iRubric: Biology Department Lab Report Assessment rubric

edit print share Copy to my rubrics Bookmark test run assess... delete Do more...
Biology Department Lab Report Assessment Biology Department Lab Report Assessment For Assessment of Biology Majors' ability to communicate scientific information in a written format. Rubric Code: W6B28A By wilmagiol Ready to use Public Rubric Subject: Biology Type: Writing Grade Levels: (none)

Lab Report Assessment
	Excellent 5 pts	Very Good 4 pts	Good 3 pts	Average 2 pts	Poor 1 pts
Title	Excellent The lab report has well-constructed, concise title that reflects the experiments and results	Very Good The lab report has a title that reflects the experiments and results but could have been stated better	Good The lab report has a title that reflects the experiments and results but is not clearly stated	Average The lab report has a title that somewhat reflects the either experiments or results but is not clearly stated	Poor The lab report either has not title or the title is irrelevant/unclear
Introduction
Purpose	Excellent the overall purpose for undertaking the research or experiment(s) is stated in a clear, concise manner.	Very Good the overall purpose for undertaking the research or experiment(s) is stated fully, but could have been worded more concisely/directly	Good the overall purpose for undertaking the research or experiment(s) is stated fully, but in an unclear manner	Average the overall purpose for undertaking the research or experiment(s) is not stated fully, and is unclear	Poor the overall purpose for undertaking the research or experiment(s) is not stated, or is erroneous or irrelevant
Background	Excellent Clear, concise discussion of background information and previous observations that support the importance/ rationale of undertaking the experiment(s). Reputable background sources were used and cited correctly.	Very Good Mostly clear discussion of background information that supports the importance/rationale of the experiment and includes at least a few previous observations. ams	Good Relevant background information was included, but the connection with the experiment was not made clear. ams	Average Some background information was included, but it was not particularly relevant. ams	Poor No attempt was made to include background information. ams
Hypothesis	Excellent At least two clear, concise, relevant and testable overall hypotheses are stated along with one or more predictions. ams	Very Good A clear, concise, relevant and testable overall hypothesis is stated, but second hypothesis or prediction is absent. ams	Good One hypothesis or research question is clearly stated, but no other hypotheses or predictions are given. ams	Average Objective or purpose is stated, but hypotheses and research questions are lacking. ams	Poor Objective, purpose, hypotheses, and predictions are all absent. ams
Materials and Methods
Content	Excellent Addresses only the techniques and procedures used, including statistical analysis when applicable. Summarizes all the methods used while citing the protocol. Well organized clear, concise narrative that does not include lists. Methods are described in the past tense, using active voice. ams	Very Good Addresses only the techniques and procedures used, including statistical analysis when applicable. Summarizes all the methods used while citing the protocol. Does not include lists. Clarity is diminished by the presence of a few minor grammatical problems, such as vague language, excessive use of passive voice, dangling modifiers, or unclear antecedents. ams	Good While the report addresses and cites techniques and procedures appropriately, it contains numerous small grammatical errors or lacks citations. ams	Average Contain one or two serious grammatical errors (e.g., written as instructions, mixed tenses, incomplete sentences). Or: contains numerous small grammatical problems and lacks citations. ams	Poor Plagiarized. ams
Replicability	Excellent Procedures are clearly replicable. All steps, including data analysis and statistical testing, are outlined sequentially and are clearly explained (or cited) and adequately detailed.	Very Good Procedures appear to be replicable. Steps, including data analysis, are outlined and are adequately detailed (or cited).	Good All steps are outlined and/ or cited, but there is not enough detail to replicate procedures.	Average One or a two steps (such as data analysis) are missing.	Poor Several steps are not outlined AND there is not enough detail to replicate procedures.
Results
