| 1. [i] Image or [s] sketch or [dr] drawing | |
| 3 | image, sketch, or drawing that is clear and informative with correct labels OR image fully appropriate to laboratory, original, explanatory, captions as appropriate |
| 2 | Sketch is clear and complete, only a minor issues such as a mislabel, unoriginal, or lack of a necessary caption |
| 1 | Sketch is confusing, unclear, not well done, or inappropriate image |
| 0 | Omitted |
| 2. [d] Data (often in a table of results) | |
| +1 | per variable or correct data element |
| 3. [t] Data table format (where appropriate) | |
| 3 | Clear, concise, well thought out, informative, labels and units in the head |
| 2 | Missing borders or other minor format inconsistencies, or missing units in the head |
| 1 | Incomplete, runs off edges of page, lacks minimal margins, or missing two or more elements such as borders and units |
| 0 | Omitted |
| 4. [g] Data display: Graph | |
| 3 | Correct graph type, correct axis labels |
| 2 | Missing a label or other element, or reversed x and y axes on an xy scattergraph |
| 1 | wrong graph type(s), or plotting the wrong data, or wrong result on graph, or otherwise incorrect |
| 0 | Omitted |
| 5. [a] Data analysis: mathematical and/or statistical analysis | |
| +1 | per correct analysis item. e.g. slope, intercept, linearity, conductivity, using mean of multiple measures, extending dependent variable to domain limits, conversion calculations, other calculated or derived results |
| 6. [c] Conclusions – Content | |
| Each student must write their own individual conclusion. I want to assess each individual student's reasoning and writing ability. Where a lab team writes and submits a single common conclusion, the conclusion points are split between the team members. | |
| 5 | Thoughtfully put together, well-reasoned, logical, sensible. Fully complete and thorough summary of the findings of the laboratory. Correct usage of vocabulary, appropriate use of scientific concepts. Discusses potential sources of error and how these were controlled. Includes background research on the laboratory subject. Cites appropriate text book information related to laboratory. |
| 4 | Moderately well reasoned. Relevant and adequate answer to the task set with only a single gap or missing task item. |
| 3 | For the most part answers the task set, though there may be gaps or redundant information, or the conclusion is essentially tangential to the experiments, or based on misconceptions, or incorrect conclusion, muddled |
| 2 | Conclusion of little relevance to the laboratory, major gaps, or overly short such as to be incomplete, Confusing, or highly incomplete, or illogical, or made confusing by serious grammar problems, or merely restated the procedure, or a variant of a non-specific and vague "I learned a lot in this laboratory" |
| 1 | Bears little relation to the task set, unclear, very confusing, not well reasoned, extremely tangential, or extraordinarily weak. Almost incomprehensible, or a single (one to two) sentence conclusion |
| 0 | Omitted |
| 7. [cf] Conclusion format | |
| +1 | Double spaced |
| [G] Grammar and Syntax [-2 if conclusion too short to judge grammar properly] | |
| 5 | No errors of grammar or word order. |
| 4 | Some errors of grammar or word order but communication not impaired. |
| 3 | Fairly frequent errors of grammar or word order; occasional re-reading necessary for full comprehension. |
| 2 | Frequent errors of grammar or word order; efforts of interpretation sometimes required on reader's part. |
| 1 | Very frequent errors of grammar or word orde; reader often has to rely on own interpretation. |
| 0 | Errors of grammar or word order so severe as to make comprehension virtually impossible. |
| [V] Vocabulary [-2 if conclusion too short – taken as evidence of vocabulary limitations] | |
| 5 | Appropriate terms used consistently, clear command of vocabulary with a focus on correct usage of physical science vocabulary, no misspelled words. |
| 4 | Occasionally uses inappropriate terms or relies on circumlocution; expression of ideas not impaired; or a few misspelled words. |
| 3 | Uses wrong or inappropriate words fairly frequently; expression of ideas may be limited because of inadequate vocabulary, or many misspelled words. |
| 2 | Limited vocabulary and frequent errors clearly hinder expression of ideas. |
| 1 | Vocabulary so limited and so frequently misused that reader must often rely on own interpretation. |
| 0 | Vocabulary limitations so extreme as to make comprehension virtually impossible. |
| [O] Organization | |
| 5 | All sections present in the proper order. Material exceptionally well organized. Conclusion well structured with introductory and concluding phrases. |
| 4 | One section out of sequence or omitted. Material well organized; structure could occasionally be clearer but communication not impaired. |
| 3 | Multiple sections out of sequence, some lack of organization; re-reading required for clarification of ideas. For example, tables and graphs printed from a spreadsheet and then stapled to the back of a lab write-up printed from a word processing program. |
| 2 | Multiple sections omitted. Little or no attempt at connectivity, though reader can deduce some organization. |
| 1 | Individual ideas may be clear, but very difficult to deduce connection between them. |
| 0 | Lack of organization so severe that communication is seriously impaired. |
| [C] Cohesion [0 if conclusion too short to judge cohesion] | |
| 5 | Consistent choices in cohesive structures. Ideas flow logically. Conclusion remains on topic. Connector words assist the reader. |
| 4 | Occasional lack of consistency in choice of cohesive structures and vocabulary but overall ease of communication not impaired. |
| 3 | Patchy, with some cohesive structures or vocabulary items noticeably inappropriate to general style. Ideas tend to be disconnected from each other. Reads more like an outline than a coherent essay, or written as a list of answers to questions without connector words and phrases generating a choppy, disjoint style |
| 2 | Cohesive structures or vocabulary items sometimes not only inappropriate but also misused; little sense of ease of communication. Connector words and phrases confuse and mislead the reader, but sense can be made of the conclusion. |
| 1 | Communication often impaired by completely inappropriate or misused cohesive structures or vocabulary items making it difficult to make scientific sense of the conclusion. |
| 0 | A 'hodgepodge' of half-learned misused cohesive structures and vocabulary items rendering communication almost impossible. |
| 2. [d] Data (often in a table of results) | |
| +1 | volume data |
| +1 | density data |
| 3. [t] Data table format (where appropriate) | |
| 3 | Clear, concise, well thought out, informative, labels and units in the head |
| 2 | Missing borders or other minor format inconsistencies, or missing units in the head |
| 1 | Incomplete, runs off edges of page, lacks minimal margins, or missing two or more elements such as borders and units |
| 0 | Omitted |
| 5. [a] Data analysis: mathematical and/or statistical analysis | |
| +1 | mean |
| +1 | standard deviation |
| 6. [c] Conclusions – Content | |
| Each student must write their own individual conclusion. I want to assess each individual student's reasoning and writing ability. Where a lab team writes and submits a single common conclusion, the conclusion points are split between the team members. | |
| 5 | Thoughtfully put together, well-reasoned, logical, sensible. Fully complete and thorough summary of the findings of the laboratory. Correct usage of vocabulary, appropriate use of scientific concepts. Discusses potential sources of error and how these were controlled. Includes background research on the laboratory subject. Cites appropriate text book information related to laboratory. |
| 4 | Moderately well reasoned. Relevant and adequate answer to the task set with only a single gap or missing task item. |
| 3 | For the most part answers the task set, though there may be gaps or redundant information, or the conclusion is essentially tangential to the experiments, or based on misconceptions, or incorrect conclusion, muddled |
| 2 | Conclusion of little relevance to the laboratory, major gaps, or overly short such as to be incomplete, Confusing, or highly incomplete, or illogical, or made confusing by serious grammar problems, or merely restated the procedure, or a variant of a non-specific and vague "I learned a lot in this laboratory" |
| 1 | Bears little relation to the task set, unclear, very confusing, not well reasoned, extremely tangential, or extraordinarily weak. Almost incomprehensible, or a single (one to two) sentence conclusion |
| 0 | Omitted |
| 7. [f] Format [cf] | |
| +1 | Double spaced |
| [G] Grammar and Syntax [-2 if conclusion too short to judge grammar properly] | |
| 5 | No errors of grammar or word order. |
| 4 | Some errors of grammar or word order but communication not impaired. |
| 3 | Fairly frequent errors of grammar or word order; occasional re-reading necessary for full comprehension. |
| 2 | Frequent errors of grammar or word order; efforts of interpretation sometimes required on reader's part. |
| 1 | Very frequent errors of grammar or word orde; reader often has to rely on own interpretation. |
| 0 | Errors of grammar or word order so severe as to make comprehension virtually impossible. |
| [V] Vocabulary [-2 if conclusion too short – taken as evidence of vocabulary limitations] | |
| 5 | Appropriate terms used consistently, clear command of vocabulary with a focus on correct usage of physical science vocabulary, no misspelled words. |
| 4 | Occasionally uses inappropriate terms or relies on circumlocution; expression of ideas not impaired; or a few misspelled words. |
| 3 | Uses wrong or inappropriate words fairly frequently; expression of ideas may be limited because of inadequate vocabulary, or many misspelled words. |
| 2 | Limited vocabulary and frequent errors clearly hinder expression of ideas. |
| 1 | Vocabulary so limited and so frequently misused that reader must often rely on own interpretation. |
| 0 | Vocabulary limitations so extreme as to make comprehension virtually impossible. |
| [O] Organization | |
| 5 | All sections present in the proper order. Material exceptionally well organized. Conclusion well structured with introductory and concluding phrases. |
