
Choose a specific statistical or machine learning method relevant to hydroclimate applications. Your topic should be suitable for a focused 20-minute class presentation and should emphasize methodological understanding rather than broad application surveys.
1.1 Suggested Topics
Consider these examples, each offering multiple possible approaches depending on your interests:
- Diffusion models: either a general methodological overview or application to synthetic weather generation for extreme events
- Gaussian processes
- Spectral analysis
- Weather typing
1.2 Scope Considerations
Note that topics vary significantly in breadth. Some methods like diffusion models represent entire research domains, while others like weather typing are more narrowly defined techniques. Regardless of your chosen topic’s inherent scope, focus your exploration on specific implementations and applications rather than attempting comprehensive coverage.
Base your work on two primary sources (research papers or textbooks) that provide both theoretical foundation and practical guidance. When multiple implementation approaches exist, acknowledge this diversity but concentrate your detailed analysis on a single, well-documented example.
2 Deliverables
2.1 Lecture Notes (30 points)
Contribute a new subsection to the course textbook that explains your chosen method. Your contribution should follow the existing structure and style of current chapters.
Your textbook contribution needs to cover three key areas. First, present the mathematical framework with clear notation and explicitly state key assumptions. Second, offer critical evaluation by discussing the method’s strengths, limitations, and appropriate use cases. Finally, integrate your method with course themes by connecting it to concepts like uncertainty quantification, model evaluation, and risk assessment that we’ve covered throughout the semester.
2.2 Teaching Segment (30 points)
Deliver a 20-minute instructional presentation during the Student Teaching Sessions, focusing on active learning rather than passive information transfer. Use traditional teaching tools like chalkboard or whiteboard rather than prepared slides to encourage dynamic, responsive instruction.
Your presentation should work through a concrete example that illustrates the method’s practical application. Clearly explain when, why, and how to use this approach, making explicit connections to techniques and concepts we’ve previously covered in class. Most importantly, facilitate meaningful discussion with your classmates about the method’s applications, limitations, and potential extensions.
2.3 Research Proposal (40 points)
Develop a comprehensive research proposal demonstrating how your method could address a significant hydroclimate risk challenge. Structure your proposal as a competitive grant application following standard academic format with appropriate citations and professional presentation. The 5-page limit applies to the main body of the proposal (introduction, literature review, methodology, expected outcomes, and timeline) and does not include references or appendices.
You may assume that the reader has read your lecture notes, so avoid redundant explanations of the method itself.
Begin by motivating a specific hydroclimate risk problem you want to address and explaining its broader significance to society and the scientific community. Conduct a thorough literature review that positions your proposed approach within existing research and clearly identifies knowledge gaps that your work would fill. Present detailed methodology including specific implementation plans, data requirements, computational approaches, and validation strategies you would use. Describe your expected outcomes and explain their potential impact on the field of hydroclimate risk assessment. Finally, provide a realistic project timeline with clear milestones and resource requirements spanning a 2-3 year research period.
3 Timeline and Milestones
The project unfolds over the full semester with structured checkpoints to ensure steady progress and timely feedback.
- Project Introduction: August 27 — Project assigned with course introduction and initial topic brainstorming
- Mandatory Individual Meetings: October 13-17 — Schedule required one-on-one consultation to refine project scope and discuss implementation strategy
- Topic Proposal Due: 24 hours before your scheduled meeting — Submit half-page proposal identifying your chosen method and target hydroclimate problem to allow time for review prior to meeting
- Final Written Deliverables Due: December 5 — Submit completed lecture notes contribution and research proposal
- Student Teaching Sessions: December 1, 3, and 5 — Deliver 20-minute teaching presentations to the class
Timeline subject to adjustment based on course progression and enrollment.
4 Assessment and Grading Rubric
This assignment constitutes 20% of your final course grade and is assessed out of 100 total points.
4.1 Lecture Notes Contribution (30 points)
| Criterion | Excellent (27-30 pts) | Proficient (22-26 pts) | Developing (17-21 pts) | Inadequate (<17 pts) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mathematical Framework (10 pts) | Clear, rigorous presentation with proper notation; assumptions explicitly stated and justified | Generally clear mathematical exposition with minor notation issues; most assumptions identified | Mathematical framework present but with some unclear elements or missing assumptions | Mathematical content incomplete, unclear, or contains significant errors |
| Application Examples (10 pts) | Clear, practical examples demonstrating method application; well-chosen illustrations | Good examples with adequate explanation; examples generally appropriate | Examples present but could be clearer or more relevant | Examples missing, unclear, or inappropriate |
| Critical Analysis & Course Integration (10 pts) | Thoughtful discussion of strengths/limitations; excellent connections to course concepts | Good analysis with clear connections to course material | Basic discussion of strengths/limitations; some course connections | Superficial analysis; weak or missing course connections |
4.2 Teaching Segment (30 points)
| Criterion | Excellent (27-30 pts) | Proficient (22-26 pts) | Developing (17-21 pts) | Inadequate (<17 pts) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clarity and Engagement (15 pts) | Exceptionally clear explanation; highly engaging presentation that maintains class attention | Clear explanation with good engagement; students follow the material well | Generally clear but some confusing moments; moderate engagement | Unclear explanation; poor engagement or class appears confused |
| Course Integration (10 pts) | Explicit, meaningful connections to multiple course concepts; demonstrates deep understanding | Clear connections to course material with good understanding evident | Some connections made but could be stronger or more explicit | Weak or missing connections to course concepts |
| Interactive Discussion (5 pts) | Skillfully facilitates meaningful discussion; encourages participation and handles questions well | Facilitates good discussion with appropriate participation | Basic discussion facilitation; some participation encouraged | Poor discussion facilitation; minimal or forced participation |
4.3 Research Proposal (40 points)
| Criterion | Excellent (36-40 pts) | Proficient (31-35 pts) | Developing (26-30 pts) | Inadequate (<26 pts) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Problem Significance (12 pts) | Compelling motivation for important hydroclimate problem; clear broader significance | Good problem motivation with clear relevance to field | Adequate problem statement but significance could be stronger | Weak problem motivation; unclear significance or relevance |
| Literature Review (10 pts) | Comprehensive, well-synthesized review; clearly positions proposed work | Good literature coverage with clear positioning | Adequate literature review but synthesis could be stronger | Incomplete or poorly synthesized literature review |
| Methodology (12 pts) | Detailed, feasible plan with clear implementation steps; appropriate validation approach | Generally detailed plan with minor gaps; reasonable implementation approach | Basic methodology but lacks detail or has feasibility concerns | Unclear, incomplete, or unrealistic methodology |
| Professional Presentation (6 pts) | Excellent writing quality; proper citations; professional formatting and organization | Good writing with proper citations; well-organized | Adequate writing quality; minor citation or formatting issues | Poor writing quality; significant formatting or citation problems |