Figures/Tables	Excellent Professional looking and accurate representation of the data in tables and/or figures that are labeled and titled. Legends are included where needed so that Table and Figures can stand alone. Units are given. ams	Very Good Title accurately describes content. Headers and stubs clearly organize data field without repetitive or redundant descriptors. Uncluttered. Plots appropriate for type of results obtained (scatter, bar, histogram etc.) Legend for notes complete. rlh	Good Figure/Table Numbered and Title present, but cannot stand alone. Headers and stubs organize data field. Columns and rows aligned. Plots appropriately sized and identified. rlh	Average Appropriate figures and tables are included but contain some errors or inaccuracies (such as missing units, mismatched scale, scale not starting from zero, missing titles, legends, or captions, etc.). Tables and figures cannot stand alone, and some are not represented adequately. ams	Poor Figures and tables are absent or completely inappropriate. ams
Results Narrative	Excellent Results narrative can stand alone, but includes references to tables/figures. Does not include methodology or conclusions. Data are summarized. Units and results of statistical tests are given. ams	Very Good Results narrative does not include reference to tables and figures, but can stand alone. Data are summarized and units are given. Statistical results are given. One or two sentences of methods or conclusions are present. ams	Good An important element (such are results of statistical tests) is missing. Some grammatical errors are present. ams	Average Results narrative present but it cannot stand alone. Some major grammatical problems are present. Several sentences of methods or conclusions are included. ams	Poor Results narrative absent. ams
Discussion/Conclusions
Analysis of Results	Excellent The relationship between the variables is discussed and trends/patterns logically analyzed. Predictions are made about what might happen if part of the lab were changed or how the experimental design could be changed.	Very Good The relationship between the variables is discussed and trends/patterns logically analyzed.	Good The relationship between the variables is discussed but no patterns, trends or predictions are made based on the data.	Average An attempt is made to discuss the relationships among different variables, but the arguments are not relevant or are unclear.	Poor The relationship between the variables is not discussed.
Limitations of Design	Excellent Several Limitations of the Experimental design are discussed clearly with alternative strategies given	Very Good Several Limitations of the Experimental design are discussed clearly but few alternate strategies are suggested, although clearly	Good Several Limitations of the Experimental design are discussed but alternate strategies are not given	Average Limitations are discussed but are mostly irrelevant or are unclear	Poor No limitations are discussed
Implications of Findings	Excellent Clearly states what results will contribute to the field in general. Link back to questions posed in the introduction. Clear statement of support/refute of hypothesis.	Very Good Draws some connections back to questions posed in the introduction. suggests that the data supports the hypothesis	Good Attempt to Link back to questions posed in the introduction attempt to show data connection to hypothesis but poorly argued	Average Attempt to discuss implications made but not effectively written, no clear connection between results and hypothesis made	Poor Implications/Hypothesis not discussed.
Future Directions	Excellent Clear, effective discussion of two or more future directions, with rationale.	Very Good Effective discussion of at least one future direction with rationale	Good Discussion of two or more future directions, but lacking supporting rationale	Average Discussion at least one future direction, but lacking supporting rationale	Poor Future directions not discussed
Works Cited
Works Cited	Excellent Includes a bibliography section that is consistently and neatly formatted with all references used in text listed. Sources are appropriate and reputable.	Very Good Includes complete bibliography, only issue is minor inconsistent formatting of list. Sources are appropriate and reputable.	Good Includes complete bibliography for each in-text citation, but one or two references are incomplete. One or two sources are questionable sources for an academic work.	Average Bibliography is not complete/missing a few of the citations given in-text. and/OR More than two sources are questionable sources for an academic work. and/or several citations are incomplete	Poor Bibliography either not included or extremely poor.
Overall effect/grammar
Grammar	Excellent Excellent	Very Good Only a few minor problems (subject-verb agreement issues)	Good Some problems with grammar, few sentences poorly constructed	Average Some poorly constructed sentences and paragraphs, but bad grammar doesn't completely misconstrue meaning.	Poor Poorly constructed sentences and paragraphs,causing multiple instanced of completely misconstrued meaning.
Overall effective Report	Excellent Excellent	Very Good Very good	Good Good	Average Average	Poor Poor

Subjects:

Biology

Types:

Writing

Discuss this rubric