| 4 | One section out of sequence or omitted. Material well organized; structure could occasionally be clearer but communication not impaired. |
| 3 | Multiple sections out of sequence, some lack of organization; re-reading required for clarification of ideas. For example, tables and graphs printed from a spreadsheet and then stapled to the back of a lab write-up printed from a word processing program. |
| 2 | Multiple sections omitted. Little or no attempt at connectivity, though reader can deduce some organization. |
| 1 | Individual ideas may be clear, but very difficult to deduce connection between them. |
| 0 | Lack of organization so severe that communication is seriously impaired. |
| [C] Cohesion [0 if conclusion too short to judge cohesion] | |
| 5 | Consistent choices in cohesive structures. Ideas flow logically. Conclusion remains on topic. Connector words assist the reader. |
| 4 | Occasional lack of consistency in choice of cohesive structures and vocabulary but overall ease of communication not impaired. |
| 3 | Patchy, with some cohesive structures or vocabulary items noticeably inappropriate to general style. Ideas tend to be disconnected from each other. Reads more like an outline than a coherent essay, or written as a list of answers to questions without connector words and phrases generating a choppy, disjoint style |
| 2 | Cohesive structures or vocabulary items sometimes not only inappropriate but also misused; little sense of ease of communication. Connector words and phrases confuse and mislead the reader, but sense can be made of the conclusion. |
| 1 | Communication often impaired by completely inappropriate or misused cohesive structures or vocabulary items making it difficult to make scientific sense of the conclusion. |
| 0 | A 'hodgepodge' of half-learned misused cohesive structures and vocabulary items rendering communication almost impossible. |
| 2. [d] Data (often in a table of results) | |
| +1 | distance data |
| +1 | average fast distance |
| +1 | average slow distance |
| 3. [t] Data table format | |
| 3 | Clear, concise, well thought out, informative, labels and units in the head |
| 2 | Missing borders or other minor format inconsistencies, or missing units in the head |
| 1 | Incomplete, runs off edges of page, lacks minimal margins, or missing two or more elements such as borders and units |
| 4. [g] Data display: Graph | |
| 3 | Correct graph type, correct axis labels, both the fast and slow balls shown on one graph |
| 2 | Missing a label or other element, or reversed x and y axes on an xy scattergraph, or separate graphs for the fast and slow ball |
| 1 | wrong graph type(s), or plotting the wrong data, or wrong result on graph, or otherwise incorrect |
| 5. [a] Data analysis: mathematical and/or statistical analysis | |
| +1 | fast ball slope |
| +1 | slow ball slope |
| 6. [c] Conclusions – Content | |
| Each student must write their own individual conclusion. I want to assess each individual student's reasoning and writing ability. Where a lab team writes and submits a single common conclusion, the conclusion points are split between the team members. | |
| 5 | Thoughtfully put together, well-reasoned, logical, sensible. Fully complete and thorough summary of the findings of the laboratory. Correct usage of vocabulary, appropriate use of scientific concepts. Discusses potential sources of error and how these were controlled. Includes background research on the laboratory subject. Cites appropriate text book information related to laboratory. |
| 4 | Moderately well reasoned. Relevant and adequate answer to the task set with only a single gap or missing task item. |
| 3 | For the most part answers the task set, though there may be gaps or redundant information, or the conclusion is essentially tangential to the experiments, or based on misconceptions, or incorrect conclusion, muddled |
| 2 | Conclusion of little relevance to the laboratory, major gaps, or overly short such as to be incomplete, Confusing, or highly incomplete, or illogical, or made confusing by serious grammar problems, or merely restated the procedure, or a variant of a non-specific and vague "I learned a lot in this laboratory" |
| 1 | Bears little relation to the task set, unclear, very confusing, not well reasoned, extremely tangential, or extraordinarily weak. Almost incomprehensible, or a single (one to two) sentence conclusion |
| 0 | Omitted |
| 7. [f] Format | |
| +1 | Double spaced |
| [G] Grammar and Syntax [-2 if conclusion too short to judge grammar properly] | |
| 5 | No errors of grammar or word order. |
| 4 | Some errors of grammar or word order but communication not impaired. |
| 3 | Fairly frequent errors of grammar or word order; occasional re-reading necessary for full comprehension. |
| 2 | Frequent errors of grammar or word order; efforts of interpretation sometimes required on reader's part. |
| 1 | Very frequent errors of grammar or word orde; reader often has to rely on own interpretation. |
| 0 | Errors of grammar or word order so severe as to make comprehension virtually impossible. |
| [V] Vocabulary [-2 if conclusion too short – taken as evidence of vocabulary limitations] | |
| 5 | Appropriate terms used consistently, clear command of vocabulary with a focus on correct usage of physical science vocabulary, no misspelled words. |
| 4 | Occasionally uses inappropriate terms or relies on circumlocution; expression of ideas not impaired; or a few misspelled words. |
| 3 | Uses wrong or inappropriate words fairly frequently; expression of ideas may be limited because of inadequate vocabulary, or many misspelled words. |
| 2 | Limited vocabulary and frequent errors clearly hinder expression of ideas. |
| 1 | Vocabulary so limited and so frequently misused that reader must often rely on own interpretation. |
| 0 | Vocabulary limitations so extreme as to make comprehension virtually impossible. |
| [O] Organization | |
| 5 | All sections present in the proper order. Material exceptionally well organized. Conclusion well structured with introductory and concluding phrases. |
| 4 | One section out of sequence or omitted. Material well organized; structure could occasionally be clearer but communication not impaired. |
| 3 | Multiple sections out of sequence, some lack of organization; re-reading required for clarification of ideas. For example, tables and graphs printed from a spreadsheet and then stapled to the back of a lab write-up printed from a word processing program. |
| 2 | Multiple sections omitted. Little or no attempt at connectivity, though reader can deduce some organization. |
| 1 | Individual ideas may be clear, but very difficult to deduce connection between them. |
| 0 | Lack of organization so severe that communication is seriously impaired. |
| [C] Cohesion [0 if conclusion too short to judge cohesion] | |
| 5 | Consistent choices in cohesive structures. Ideas flow logically. Conclusion remains on topic. Connector words assist the reader. |
| 4 | Occasional lack of consistency in choice of cohesive structures and vocabulary but overall ease of communication not impaired. |
| 3 | Patchy, with some cohesive structures or vocabulary items noticeably inappropriate to general style. Ideas tend to be disconnected from each other. Reads more like an outline than a coherent essay, or written as a list of answers to questions without connector words and phrases generating a choppy, disjoint style |
| 2 | Cohesive structures or vocabulary items sometimes not only inappropriate but also misused; little sense of ease of communication. Connector words and phrases confuse and mislead the reader, but sense can be made of the conclusion. |
| 1 | Communication often impaired by completely inappropriate or misused cohesive structures or vocabulary items making it difficult to make scientific sense of the conclusion. |
| 0 | A 'hodgepodge' of half-learned misused cohesive structures and vocabulary items rendering communication almost impossible. |
| 2. [d] Data (often in a table of results) | |
| +1 | five drop times |
| +1 | mean drop time |
| +1 | squared times |
| 3. [t] Data tables format (both tables) | |
| 3 | Clear, concise, well thought out, informative, labels and units in the head |
| 2 | Missing borders or other minor format inconsistencies, or missing units in the head |
| 1 | Incomplete, runs off edges of page, lacks minimal margins, or missing two or more elements such as borders and units |
| 4. [g] Data display: Quadratic Graph | |
| 3 | Correct graph type, correct axis labels |
| 2 | Missing a label or other element, or reversed x and y axes on an xy scattergraph, or separate graphs for the fast and slow ball |
| 1 | wrong graph type(s), or plotting the wrong data, or wrong result on graph, or otherwise incorrect |
| 4. [g] Data display: Linear Graph | |
| 3 | Correct graph type, correct axis labels |
| 2 | Missing a label or other element, or reversed x and y axes on an xy scattergraph, or separate graphs for the fast and slow ball |
| 1 | wrong graph type(s), or plotting the wrong data, or wrong result on graph, or otherwise incorrect |
| 5. [a] Data analysis: mathematical and/or statistical analysis | |
| +1 | slope calculation correctly done |
| +1 | calculation of a value for g |
| 6. [c] Conclusions – Content | |
| Each student must write their own individual conclusion. I want to assess each individual student's reasoning and writing ability. Where a lab team writes and submits a single common conclusion, the conclusion points are split between the team members. | |
| 5 | Thoughtfully put together, well-reasoned, logical, sensible. Fully complete and thorough summary of the findings of the laboratory. Correct usage of vocabulary, appropriate use of scientific concepts. Discusses potential sources of error and how these were controlled. Includes background research on the laboratory subject. Cites appropriate text book information related to laboratory. |
| 4 | Moderately well reasoned. Relevant and adequate answer to the task set with only a single gap or missing task item. |
| 3 | For the most part answers the task set, though there may be gaps or redundant information, or the conclusion is essentially tangential to the experiments, or based on misconceptions, or incorrect conclusion, muddled |
| 2 | Conclusion of little relevance to the laboratory, major gaps, or overly short such as to be incomplete, Confusing, or highly incomplete, or illogical, or made confusing by serious grammar problems, or merely restated the procedure, or a variant of a non-specific and vague "I learned a lot in this laboratory" |
