Skip to main content
sign in
Username
Password
forgot?
Sign up
Share
help_outline
help
Pricing
Request Info
Please enable JavaScript on your web browser
menu
iRubric: Biology Department Lab Report Assessment rubric
find rubric
Your browser does not support iframes.
edit
print
share
Copy to my rubrics
Bookmark
test run
assess...
delete
Do more...
Biology Department Lab Report Assessment
Biology Department Lab Report Assessment
For Assessment of Biology Majors' ability to communicate scientific information in a written format.
Rubric Code:
J5855B
By
jmwiggins
Ready to use
Public Rubric
Subject:
Biology
Type:
Writing
Grade Levels:
Undergraduate
Your browser does not support iframes.
Desktop Mode
Mobile Mode
Lab Report Assessment
Excellent
5 pts
Very Good
4 pts
Good
3 pts
Average
2 pts
Poor
1 pts
Title
Excellent
The lab report has well-constructed, concise title that reflects the experiments and results
Very Good
The lab report has a title that reflects the experiments and results but could have been stated better
Good
The lab report has a title that reflects the experiments and results but is not clearly stated
Average
The lab report has a title that somewhat reflects the either experiments or results but is not clearly stated
Poor
The lab report either has not title or the title is irrelevant/unclear
Introduction
Purpose
Excellent
the overall purpose for undertaking the research or experiment(s) is stated in a clear, concise manner.
Very Good
the overall purpose for undertaking the research or experiment(s) is stated fully, but could have been worded more concisely/directly
Good
the overall purpose for undertaking the research or experiment(s) is stated fully, but in an unclear manner
Average
the overall purpose for undertaking the research or experiment(s) is not stated fully, and is unclear
Poor
the overall purpose for undertaking the research or experiment(s) is not stated, or is erroneous or irrelevant
Background
Excellent
Clear, concise discussion of background information and previous observations that support the importance/ rationale of undertaking the experiment(s). Reputable background sources were used and cited correctly.
Very Good
Mostly clear discussion of background information that supports the importance/rationale of the experiment and includes at least a few previous observations. ams
Good
Relevant background information was included, but the connection with the experiment was not made clear. ams
Average
Some background information was included, but it was not particularly relevant. ams
Poor
No attempt was made to include background information. ams
Hypothesis
Excellent
At least two clear, concise, relevant and testable overall hypotheses are stated along with one or more predictions. ams
Very Good
A clear, concise, relevant and testable overall hypothesis is stated, but second hypothesis or prediction is absent. ams
Good
One hypothesis or research question is clearly stated, but no other hypotheses or predictions are given. ams
Average
Objective or purpose is stated, but hypotheses and research questions are lacking. ams
Poor
Objective, purpose, hypotheses, and predictions are all absent. ams
Materials and Methods
Content
Excellent
Addresses only the techniques and procedures used, including statistical analysis when applicable. Summarizes all the methods used while citing the protocol. Well organized clear, concise narrative that does not include lists. Methods are described in the past tense, using active voice. ams
Very Good
Addresses only the techniques and procedures used, including statistical analysis when applicable. Summarizes all the methods used while citing the protocol. Does not include lists. Clarity is diminished by the presence of a few minor grammatical problems, such as vague language, excessive use of passive voice, dangling modifiers, or unclear antecedents. ams
Good
While the report addresses and cites techniques and procedures appropriately, it contains numerous small grammatical errors or lacks citations. ams
Average
Contain one or two serious grammatical errors (e.g., written as instructions, mixed tenses, incomplete sentences). Or: contains numerous small grammatical problems and lacks citations. ams
Poor
Plagiarized. ams
Results
Figures/Tables
Excellent
Professional looking and accurate representation of the data in tables and/or figures that are labeled and titled. Legends are included where needed so that Table and Figures can stand alone. Units are given. ams
Very Good
Title accurately describes content.
Headers and stubs clearly organize data field without repetitive or redundant descriptors.
Uncluttered. Plots appropriate for type of results obtained (scatter, bar, histogram etc.)
Legend for notes complete. rlh
Good
Figure/Table Numbered and Title present, but cannot stand alone.
Headers and stubs organize data field.
