008 Generic laboratory marking rubric

The following rubric indicates how points are determined for laboratory reports. All reports include the assessment of grammar, vocabulary, organization, and coherence. Reports also include a point for double-spacing. Double-spacing is necessary to provide space for editorial comments.

1. [i] Image or [s] sketch or [dr] drawing
3image, sketch, or drawing that is clear and informative with correct labels OR image fully appropriate to laboratory, original, explanatory, captions as appropriate
2Sketch is clear and complete, only a minor issues such as a mislabel, unoriginal, or lack of a necessary caption
1Sketch is confusing, unclear, not well done, or inappropriate image
2. [d] Data (often in a table of results)
+1per variable or correct data element
3. [t] Data table format (where appropriate)
3Clear, concise, well thought out, informative, labels and units in the head
2Missing borders or other minor format inconsistencies, or missing units in the head
1Incomplete, runs off edges of page, lacks minimal margins, or missing two or more elements such as borders and units
4. [g] Data display: Graph
3Correct graph type, correct axis labels
2Missing a label or other element, or reversed x and y axes on an xy scattergraph
1wrong 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 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. Values must include correct units. Theoretically cited values must include citation of source. Citation format is minimalized. See sample laboratory for an example.
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.
5Thoughtfully 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.
4Moderately well reasoned. Relevant and adequate answer to the task set with only a single gap or missing task item.
3For 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
2Conclusion 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"
1Bears 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
7. [f] Format
+1Double spaced
+1Appropriate margins, clean layout, no widow headings, nor orphan table rows
[G] Grammar and Syntax [-2 if conclusion too short to judge grammar properly]
5No errors of grammar or word order. Correct use of tense.
4Some errors of grammar or word order but communication not impaired.
3Fairly frequent errors of grammar or word order; occasional re-reading necessary for full comprehension.
2Frequent errors of grammar or word order; efforts of interpretation sometimes required on reader's part.
1Very frequent errors of grammar or word orde; reader often has to rely on own interpretation.
0Errors 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]
5Appropriate terms used consistently, clear command of vocabulary with a focus on correct usage of physical science vocabulary, no misspelled words.
4Occasionally uses inappropriate terms or relies on circumlocution; expression of ideas not impaired; or a few misspelled words.
3Uses wrong or inappropriate words fairly frequently; expression of ideas may be limited because of inadequate vocabulary, or many misspelled words.
2Limited vocabulary and frequent errors clearly hinder expression of ideas.
1Vocabulary so limited and so frequently misused that reader must often rely on own interpretation.
0Vocabulary limitations so extreme as to make comprehension virtually impossible.
[O] Organization
5All sections present in the proper order. Material exceptionally well organized. Conclusion well structured with introductory and concluding phrases.
4One section out of sequence or omitted. Material well organized; structure could occasionally be clearer but communication not impaired.
3Multiple 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.
2Multiple sections omitted. Little or no attempt at connectivity, though reader can deduce some organization.
1Individual ideas may be clear, but very difficult to deduce connection between them.
0Lack of organization so severe that communication is seriously impaired.
[C] Cohesion [0 if text too short to judge cohesion]
5Consistent choices in cohesive structures. Ideas flow logically. Conclusion remains on topic. Connector words assist the reader.
4Occasional lack of consistency in choice of cohesive structures and vocabulary but overall ease of communication not impaired.
3Patchy, 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
2Cohesive 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.
1Communication often impaired by completely inappropriate or misused cohesive structures or vocabulary items making it difficult to make scientific sense of the conclusion.
0A 'hodgepodge' of half-learned misused cohesive structures and vocabulary items rendering communication almost impossible.