| 1 | Bears little relation to the task set, unclear, very confusing, not well reasoned, extremely tangential, or extraordinarily weak. Almost incomprehensible, or a single (one to two) sentence conclusion |
| 0 | Omitted |
| 7. [f] Format | |
| +1 | Double spaced |
| [G] Grammar and Syntax [-2 if conclusion too short to judge grammar properly] | |
| 5 | No errors of grammar or word order. |
| 4 | Some errors of grammar or word order but communication not impaired. |
| 3 | Fairly frequent errors of grammar or word order; occasional re-reading necessary for full comprehension. |
| 2 | Frequent errors of grammar or word order; efforts of interpretation sometimes required on reader's part. |
| 1 | Very frequent errors of grammar or word orde; reader often has to rely on own interpretation. |
| 0 | Errors of grammar or word order so severe as to make comprehension virtually impossible. |
| [V] Vocabulary [-2 if conclusion too short – taken as evidence of vocabulary limitations] | |
| 5 | Appropriate terms used consistently, clear command of vocabulary with a focus on correct usage of physical science vocabulary, no misspelled words. |
| 4 | Occasionally uses inappropriate terms or relies on circumlocution; expression of ideas not impaired; or a few misspelled words. |
| 3 | Uses wrong or inappropriate words fairly frequently; expression of ideas may be limited because of inadequate vocabulary, or many misspelled words. |
| 2 | Limited vocabulary and frequent errors clearly hinder expression of ideas. |
| 1 | Vocabulary so limited and so frequently misused that reader must often rely on own interpretation. |
| 0 | Vocabulary limitations so extreme as to make comprehension virtually impossible. |
| [O] Organization | |
| 5 | All sections present in the proper order. Material exceptionally well organized. Conclusion well structured with introductory and concluding phrases. |
| 4 | One section out of sequence or omitted. Material well organized; structure could occasionally be clearer but communication not impaired. |
| 3 | Multiple sections out of sequence, some lack of organization; re-reading required for clarification of ideas. For example, tables and graphs printed from a spreadsheet and then stapled to the back of a lab write-up printed from a word processing program. |
| 2 | Multiple sections omitted. Little or no attempt at connectivity, though reader can deduce some organization. |
| 1 | Individual ideas may be clear, but very difficult to deduce connection between them. |
| 0 | Lack of organization so severe that communication is seriously impaired. |
| [C] Cohesion [0 if conclusion too short to judge cohesion] | |
| 5 | Consistent choices in cohesive structures. Ideas flow logically. Conclusion remains on topic. Connector words assist the reader. |
| 4 | Occasional lack of consistency in choice of cohesive structures and vocabulary but overall ease of communication not impaired. |
| 3 | Patchy, with some cohesive structures or vocabulary items noticeably inappropriate to general style. Ideas tend to be disconnected from each other. Reads more like an outline than a coherent essay, or written as a list of answers to questions without connector words and phrases generating a choppy, disjoint style |
| 2 | Cohesive structures or vocabulary items sometimes not only inappropriate but also misused; little sense of ease of communication. Connector words and phrases confuse and mislead the reader, but sense can be made of the conclusion. |
| 1 | Communication often impaired by completely inappropriate or misused cohesive structures or vocabulary items making it difficult to make scientific sense of the conclusion. |
| 0 | A 'hodgepodge' of half-learned misused cohesive structures and vocabulary items rendering communication almost impossible. |
| Rubric for laboratory four momentum | |
| 1. [d] Data tables, diagrams (if deemed appropriate) | |
| +1 | some form of diagram of the first part of the lab, alternately could be a table. Flexible. |
| +1 | initial momentum inbound "blue" duck |
| +1 | final momentum inbound "blue" duck |
| +1 | final momentum sitting "white" duck |
| 3. [t] Data tables format | |
| 3 | Clear, concise, well thought out, informative, labels and units in the head |
| 2 | Missing borders or other minor format inconsistencies, or missing units in the head |
| 1 | Incomplete, runs off edges of page, lacks minimal margins, or missing two or more elements such as borders and units |
| 5. [a] Data analysis: mathematical and/or statistical analysis | |
| +1 | momentum conserved in part one and two? |
| +1 | final momentum inbound "blue" duck |
| +1 | calculation of the percentage loss/gain of momentum in part two |
| 6. [c] Conclusions – Content | |
| Each student must write their own individual conclusion. I want to assess each individual student's reasoning and writing ability. Where a lab team writes and submits a single common conclusion, the conclusion points are split between the team members. | |
| 5 | Thoughtfully put together, well-reasoned, logical, sensible. Fully complete and thorough summary of the findings of the laboratory. Correct usage of vocabulary, appropriate use of scientific concepts. Discusses potential sources of error and how these were controlled. Includes background research on the laboratory subject. Cites appropriate text book information related to laboratory. |
| 4 | Moderately well reasoned. Relevant and adequate answer to the task set with only a single gap or missing task item. |
| 3 | For the most part answers the task set, though there may be gaps or redundant information, or the conclusion is essentially tangential to the experiments, or based on misconceptions, or incorrect conclusion, muddled |
| 2 | Conclusion of little relevance to the laboratory, major gaps, or overly short such as to be incomplete, Confusing, or highly incomplete, or illogical, or made confusing by serious grammar problems, or merely restated the procedure, or a variant of a non-specific and vague "I learned a lot in this laboratory" |
| 1 | Bears little relation to the task set, unclear, very confusing, not well reasoned, extremely tangential, or extraordinarily weak. Almost incomprehensible, or a single (one to two) sentence conclusion |
| 0 | Omitted |
| 7. [f] Format | |
| +1 | Double spaced |
| [G] Grammar and Syntax [-2 if conclusion too short to judge grammar properly] | |
| 5 | No errors of grammar or word order. |
| 4 | Some errors of grammar or word order but communication not impaired. |
| 3 | Fairly frequent errors of grammar or word order; occasional re-reading necessary for full comprehension. |
| 2 | Frequent errors of grammar or word order; efforts of interpretation sometimes required on reader's part. |
| 1 | Very frequent errors of grammar or word orde; reader often has to rely on own interpretation. |
| 0 | Errors of grammar or word order so severe as to make comprehension virtually impossible. |
| [V] Vocabulary [-2 if conclusion too short – taken as evidence of vocabulary limitations] | |
| 5 | Appropriate terms used consistently, clear command of vocabulary with a focus on correct usage of physical science vocabulary, no misspelled words. |
| 4 | Occasionally uses inappropriate terms or relies on circumlocution; expression of ideas not impaired; or a few misspelled words. |
| 3 | Uses wrong or inappropriate words fairly frequently; expression of ideas may be limited because of inadequate vocabulary, or many misspelled words. |
| 2 | Limited vocabulary and frequent errors clearly hinder expression of ideas. |
| 1 | Vocabulary so limited and so frequently misused that reader must often rely on own interpretation. |
| 0 | Vocabulary limitations so extreme as to make comprehension virtually impossible. |
| [O] Organization | |
| 5 | All sections present in the proper order. Material exceptionally well organized. Conclusion well structured with introductory and concluding phrases. |
| 4 | One section out of sequence or omitted. Material well organized; structure could occasionally be clearer but communication not impaired. |
| 3 | Multiple sections out of sequence, some lack of organization; re-reading required for clarification of ideas. For example, tables and graphs printed from a spreadsheet and then stapled to the back of a lab write-up printed from a word processing program. |
| 2 | Multiple sections omitted. Little or no attempt at connectivity, though reader can deduce some organization. |
| 1 | Individual ideas may be clear, but very difficult to deduce connection between them. |
| 0 | Lack of organization so severe that communication is seriously impaired. |
| [C] Cohesion [0 if conclusion too short to judge cohesion] | |
| 5 | Consistent choices in cohesive structures. Ideas flow logically. Conclusion remains on topic. Connector words assist the reader. |
| 4 | Occasional lack of consistency in choice of cohesive structures and vocabulary but overall ease of communication not impaired. |
| 3 | Patchy, with some cohesive structures or vocabulary items noticeably inappropriate to general style. Ideas tend to be disconnected from each other. Reads more like an outline than a coherent essay, or written as a list of answers to questions without connector words and phrases generating a choppy, disjoint style |
| 2 | Cohesive structures or vocabulary items sometimes not only inappropriate but also misused; little sense of ease of communication. Connector words and phrases confuse and mislead the reader, but sense can be made of the conclusion. |
| 1 | Communication often impaired by completely inappropriate or misused cohesive structures or vocabulary items making it difficult to make scientific sense of the conclusion. |
| 0 | A 'hodgepodge' of half-learned misused cohesive structures and vocabulary items rendering communication almost impossible. |
| Rubric for laboratory 05 Heat conduction | |
| 1. [d] Data table(s) structure and layout up to the student | |
| +1 | per material |
| 2. [t] Data tables format | |
| 3 | Clear, concise, well thought out, informative, labels and units in the head |
| 2 | Missing borders or other minor format inconsistencies, or missing units in the head |
| 1 | Incomplete, runs off edges of page, lacks minimal margins, or missing two or more elements such as borders and units |
| 3. [g] Data display: graphs and charts. | |