Columns and rows aligned. Plots appropriately sized and identified. rlh
Average
Appropriate figures and tables are included but contain some errors or inaccuracies (such as missing units, mismatched scale, scale not starting from zero, missing titles, legends, or captions, etc.). Tables and figures cannot stand alone, and some are not represented adequately. ams
Poor
Figures and tables are absent or completely inappropriate. ams
Results Narrative
Excellent
Results narrative can stand alone, but includes references to tables/figures. Does not include methodology or conclusions. Data are summarized. Units and results of statistical tests are given. ams
Very Good
Results narrative does not include reference to tables and figures, but can stand alone. Data are summarized and units are given. Statistical results are given. One or two sentences of methods or conclusions are present. ams
Good
An important element (such are results of statistical tests) is missing. Some grammatical errors are present. ams
Average
Results narrative present but it cannot stand alone. Some major grammatical problems are present. Several sentences of methods or conclusions are included. ams
Poor
Results narrative absent. ams
Discussion/Conclusions
Analysis of Results
Excellent
The relationship between the variables is discussed and trends/patterns logically analyzed. Predictions are made about what might happen if part of the lab were changed or how the experimental design could be changed.
Very Good
The relationship between the variables is discussed and trends/patterns logically analyzed.
Good
The relationship between the variables is discussed but no patterns, trends or predictions are made based on the data.
Average
An attempt is made to discuss the relationships among different variables, but the arguments are not relevant or are unclear.
Poor
The relationship between the variables is not discussed.
Limitations of Design
Excellent
Several Limitations of the Experimental design are discussed clearly with alternative strategies given
Very Good
Several Limitations of the Experimental design are discussed clearly but few alternate strategies are suggested, although clearly
Good
Several Limitations of the Experimental design are discussed but alternate strategies are not given
Average
Limitations are discussed but are mostly irrelevant or are unclear
Poor
No limitations are discussed
Implications of Findings
Excellent
Clearly states what results will contribute to the field in general. Link back to questions posed in the introduction. Clear statement of support/refute of hypothesis.
Very Good
Draws some connections back to questions posed in the introduction. suggests that the data supports the hypothesis
Good
Attempt to Link back to questions posed in the introduction attempt to show data connection to hypothesis but poorly argued
Average
Attempt to discuss implications made but not effectively written, no clear connection between results and hypothesis made
Poor
Implications/Hypothesis not discussed.
Future Directions
Excellent
Clear, effective discussion of two or more future directions, with rationale.
Very Good
Effective discussion of at least one future direction with rationale
Good
Discussion of two or more future directions, but lacking supporting rationale
Average
Discussion at least one future direction, but lacking supporting rationale
Poor
Future directions not discussed
Works Cited
Works Cited
Excellent
Includes a bibliography section that is consistently and neatly formatted with all references used in text listed. Sources are appropriate and reputable.
Very Good
Includes complete bibliography, only issue is minor inconsistent formatting of list.
Sources are appropriate and reputable.
Good
Includes complete bibliography for each in-text citation, but one or two references are incomplete. One or two sources are questionable sources for an academic work.
Average
Bibliography is not complete/missing a few of the citations given in-text. and/OR More than two sources are questionable sources for an academic work. and/or several citations are incomplete
Poor
Bibliography either not included or extremely poor.
Overall effect/grammar
Grammar
Excellent
Excellent
Very Good
Only a few minor problems (subject-verb agreement issues)
Good
Some problems with grammar, few sentences poorly constructed
Average
Some poorly constructed sentences and paragraphs, but bad grammar doesn't completely misconstrue meaning.
Poor
Poorly constructed sentences and paragraphs,causing multiple instanced of completely misconstrued meaning.
Overall effective Report
Excellent
Excellent
Very Good
Very good
Good
Good
Average
Average
Poor
Poor
Subjects:
Biology
Types:
Writing
Discuss this rubric
You may also be interested in:
More rubrics by this author
More Biology rubrics
More Writing rubrics
Do more with this rubric:
Preview
Preview this rubric.
Edit
Modify this rubric.
Copy
Make a copy of this rubric and begin editing the copy.
Print
Show a printable version of this rubric.
Categorize
Add this rubric to multiple categories.
Bookmark
Bookmark this rubric for future reference.
Assess
Test run
Test this rubric or perform an ad-hoc assessment.
Grade
Build a gradebook to assess students.
Collaborate
Apply this rubric to any object and invite others to assess.
Share
Publish
Link, embed, and showcase your rubrics on your website.
Email
Email this rubric to a friend.
Discuss
Discuss this rubric with other members.
Do more with rubrics than ever imagined possible.
Only with iRubric
tm
.
Copyright © 2024
Reazon Systems, Inc.
All rights reserved.
n98
Your browser does not support iframes.
Your browser does not support iframes.
Your browser does not support iframes.