Westfield State College Writer's Guide
Westfield State College Writer's Guide
Buzz Hoagland's Grading Rubric for Formal Lab Reports (based upon 100 point total)
| Levels of Achievement | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Criteria | Excellent | Good | Needs Improvement | Unacceptable |
| Introduction (25 points) | (23-25 points) | (20-23 points) | (15-20 points) | (0-15 points) |
| Background information | Background information clearly presented with sufficient detail that a peer will understand the basic concepts. | Background information is clearly presented but not with sufficient detail that a peer will understand the basic concepts. | Background information is not clearly described or contains factual errors. | No background information is presented. |
| Hypothesis(es) | Clearly articulated and logically derived from background information. | Clearly articulated but not logically derived from background information. | Not clearly articulated and not logically derived from background information. | No hypotheses. |
| Methods Justification | Clearly explains and justifies use of methods to test hypothesis(es). | Explanation for using specific methods to test hypothesis(es) presented but the justification is not clearly presented. | No explanation nor justification for using specific methods to test hypothesis(es). | No explanation nor justification because no hypothesis(es) presented. |
| Methods and Materials (10 points) | (9-10 points) | (8-9 points) | (6-8 points) | (0-6 points) |
| Content | Clearly presents a general overview of what was done. Sufficient detail to allow someone who has not conducted the experiment to understand the procedures. | Contains more detail than necessary for someone who has never conducted the experiment to understand the procedures. | Lack of focus, too detailed. | Lists of materials and methods used including formulas. |
| Results (20 points) | (18-20 points) | (16-18 points) | (12-16 points) | (0-12 points) |
| Format | Begins by describing the general trends observed in the data. Includes references to all tables and/or figures. Tables and/or figures follow CBE format. | Describes every datum instead of identifying overall trends. No reference to tables and/or figures. Tables and figures follow CBE format. | No description of data. Tables and/or figures do not follow CBE format. | No description of data. Tables and/or figures present, but not necessarily in CBE format. |
| Content | Clearly presents only data that relate to hypotheses developed in the introduction. States whether data support or refute hypothesis(es). | Clearly presents only data that relate to hypotheses developed in the introduction. States whether data support or refute hypothesis(es). Inappropriate discussion of the significance of the data. | Presents all data collected whether or not it relates to the hypothesis(es) posed in the introduction. Does not state whether data supports or refutes hypothesis(es). | No summary of data trends. No mention of hypothesis(es). |
| Discussion (45 points) | (40-45 points) | (36-40 points) | (27-36 points) | (0-27 points) |
| Intrepretation of results | Clear explanation of how data support or refute hypothesis(es). | Simple restatement of results as supporting or refuting hypothesis(es). No explanation of how. | Discussion of results not relevant to hypothesis(es). | No discussion of results nor hypothesis(es). |
| Experiment in larger context | Clear discussion of how results are related to general concepts addressed by the experiment. | Discussion of how results are related to general concepts addressed by the experiment is not well developed. | That the results are related to general concepts is stated but not explained. | No discussion of how results are related to general concepts. |
Writing clearly means using standard practices and establishing credibility with your audience. See the section entitled The Writer: Establishing Credibility in this writer's guide for further explanation.
CBE is the Council of Biology Editors.