| 3 | Appropriate graph type(s), correct axis labels |
| 2 | Missing a label or other element |
| 1 | Inappropriate graph type(s) |
| 4. [a] Data analysis | |
| +1 | identified the material that conducted heat the most quickly |
| +1 | identified the material that conducted the most heat |
| +1 | graph(s) or chart(s) well represents the data gathered: simple, straightfoward, logical, clear, concise |
| 5. [c] Conclusions – Content | |
| Each student must write their own individual conclusion. I want to assess each individual student's reasoning and writing ability. Where a lab team writes and submits a single common conclusion, the conclusion points are split between the team members. | |
| 5 | Thoughtfully put together, well-reasoned, logical, sensible. Fully complete and thorough summary of the findings of the laboratory. Correct usage of vocabulary, appropriate use of scientific concepts. Discusses potential sources of error and how these were controlled. Includes background research on the laboratory subject. Cites appropriate text book information related to laboratory. |
| 4 | Moderately well reasoned. Relevant and adequate answer to the task set with only a single gap or missing task item. |
| 3 | For the most part answers the task set, though there may be gaps or redundant information, or the conclusion is essentially tangential to the experiments, or based on misconceptions, or incorrect conclusion, muddled |
| 2 | Conclusion of little relevance to the laboratory, major gaps, or overly short such as to be incomplete, Confusing, or highly incomplete, or illogical, or made confusing by serious grammar problems, or merely restated the procedure, or a variant of a non-specific and vague "I learned a lot in this laboratory" |
| 1 | Bears little relation to the task set, unclear, very confusing, not well reasoned, extremely tangential, or extraordinarily weak. Almost incomprehensible, or a single (one to two) sentence conclusion |
| 0 | Omitted |
| 6. [f] Format | |
| +1 | Double spaced |
| [G] Grammar and Syntax [-2 if conclusion too short to judge grammar properly] | |
| 5 | No errors of grammar or word order. |
| 4 | Some errors of grammar or word order but communication not impaired. |
| 3 | Fairly frequent errors of grammar or word order; occasional re-reading necessary for full comprehension. |
| 2 | Frequent errors of grammar or word order; efforts of interpretation sometimes required on reader's part. |
| 1 | Very frequent errors of grammar or word orde; reader often has to rely on own interpretation. |
| 0 | Errors of grammar or word order so severe as to make comprehension virtually impossible. |
| [V] Vocabulary [-2 if conclusion too short – taken as evidence of vocabulary limitations] | |
| 5 | Appropriate terms used consistently, clear command of vocabulary with a focus on correct usage of physical science vocabulary, no misspelled words. |
| 4 | Occasionally uses inappropriate terms or relies on circumlocution; expression of ideas not impaired; or a few misspelled words. |
| 3 | Uses wrong or inappropriate words fairly frequently; expression of ideas may be limited because of inadequate vocabulary, or many misspelled words. |
| 2 | Limited vocabulary and frequent errors clearly hinder expression of ideas. |
| 1 | Vocabulary so limited and so frequently misused that reader must often rely on own interpretation. |
| 0 | Vocabulary limitations so extreme as to make comprehension virtually impossible. |
| [O] Organization | |
| 5 | All sections present in the proper order. Material exceptionally well organized. Conclusion well structured with introductory and concluding phrases. |
| 4 | One section out of sequence or omitted. Material well organized; structure could occasionally be clearer but communication not impaired. |
| 3 | Multiple sections out of sequence, some lack of organization; re-reading required for clarification of ideas. For example, tables and graphs printed from a spreadsheet and then stapled to the back of a lab write-up printed from a word processing program. |
| 2 | Multiple sections omitted. Little or no attempt at connectivity, though reader can deduce some organization. |
| 1 | Individual ideas may be clear, but very difficult to deduce connection between them. |
| 0 | Lack of organization so severe that communication is seriously impaired. |
| [C] Cohesion [0 if conclusion too short to judge cohesion] | |
| 5 | Consistent choices in cohesive structures. Ideas flow logically. Conclusion remains on topic. Connector words assist the reader. |
| 4 | Occasional lack of consistency in choice of cohesive structures and vocabulary but overall ease of communication not impaired. |
| 3 | Patchy, with some cohesive structures or vocabulary items noticeably inappropriate to general style. Ideas tend to be disconnected from each other. Reads more like an outline than a coherent essay, or written as a list of answers to questions without connector words and phrases generating a choppy, disjoint style |
| 2 | Cohesive structures or vocabulary items sometimes not only inappropriate but also misused; little sense of ease of communication. Connector words and phrases confuse and mislead the reader, but sense can be made of the conclusion. |
| 1 | Communication often impaired by completely inappropriate or misused cohesive structures or vocabulary items making it difficult to make scientific sense of the conclusion. |
| 0 | A 'hodgepodge' of half-learned misused cohesive structures and vocabulary items rendering communication almost impossible. |
| Rubric for laboratory 06 ball bounce practical midterm exam | |
| 1. [d] Data table(s) structure and layout up to the student | |
| +1 | per bounce measured using means |
| 2. [t] Data tables format | |
| 3 | Clear, concise, well thought out, informative, labels and units in the head |
| 2 | Missing borders or other minor format inconsistencies, or missing units in the head |
| 1 | Incomplete, runs off edges of page, lacks minimal margins, or missing two or more elements such as borders and units |
| 3. [g] Data display: graphs and charts. | |
| 3 | xy scatter graph, correct axis labels |
| 2 | Missing a label or other element, or reversed x and y axes on an xy scattergraph |
| 1 | wrong graph type(s), or plotting the wrong data, or wrong result on graph, or otherwise incorrect |
| 4. [a] Data analysis: mathematical and/or statistical analysis | |
| +1 | Does the data appear to be modeled by a linear mathematical relationship? |
| +1 | If not linear, is there a pattern? Is there a mathematical relationship? |
| +1 | If you were given a bounce number, like the fourteenth bounce, could you calculate a mean bounce height from an equation? |
| +1 | Can you predict the total number of bounces until the ball stops bouncing? |
| +1 | Can the equation, if one exists, predict the total number of bounces? |
| +1 | Theoretically, what does the equation say about the total number of bounces? |
| +1 | Why does the ball stop bouncing? |
| 5. [c] Conclusions – Content | |
| Each student must write their own individual conclusion. I want to assess each individual student's reasoning and writing ability. Where a lab team writes and submits a single common conclusion, the conclusion points are split between the team members. | |
| 5 | Thoughtfully put together, well-reasoned, logical, sensible. Fully complete and thorough summary of the findings of the laboratory. Correct usage of vocabulary, appropriate use of scientific concepts. Discusses potential sources of error and how these were controlled. Includes background research on the laboratory subject. Cites appropriate text book information related to laboratory. |
| 4 | Moderately well reasoned. Relevant and adequate answer to the task set with only a single gap or missing task item. |
| 3 | For the most part answers the task set, though there may be gaps or redundant information, or the conclusion is essentially tangential to the experiments, or based on misconceptions, or incorrect conclusion, muddled |
| 2 | Conclusion of little relevance to the laboratory, major gaps, or overly short such as to be incomplete, Confusing, or highly incomplete, or illogical, or made confusing by serious grammar problems, or merely restated the procedure, or a variant of a non-specific and vague "I learned a lot in this laboratory" |
| 1 | Bears little relation to the task set, unclear, very confusing, not well reasoned, extremely tangential, or extraordinarily weak. Almost incomprehensible, or a single (one to two) sentence conclusion |
| 0 | Omitted |
| 6. [f] Format | |
| +1 | Double spaced |
| [G] Grammar and Syntax [-2 if conclusion too short to judge grammar properly] | |
| 5 | No errors of grammar or word order. |
| 4 | Some errors of grammar or word order but communication not impaired. |
| 3 | Fairly frequent errors of grammar or word order; occasional re-reading necessary for full comprehension. |
| 2 | Frequent errors of grammar or word order; efforts of interpretation sometimes required on reader's part. |
| 1 | Very frequent errors of grammar or word orde; reader often has to rely on own interpretation. |
| 0 | Errors of grammar or word order so severe as to make comprehension virtually impossible. |
| [V] Vocabulary [-2 if conclusion too short – taken as evidence of vocabulary limitations] | |
| 5 | Appropriate terms used consistently, clear command of vocabulary with a focus on correct usage of physical science vocabulary, no misspelled words. |
| 4 | Occasionally uses inappropriate terms or relies on circumlocution; expression of ideas not impaired; or a few misspelled words. |
| 3 | Uses wrong or inappropriate words fairly frequently; expression of ideas may be limited because of inadequate vocabulary, or many misspelled words. |
| 2 | Limited vocabulary and frequent errors clearly hinder expression of ideas. |
| 1 | Vocabulary so limited and so frequently misused that reader must often rely on own interpretation. |
| 0 | Vocabulary limitations so extreme as to make comprehension virtually impossible. |
| [O] Organization | |
| 5 | All sections present in the proper order. Material exceptionally well organized. Conclusion well structured with introductory and concluding phrases. |
| 4 | One section out of sequence or omitted. Material well organized; structure could occasionally be clearer but communication not impaired. |
| 3 | Multiple sections out of sequence, some lack of organization; re-reading required for clarification of ideas. For example, tables and graphs printed from a spreadsheet and then stapled to the back of a lab write-up printed from a word processing program. |
| 2 | Multiple sections omitted. Little or no attempt at connectivity, though reader can deduce some organization. |
| 1 | Individual ideas may be clear, but very difficult to deduce connection between them. |
| 0 | Lack of organization so severe that communication is seriously impaired. |
| [C] Cohesion [0 if conclusion too short to judge cohesion] | |
| 5 | Consistent choices in cohesive structures. Ideas flow logically. Conclusion remains on topic. Connector words assist the reader. |
| 4 | Occasional lack of consistency in choice of cohesive structures and vocabulary but overall ease of communication not impaired. |
| 3 | Patchy, with some cohesive structures or vocabulary items noticeably inappropriate to general style. Ideas tend to be disconnected from each other. Reads more like an outline than a coherent essay, or written as a list of answers to questions without connector words and phrases generating a choppy, disjoint style |
| 2 | Cohesive structures or vocabulary items sometimes not only inappropriate but also misused; little sense of ease of communication. Connector words and phrases confuse and mislead the reader, but sense can be made of the conclusion. |
| 1 | Communication often impaired by completely inappropriate or misused cohesive structures or vocabulary items making it difficult to make scientific sense of the conclusion. |
| 0 | A 'hodgepodge' of half-learned misused cohesive structures and vocabulary items rendering communication almost impossible. |
| Rubric for laboratory 07 Latitude, longitude, and linear measure | |
| 1. [d] Data tables content | |
| +1 | Latitude data |
| +1 | Longitude data |
| +1 | Garmin meters |
| +1 | Rolatape surveyor's wheel meters |
| +1 | Google Earth meters |
| 2. [t] Data table format | |
| 3 | Clear, concise, well thought out, informative, with benefit of doubt toward original layouts |
| 2 | Missing borders or other minor format inconsistencies |
| 1 | Incomplete, runs of right edge of page, cells misaligned adding to confusion |
| 0 | Omitted |
| 3. [a] Data analysis: mathematical and/or statistical analysis | |
| +1 | difference in minutes |
| +1 | meters per minutes |
| +1 | kilometers per degree |
| +1 | circumference earth |
| 5. [c] Conclusions – Content | |
| Each student must write their own individual conclusion. I want to assess each individual student's reasoning and writing ability. Where a lab team writes and submits a single common conclusion, the conclusion points are split between the team members. | |
| 5 | Thoughtfully put together, well-reasoned, logical, sensible. Fully complete and thorough summary of the findings of the laboratory. Correct usage of vocabulary, appropriate use of scientific concepts. Discusses potential sources of error and how these were controlled. Includes background research on the laboratory subject. Cites appropriate text book information related to laboratory. |
| 4 | Moderately well reasoned. Relevant and adequate answer to the task set with only a single gap or missing task item. |
| 3 | For the most part answers the task set, though there may be gaps or redundant information, or the conclusion is essentially tangential to the experiments, or based on misconceptions, or incorrect conclusion, muddled |
| 2 | Conclusion of little relevance to the laboratory, major gaps, or overly short such as to be incomplete, Confusing, or highly incomplete, or illogical, or made confusing by serious grammar problems, or merely restated the procedure, or a variant of a non-specific and vague "I learned a lot in this laboratory" |
| 1 | Bears little relation to the task set, unclear, very confusing, not well reasoned, extremely tangential, or extraordinarily weak. Almost incomprehensible, or a single (one to two) sentence conclusion |
| 0 | Omitted |
| 6. [f] Format | |
| +1 | Double spaced |
| [G] Grammar and Syntax [-2 if conclusion too short to judge grammar properly] | |
| 5 | No errors of grammar or word order. |
| 4 | Some errors of grammar or word order but communication not impaired. |
| 3 | Fairly frequent errors of grammar or word order; occasional re-reading necessary for full comprehension. |
| 2 | Frequent errors of grammar or word order; efforts of interpretation sometimes required on reader's part. |
| 1 | Very frequent errors of grammar or word orde; reader often has to rely on own interpretation. |
| 0 | Errors of grammar or word order so severe as to make comprehension virtually impossible. |
| [V] Vocabulary [-2 if conclusion too short – taken as evidence of vocabulary limitations] | |
| 5 | Appropriate terms used consistently, clear command of vocabulary with a focus on correct usage of physical science vocabulary, no misspelled words. |
| 4 | Occasionally uses inappropriate terms or relies on circumlocution; expression of ideas not impaired; or a few misspelled words. |
| 3 | Uses wrong or inappropriate words fairly frequently; expression of ideas may be limited because of inadequate vocabulary, or many misspelled words. |
| 2 | Limited vocabulary and frequent errors clearly hinder expression of ideas. |
| 1 | Vocabulary so limited and so frequently misused that reader must often rely on own interpretation. |
| 0 | Vocabulary limitations so extreme as to make comprehension virtually impossible. |
| [O] Organization | |
| 5 | All sections present in the proper order. Material exceptionally well organized. Conclusion well structured with introductory and concluding phrases. |
| 4 | One section out of sequence or omitted. Material well organized; structure could occasionally be clearer but communication not impaired. |
| 3 | Multiple sections out of sequence, some lack of organization; re-reading required for clarification of ideas. For example, tables and graphs printed from a spreadsheet and then stapled to the back of a lab write-up printed from a word processing program. |
| 2 | Multiple sections omitted. Little or no attempt at connectivity, though reader can deduce some organization. |
| 1 | Individual ideas may be clear, but very difficult to deduce connection between them. |
| 0 | Lack of organization so severe that communication is seriously impaired. |
| [C] Cohesion [0 if conclusion too short to judge cohesion] | |
| 5 | Consistent choices in cohesive structures. Ideas flow logically. Conclusion remains on topic. Connector words assist the reader. |
| 4 | Occasional lack of consistency in choice of cohesive structures and vocabulary but overall ease of communication not impaired. |
| 3 | Patchy, with some cohesive structures or vocabulary items noticeably inappropriate to general style. Ideas tend to be disconnected from each other. Reads more like an outline than a coherent essay, or written as a list of answers to questions without connector words and phrases generating a choppy, disjoint style |
| 2 | Cohesive structures or vocabulary items sometimes not only inappropriate but also misused; little sense of ease of communication. Connector words and phrases confuse and mislead the reader, but sense can be made of the conclusion. |
| 1 | Communication often impaired by completely inappropriate or misused cohesive structures or vocabulary items making it difficult to make scientific sense of the conclusion. |
| 0 | A 'hodgepodge' of half-learned misused cohesive structures and vocabulary items rendering communication almost impossible. |
| Rubric for laboratory 08 Clouds drawing | |
| 1. Accuracy of shapes, forms, and colors | |
| 5 | The shapes are represented with outstanding form, the colors are accurate, all contours of the shapes are accurate, light source is discernible |
| 4 | The shapes are represented with good form, the colors are accurate, most contours of the shapes are accurate, light source is discernible |
| 3 | The shapes are represented with good form, the colors are close to accurate, many contours of the shapes are accurate |
| 2 | The shapes need more form, the colors are limited in their accuracy, many contours of the shapes are missed |
| 1 | No effort was made to complete the drawing with good form and accurate color choices; contours bear little resemblance to actual shape |
| 2. Composition | |
| 5 | The composition of the drawing uses the size of the paper to create very good balance of the drawing to the background, or shows creative cropping, well reflects what is seen |
| 4 | The composition of the drawing uses the size of the paper to create good balance of the drawing to the background, well reflects what is seen |
| 3 | The composition of the drawing uses the size of the paper to create a centered drawing with slightly too much background, some changes from what is seen |
| 2 | The composition of the drawing uses the size of the paper to create a centered drawing but too much background becomes distracting; not seeing details as one moves closer |
| 1 | The composition of the drawing used the wrong size of paper, or was not planned out, the composition reflects no balance or unity, or the amount of blank background around the drawing is excessive. |
| 3. Consistency in drawing style | |
| 5 | The drawing style used is consistent/works well together throughout; the art media provided is used to its full potential, careful attention to the use of the media is seen in the drawing |
| 4 | The drawing style used is consistent; the art media provided is used well; the drawing style adds a cohesiveness to the drawing; minimal carelessness |
| 3 | The drawing style used is not distracting to the subject; the art media provided is used moderately well, the drawing style is consistent; some carelessness |
| 2 | The drawing style used is distracting to the subject, the style changes throughout the image, needs more practice with the art media provided, much carelessness |
| 1 | There is no attempt to use a cohesive drawing style, or no drawing style in evidence; needs improvement |
| 4. Effort/Craftsmanship | |
| 5 | The project was continued until it was as complete as the student could make it, effort beyond that required, took pride in work |
| 4 | The student worked hard and completed the project, but with a little more effort it might have been outstanding |
| 3 | The student finished the project; could have been improved with more effort |
| 2 | The project was completed with minimal effort, chose an easy solution and did it indifferently |
| 1 | The student did not finish the work adequately |
| 5. [d] Data | |
| +1 | Local language complete |
| +1 | English language complete |
| 6. [t] Data tables format | |
| 3 | Clear, concise, well thought out, informative, labels and units in the head |
| 2 | Missing borders or other minor format inconsistencies, or missing units in the head |
| 1 | Incomplete, runs off edges of page, lacks minimal margins, or missing two or more elements such as borders and units |
| 1. [d] Data tables content | |
| +1 | echo data |
| 2. [t] Data table format | |
| 3 | Clear, concise, well thought out, informative, with benefit of doubt toward original layouts |
| 2 | Missing borders or other minor format inconsistencies |
| 1 | Incomplete, runs of right edge of page, cells misaligned adding to confusion |
| 3. [i] Image or [s] sketch or [dr] drawing | |
| 3 | image, sketch, or drawing that is clear and informative with correct labels OR image fully appropriate to laboratory, original, explanatory, captions as appropriate |
| 2 | Sketch is clear and complete, only a minor issues such as a mislabel, unoriginal, or lack of a necessary caption |
| 1 | Sketch is confusing, unclear, not well done, or inappropriate image |
| 4. [a] Data analysis: mathematical and/or statistical analysis | |
| +1 | speed of sound calculation |
| 5. [c] Conclusions – Content | |
| Each student must write their own individual conclusion. I want to assess each individual student's reasoning and writing ability. Where a lab team writes and submits a single common conclusion, the conclusion points are split between the team members. | |
| 5 | Thoughtfully put together, well-reasoned, logical, sensible. Fully complete and thorough summary of the findings of the laboratory. Correct usage of vocabulary, appropriate use of scientific concepts. Discusses potential sources of error and how these were controlled. Includes background research on the laboratory subject. Cites appropriate text book information related to laboratory. |
| 4 | Moderately well reasoned. Relevant and adequate answer to the task set with only a single gap or missing task item. |
| 3 | For the most part answers the task set, though there may be gaps or redundant information, or the conclusion is essentially tangential to the experiments, or based on misconceptions, or incorrect conclusion, muddled |
| 2 | Conclusion of little relevance to the laboratory, major gaps, or overly short such as to be incomplete, Confusing, or highly incomplete, or illogical, or made confusing by serious grammar problems, or merely restated the procedure, or a variant of a non-specific and vague "I learned a lot in this laboratory" |
| 1 | Bears little relation to the task set, unclear, very confusing, not well reasoned, extremely tangential, or extraordinarily weak. Almost incomprehensible, or a single (one to two) sentence conclusion |
| 0 | Omitted |
| 6. [f] Format | |
| +1 | Double spaced |
| [G] Grammar and Syntax [-2 if conclusion too short to judge grammar properly] | |
| 5 | No errors of grammar or word order. |
| 4 | Some errors of grammar or word order but communication not impaired. |
| 3 | Fairly frequent errors of grammar or word order; occasional re-reading necessary for full comprehension. |
| 2 | Frequent errors of grammar or word order; efforts of interpretation sometimes required on reader's part. |
| 1 | Very frequent errors of grammar or word orde; reader often has to rely on own interpretation. |
| 0 | Errors of grammar or word order so severe as to make comprehension virtually impossible. |
| [V] Vocabulary [-2 if conclusion too short – taken as evidence of vocabulary limitations] | |
| 5 | Appropriate terms used consistently, clear command of vocabulary with a focus on correct usage of physical science vocabulary, no misspelled words. |
| 4 | Occasionally uses inappropriate terms or relies on circumlocution; expression of ideas not impaired; or a few misspelled words. |
| 3 | Uses wrong or inappropriate words fairly frequently; expression of ideas may be limited because of inadequate vocabulary, or many misspelled words. |
| 2 | Limited vocabulary and frequent errors clearly hinder expression of ideas. |
| 1 | Vocabulary so limited and so frequently misused that reader must often rely on own interpretation. |
| 0 | Vocabulary limitations so extreme as to make comprehension virtually impossible. |
| [O] Organization | |
| 5 | All sections present in the proper order. Material exceptionally well organized. Conclusion well structured with introductory and concluding phrases. |
| 4 | One section out of sequence or omitted. Material well organized; structure could occasionally be clearer but communication not impaired. |
| 3 | Multiple sections out of sequence, some lack of organization; re-reading required for clarification of ideas. For example, tables and graphs printed from a spreadsheet and then stapled to the back of a lab write-up printed from a word processing program. |
| 2 | Multiple sections omitted. Little or no attempt at connectivity, though reader can deduce some organization. |
| 1 | Individual ideas may be clear, but very difficult to deduce connection between them. |
| 0 | Lack of organization so severe that communication is seriously impaired. |
| [C] Cohesion [0 if conclusion too short to judge cohesion] | |
| 5 | Consistent choices in cohesive structures. Ideas flow logically. Conclusion remains on topic. Connector words assist the reader. |
| 4 | Occasional lack of consistency in choice of cohesive structures and vocabulary but overall ease of communication not impaired. |
| 3 | Patchy, with some cohesive structures or vocabulary items noticeably inappropriate to general style. Ideas tend to be disconnected from each other. Reads more like an outline than a coherent essay, or written as a list of answers to questions without connector words and phrases generating a choppy, disjoint style |
| 2 | Cohesive structures or vocabulary items sometimes not only inappropriate but also misused; little sense of ease of communication. Connector words and phrases confuse and mislead the reader, but sense can be made of the conclusion. |
| 1 | Communication often impaired by completely inappropriate or misused cohesive structures or vocabulary items making it difficult to make scientific sense of the conclusion. |
| 0 | A 'hodgepodge' of half-learned misused cohesive structures and vocabulary items rendering communication almost impossible. |
| 1. [d] Data tables content | |
| +1 | reflection data |
| +1 | refraction data |
| 2. [t] Reflection table format and layout (may be recorded with 3 below) | |
| 3 | Clear, concise, well thought out, informative |
| 2 | Missing borders or other minor format inconsistencies |
| 1 | Incomplete, runs off edges of page, lacks minimal margins |
| 3. [g] Reflection graph format | |
| 3 | xy scattergraph, correct axis labels |
| 2 | Missing a label or other element |
| 1 | wrong graph type |
| 4. [t] Refraction table format and layout | |
| 3 | Clear, concise, well thought out, informative |
| 2 | Missing borders or other minor format inconsistencies |
| 1 | Incomplete, runs off edges of page, lacks minimal margins |
| 5. [g] Refraction graph format | |
| 3 | xy scattergraph, correct axis labels, dry versus wet done correctly |
| 2 | Missing a label or other element |
| 1 | wrong graph type or plotting distance data on refraction graph |
| 6. [a] Data analysis: mathematical and/or statistical analysis | |
| +1 | slope reflection |
| +1 | intercept reflection |
| +1 | identified reflection as linear |
| +1 | found a slope of one |
| +1 | slope refraction |
| +1 | intercept refraction |
| +3 | OR refraction data found to be nonlinear (specifically noted to be nonlinear) |
| 7. [c] Conclusions – Content | |
| Each student must write their own individual conclusion. I want to assess each individual student's reasoning and writing ability. Where a lab team writes and submits a single common conclusion, the conclusion points are split between the team members. | |
| 5 | Thoughtfully put together, well-reasoned, logical, sensible. Fully complete and thorough summary of the findings of the laboratory. Correct usage of vocabulary, appropriate use of scientific concepts. Discusses potential sources of error and how these were controlled. Includes background research on the laboratory subject. Cites appropriate text book information related to laboratory. |
| 4 | Moderately well reasoned. Relevant and adequate answer to the task set with only a single gap or missing task item. |
| 3 | For the most part answers the task set, though there may be gaps or redundant information, or the conclusion is essentially tangential to the experiments, or based on misconceptions, or incorrect conclusion, muddled |
| 2 | Conclusion of little relevance to the laboratory, major gaps, or overly short such as to be incomplete, Confusing, or highly incomplete, or illogical, or made confusing by serious grammar problems, or merely restated the procedure, or a variant of a non-specific and vague "I learned a lot in this laboratory" |
| 1 | Bears little relation to the task set, unclear, very confusing, not well reasoned, extremely tangential, or extraordinarily weak. Almost incomprehensible, or a single (one to two) sentence conclusion |
| 0 | Omitted |
| 8. [f] Format | |
| +1 | Double spaced |
| [G] Grammar and Syntax [-2 if conclusion too short to judge grammar properly] | |
| 5 | No errors of grammar or word order. |
| 4 | Some errors of grammar or word order but communication not impaired. |
| 3 | Fairly frequent errors of grammar or word order; occasional re-reading necessary for full comprehension. |
| 2 | Frequent errors of grammar or word order; efforts of interpretation sometimes required on reader's part. |
| 1 | Very frequent errors of grammar or word orde; reader often has to rely on own interpretation. |
| 0 | Errors of grammar or word order so severe as to make comprehension virtually impossible. |
| [V] Vocabulary [-2 if conclusion too short – taken as evidence of vocabulary limitations] | |
| 5 | Appropriate terms used consistently, clear command of vocabulary with a focus on correct usage of physical science vocabulary, no misspelled words. |
| 4 | Occasionally uses inappropriate terms or relies on circumlocution; expression of ideas not impaired; or a few misspelled words. |
| 3 | Uses wrong or inappropriate words fairly frequently; expression of ideas may be limited because of inadequate vocabulary, or many misspelled words. |
| 2 | Limited vocabulary and frequent errors clearly hinder expression of ideas. |
| 1 | Vocabulary so limited and so frequently misused that reader must often rely on own interpretation. |
| 0 | Vocabulary limitations so extreme as to make comprehension virtually impossible. |
| [O] Organization | |
| 5 | All sections present in the proper order. Material exceptionally well organized. Conclusion well structured with introductory and concluding phrases. |
| 4 | One section out of sequence or omitted. Material well organized; structure could occasionally be clearer but communication not impaired. |
| 3 | Multiple sections out of sequence, some lack of organization; re-reading required for clarification of ideas. For example, tables and graphs printed from a spreadsheet and then stapled to the back of a lab write-up printed from a word processing program. |
| 2 | Multiple sections omitted. Little or no attempt at connectivity, though reader can deduce some organization. |
| 1 | Individual ideas may be clear, but very difficult to deduce connection between them. |
| 0 | Lack of organization so severe that communication is seriously impaired. |
| [C] Cohesion [0 if conclusion too short to judge cohesion] | |
| 5 | Consistent choices in cohesive structures. Ideas flow logically. Conclusion remains on topic. Connector words assist the reader. |
| 4 | Occasional lack of consistency in choice of cohesive structures and vocabulary but overall ease of communication not impaired. |
| 3 | Patchy, with some cohesive structures or vocabulary items noticeably inappropriate to general style. Ideas tend to be disconnected from each other. Reads more like an outline than a coherent essay, or written as a list of answers to questions without connector words and phrases generating a choppy, disjoint style |
| 2 | Cohesive structures or vocabulary items sometimes not only inappropriate but also misused; little sense of ease of communication. Connector words and phrases confuse and mislead the reader, but sense can be made of the conclusion. |
| 1 | Communication often impaired by completely inappropriate or misused cohesive structures or vocabulary items making it difficult to make scientific sense of the conclusion. |
| 0 | A 'hodgepodge' of half-learned misused cohesive structures and vocabulary items rendering communication almost impossible. |
| 1. [i] Images, sketches, or drawing | |
| +1 | open circuit |
| +1 | closed circuit |
| +1 | short circuit |
| 2. [if] Image formatting | |
| 3 | image, sketch, or drawing that is clear and informative with correct labels OR image fully appropriate to laboratory, original, explanatory, captions as appropriate, and distinguishes bulb base components accurately |
| 2 | Sketch is clear and complete, only a minor issues such as a mislabel, unoriginal, or lack of a necessary caption |
| 1 | Sketch is confusing, unclear, not well done, or inappropriate image |
| 3. [dc] Data tables content conductors | |
| +1 | electrical conduction data |
| +1 | heat conduction data |
| 4. [tc] Conductors table format and layout | |
| 3 | Clear, concise, well thought out, informative. Includes both electricity and heat, both clearly labeled. |
| 2 | Missing borders or other minor format inconsistencies, or missing either heat or electricity data, or confusing, or unclear, or uses two tables or other less efficient presentations such as text, or lack of appropriate labels makes single table unclear |
| 1 | Incomplete, runs off edges of page, lacks minimal margins |
| 5. [dΩ] Data tables content current versus voltage: ohms | |
| +1 | voltage data |
| +1 | current data |
| 6. [tΩ] Table: current versus voltage | |
| 3 | Clear, concise, well thought out, informative |
| 2 | Missing borders, or missing units, or other minor format inconsistencies |
| 1 | Missing both dimensions and units, unclear, confusing, poorly done, highly incomplete |
| 7. [g] Graph format | |
| 3 | Graphs xy scattergraph, correct axis labels, current versus voltage |
| 2 | Missing a label or other element, or reversed current (x) and voltage (y) axes |
| 1 | wrong graph type or other serious errors |
| 8. [a] Data analysis | |
| +1 | heat versus electricity conduction |
| +1 | linearity analysis |
| +1 | slope |
| +1 | intercept |
| +1 | identifies slope as resistance |
| +1 | units of slope reported as being ohms |
| +1 | analysis of perceived bulb temperature versus brightness, current, and voltage |
| 9. [c] Conclusions – Content | |
| 5 | Thoughtfully put together, well-reasoned, logical, sensible. Fully complete and thorough summary of the findings of the laboratory. Correct usage of vocabulary, appropriate use of scientific concepts. Discusses potential sources of error and how these were controlled. Includes background research on the laboratory subject. Cites appropriate text book information related to laboratory. |
| 4 | Moderately well reasoned. Relevant and adequate answer to the task set with only a single gap or missing task item. |
| 3 | For the most part answers the task set, though there may be gaps or redundant information, or the conclusion is essentially tangential to the experiments, or based on misconceptions, or incorrect conclusion, muddled |
| 2 | Conclusion of little relevance to the laboratory, major gaps, or overly short such as to be incomplete, Confusing, or highly incomplete, or illogical, or made confusing by serious grammar problems, or merely restated the procedure, or a variant of a non-specific and vague "I learned a lot in this laboratory" |
| 1 | Bears little relation to the task set, unclear, very confusing, not well reasoned, extremely tangential, or extraordinarily weak. Almost incomprehensible, or a single (one to two) sentence conclusion |
| 0 | Omitted |
| 10. [f] Format | |
| +1 | Double spaced |
| [G] Grammar and Syntax [-2 if conclusion too short to judge grammar properly] | |
| 5 | No errors of grammar or word order. |
| 4 | Some errors of grammar or word order but communication not impaired. |
| 3 | Fairly frequent errors of grammar or word order; occasional re-reading necessary for full comprehension. |
| 2 | Frequent errors of grammar or word order; efforts of interpretation sometimes required on reader's part. |
| 1 | Very frequent errors of grammar or word orde; reader often has to rely on own interpretation. |
| 0 | Errors of grammar or word order so severe as to make comprehension virtually impossible. |
| [V] Vocabulary [-2 if conclusion too short – taken as evidence of vocabulary limitations] | |
| 5 | Appropriate terms used consistently, clear command of vocabulary with a focus on correct usage of physical science vocabulary, no misspelled words. |
| 4 | Occasionally uses inappropriate terms or relies on circumlocution; expression of ideas not impaired; or a few misspelled words. |
| 3 | Uses wrong or inappropriate words fairly frequently; expression of ideas may be limited because of inadequate vocabulary, or many misspelled words. |
| 2 | Limited vocabulary and frequent errors clearly hinder expression of ideas. |
| 1 | Vocabulary so limited and so frequently misused that reader must often rely on own interpretation. |
| 0 | Vocabulary limitations so extreme as to make comprehension virtually impossible. |
| [O] Organization | |
| 5 | All sections present in the proper order. Material exceptionally well organized. Conclusion well structured with introductory and concluding phrases. |
| 4 | One section out of sequence or omitted. Material well organized; structure could occasionally be clearer but communication not impaired. |
| 3 | Multiple sections out of sequence, some lack of organization; re-reading required for clarification of ideas. For example, tables and graphs printed from a spreadsheet and then stapled to the back of a lab write-up printed from a word processing program. |
| 2 | Multiple sections omitted. Little or no attempt at connectivity, though reader can deduce some organization. |
| 1 | Individual ideas may be clear, but very difficult to deduce connection between them. |
| 0 | Lack of organization so severe that communication is seriously impaired. |
| [C] Cohesion [0 if conclusion too short to judge cohesion] | |
| 5 | Consistent choices in cohesive structures. Ideas flow logically. Conclusion remains on topic. Connector words assist the reader. |
| 4 | Occasional lack of consistency in choice of cohesive structures and vocabulary but overall ease of communication not impaired. |
| 3 | Patchy, with some cohesive structures or vocabulary items noticeably inappropriate to general style. Ideas tend to be disconnected from each other. Reads more like an outline than a coherent essay, or written as a list of answers to questions without connector words and phrases generating a choppy, disjoint style |
| 2 | Cohesive structures or vocabulary items sometimes not only inappropriate but also misused; little sense of ease of communication. Connector words and phrases confuse and mislead the reader, but sense can be made of the conclusion. |
| 1 | Communication often impaired by completely inappropriate or misused cohesive structures or vocabulary items making it difficult to make scientific sense of the conclusion. |
| 0 | A 'hodgepodge' of half-learned misused cohesive structures and vocabulary items rendering communication almost impossible. |
| 1. [d] Data table content | |
| +1 | Color changes listed |
| +1 | Acid/base status noted |
| 2. [t] Data table format | |
| 3 | Clear, concise, well thought out, informative |
| 2 | Missing borders or other minor format inconsistencies |
| 1 | Incomplete, runs off edges of page, lacks minimal margins |
| 0 | Omitted |
| 9. [c] Conclusions – Content | |
| 5 | Thoughtfully put together, well-reasoned, logical, sensible. Fully complete and thorough summary of the findings of the laboratory. Correct usage of vocabulary, appropriate use of scientific concepts. Discusses potential sources of error and how these were controlled. Includes background research on the laboratory subject. Cites appropriate text book information related to laboratory. |
| 4 | Moderately well reasoned. Relevant and adequate answer to the task set with only a single gap or missing task item. |
| 3 | For the most part answers the task set, though there may be gaps or redundant information, or the conclusion is essentially tangential to the experiments, or based on misconceptions, or incorrect conclusion, muddled |
| 2 | Conclusion of little relevance to the laboratory, major gaps, or overly short such as to be incomplete, Confusing, or highly incomplete, or illogical, or made confusing by serious grammar problems, or merely restated the procedure, or a variant of a non-specific and vague "I learned a lot in this laboratory" |
| 1 | Bears little relation to the task set, unclear, very confusing, not well reasoned, extremely tangential, or extraordinarily weak. Almost incomprehensible, or a single (one to two) sentence conclusion |
| 0 | Omitted |
| 10. [f] Format | |
| +1 | Double spaced |
| [G] Grammar and Syntax [-2 if conclusion too short to judge grammar properly] | |
| 5 | No errors of grammar or word order. |
| 4 | Some errors of grammar or word order but communication not impaired. |
| 3 | Fairly frequent errors of grammar or word order; occasional re-reading necessary for full comprehension. |
| 2 | Frequent errors of grammar or word order; efforts of interpretation sometimes required on reader's part. |
| 1 | Very frequent errors of grammar or word orde; reader often has to rely on own interpretation. |
| 0 | Errors of grammar or word order so severe as to make comprehension virtually impossible. |
| [V] Vocabulary [-2 if conclusion too short – taken as evidence of vocabulary limitations] | |
| 5 | Appropriate terms used consistently, clear command of vocabulary with a focus on correct usage of physical science vocabulary, no misspelled words. |
| 4 | Occasionally uses inappropriate terms or relies on circumlocution; expression of ideas not impaired; or a few misspelled words. |
| 3 | Uses wrong or inappropriate words fairly frequently; expression of ideas may be limited because of inadequate vocabulary, or many misspelled words. |
| 2 | Limited vocabulary and frequent errors clearly hinder expression of ideas. |
| 1 | Vocabulary so limited and so frequently misused that reader must often rely on own interpretation. |
| 0 | Vocabulary limitations so extreme as to make comprehension virtually impossible. |
| [O] Organization | |
| 5 | All sections present in the proper order. Material exceptionally well organized. Conclusion well structured with introductory and concluding phrases. |
| 4 | One section out of sequence or omitted. Material well organized; structure could occasionally be clearer but communication not impaired. |
| 3 | Multiple sections out of sequence, some lack of organization; re-reading required for clarification of ideas. For example, tables and graphs printed from a spreadsheet and then stapled to the back of a lab write-up printed from a word processing program. |
| 2 | Multiple sections omitted. Little or no attempt at connectivity, though reader can deduce some organization. |
| 1 | Individual ideas may be clear, but very difficult to deduce connection between them. |
| 0 | Lack of organization so severe that communication is seriously impaired. |
| [C] Cohesion [0 if conclusion too short to judge cohesion] | |
| 5 | Consistent choices in cohesive structures. Ideas flow logically. Conclusion remains on topic. Connector words assist the reader. |
| 4 | Occasional lack of consistency in choice of cohesive structures and vocabulary but overall ease of communication not impaired. |
| 3 | Patchy, with some cohesive structures or vocabulary items noticeably inappropriate to general style. Ideas tend to be disconnected from each other. Reads more like an outline than a coherent essay, or written as a list of answers to questions without connector words and phrases generating a choppy, disjoint style |
| 2 | Cohesive structures or vocabulary items sometimes not only inappropriate but also misused; little sense of ease of communication. Connector words and phrases confuse and mislead the reader, but sense can be made of the conclusion. |
| 1 | Communication often impaired by completely inappropriate or misused cohesive structures or vocabulary items making it difficult to make scientific sense of the conclusion. |
| 0 | A 'hodgepodge' of half-learned misused cohesive structures and vocabulary items rendering communication almost impossible. |
| 1. [i] apparatus image or [s] sketch or [dr] drawing | ||
| 3 | Sketch is very clear and informative with correct labels OR image fully appropriate to laboratory, original | |
| 2 | Sketch is clear and complete, only a minor issues such as a mislabel, unoriginal | |
| 1 | Sketch is confusing, unclear, not well done, or inappropriate image | |
| 0 | Omitted | |
| 2. [d] Data: Water and Glass | ||
| +1 | Image depth for water | |
| +1 | Object depth for water | |
| +1 | Image depth for glass | |
| +1 | Object depth for glass | |
| 3. [t] Data table format: Water and Glass | ||
| 3 | 3 | Clear, concise, well thought out, informative, labels and units in the head |
| 2 | 2 | Missing borders or other minor format inconsistencies, or missing units in the head, lacks units in labels |
| 1 | 1 | Incomplete, runs off edges of page, lacks minimal margins, or missing two or more elements such as borders and units |
| 4. [g] Data display: XY scattergraphs, one for water, one for glass | ||
| 3 | 3 | Correct xy scattergraph type, correct axis labels |
| 2 | 2 | Missing a label or other element, or reversed x and y axes on an xy scattergraph |
| 1 | 1 | wrong graph type(s), or plotting the wrong data, or wrong result on graph, or otherwise incorrect |
| 5. [a] Analysis: Water and Glass | ||
| +1 | +1 | determined linearity |
| +1 | +1 | slope |
| +1 | +1 | intercept |
| 6. [c] Conclusions – Content | ||
| 5 | Thoughtfully put together, well-reasoned, logical, sensible. Fully complete and thorough summary of the findings of the laboratory. Correct usage of vocabulary, appropriate use of scientific concepts. Discusses potential sources of error and how these were controlled. Includes background research on the laboratory subject. Cites appropriate text book information related to laboratory. | |
| 4 | Moderately well reasoned. Relevant and adequate answer to the task set with only a single gap or missing task item. | |
| 3 | For the most part answers the task set, though there may be gaps or redundant information, or the conclusion is essentially tangential to the experiments, or based on misconceptions, or incorrect conclusion, muddled | |
| 2 | Conclusion of little relevance to the laboratory, major gaps, or overly short such as to be incomplete, Confusing, or highly incomplete, or illogical, or made confusing by serious grammar problems, or merely restated the procedure, or a variant of a non-specific and vague "I learned a lot in this laboratory" | |
| 1 | Bears little relation to the task set, unclear, very confusing, not well reasoned, extremely tangential, or extraordinarily weak. Almost incomprehensible, or a single (one to two) sentence conclusion | |
| 10. [f] Format | ||
| +1 | Double spaced | |
| [G] Grammar and Syntax [-2 if conclusion too short to judge grammar properly] | ||
| 5 | No errors of grammar or word order. | |
| 4 | Some errors of grammar or word order but communication not impaired. | |
| 3 | Fairly frequent errors of grammar or word order; occasional re-reading necessary for full comprehension. | |
| 2 | Frequent errors of grammar or word order; efforts of interpretation sometimes required on reader's part. | |
| 1 | Very frequent errors of grammar or word orde; reader often has to rely on own interpretation. | |
| 0 | Errors of grammar or word order so severe as to make comprehension virtually impossible. | |
| [V] Vocabulary [-2 if conclusion too short – taken as evidence of vocabulary limitations] | ||
| 5 | Appropriate terms used consistently, clear command of vocabulary with a focus on correct usage of physical science vocabulary, no misspelled words. | |
| 4 | Occasionally uses inappropriate terms or relies on circumlocution; expression of ideas not impaired; or a few misspelled words. | |
| 3 | Uses wrong or inappropriate words fairly frequently; expression of ideas may be limited because of inadequate vocabulary, or many misspelled words. | |
| 2 | Limited vocabulary and frequent errors clearly hinder expression of ideas. | |
| 1 | Vocabulary so limited and so frequently misused that reader must often rely on own interpretation. | |
| 0 | Vocabulary limitations so extreme as to make comprehension virtually impossible. | |
| [O] Organization | ||
| 5 | All sections present in the proper order. Material exceptionally well organized. Conclusion well structured with introductory and concluding phrases. | |
| 4 | One section out of sequence or omitted. Material well organized; structure could occasionally be clearer but communication not impaired. | |
| 3 | Multiple sections out of sequence, some lack of organization; re-reading required for clarification of ideas. For example, tables and graphs printed from a spreadsheet and then stapled to the back of a lab write-up printed from a word processing program. | |
| 2 | Multiple sections omitted. Little or no attempt at connectivity, though reader can deduce some organization. | |
| 1 | Individual ideas may be clear, but very difficult to deduce connection between them. | |
| 0 | Lack of organization so severe that communication is seriously impaired. | |
| [C] Cohesion [0 if conclusion too short to judge cohesion] | ||
| 5 | Consistent choices in cohesive structures. Ideas flow logically. Conclusion remains on topic. Connector words assist the reader. | |
| 4 | Occasional lack of consistency in choice of cohesive structures and vocabulary but overall ease of communication not impaired. | |
| 3 | Patchy, with some cohesive structures or vocabulary items noticeably inappropriate to general style. Ideas tend to be disconnected from each other. Reads more like an outline than a coherent essay, or written as a list of answers to questions without connector words and phrases generating a choppy, disjoint style | |
| 2 | Cohesive structures or vocabulary items sometimes not only inappropriate but also misused; little sense of ease of communication. Connector words and phrases confuse and mislead the reader, but sense can be made of the conclusion. | |
| 1 | Communication often impaired by completely inappropriate or misused cohesive structures or vocabulary items making it difficult to make scientific sense of the conclusion. | |
| 0 | A 'hodgepodge' of half-learned misused cohesive structures and vocabulary items rendering communication almost impossible. | |