Skip to main content
iRubric: IVAP First Lab Report Assessment rubric

iRubric: IVAP First Lab Report Assessment rubric

find rubric

edit   print   share   Copy to my rubrics   Bookmark   test run   assess...   delete   Do more...
IVAP First Lab Report Assessment 
For Assessment of AP ability to communicate scientific information in a written format.
Rubric Code: RX9399B
Ready to use
Public Rubric
Subject: Biology  
Type: Writing  
Grade Levels: Undergraduate

Powered by iRubric Lab Report Assessment
  Excellent

20 pts

Good

15 pts

Average

10 pts

Poor

5 pts

Introduction
30 %
Purpose

Excellent

the overall purpose for undertaking the research or experiment(s) is stated in a clear, concise manner.
Good

the overall purpose for undertaking the research or experiment(s) is stated fully, but could have been worded more concisely/directly
Average

the overall purpose for undertaking the research or experiment(s) is stated fully, but in an unclear manner
Poor

the overall purpose for undertaking the research or experiment(s) is not stated fully, and is unclear
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.
Good

Mostly clear discussion of background information that supports the importance/rationale of the experiment and includes at least a few previous observations. ams
Average

Relevant background information was included, but the connection with the experiment was not made clear. ams
Poor

Some background information was included, but it was not particularly relevant. ams
Hypothesis

Excellent

A clear, concise, relevant and testable overall hypotheses are stated along with one or more specific hypothesis. Predictions and/or aims included.
Good

A clear, concise, relevant and testable overall hypothesis is stated, but aims hypothesis or prediction is absent.
Average

One hypothesis or research question is clearly stated, but no other hypotheses or predictions are given. ams
Poor

Objective or purpose is stated, but hypotheses and research questions are lacking.
Materials and Methods
20 %
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
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
Average

While the report addresses and cites techniques and procedures appropriately, it contains numerous small grammatical errors or lacks citations. ams
Poor

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
Replicability

Excellent

Procedures are clearly replicable. All steps, including data analysis and statistical testing, are outlined sequentially and are clearly explained (or cited) and adequately detailed.
Good

Procedures appear to be replicable. Steps, including data analysis, are outlined and are adequately detailed (or cited).
Average

All steps are outlined and/ or cited, but there is not enough detail to replicate procedures.
Poor

One or a two steps (such as data analysis) are missing.
Results
15 %
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
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
Average

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
Poor

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
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
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
Average

An important element (such are results of statistical tests) is missing. Some grammatical errors are present. ams
Poor

Results narrative present but it cannot stand alone. Some major grammatical problems are present. Several sentences of methods or conclusions are included. ams
Discussion/Conclusions
15 %
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.
Good

The relationship between the variables is discussed and trends/patterns logically analyzed.
Average

The relationship between the variables is discussed but no patterns, trends or predictions are made based on the data.
Poor

An attempt is made to discuss the relationships among different variables, but the arguments are not relevant or are unclear.
Limitations of Design

Excellent

Several Limitations of the Experimental design are discussed clearly with alternative strategies given
Good

Several Limitations of the Experimental design are discussed clearly but few alternate strategies are suggested, although clearly
Average

Several Limitations of the Experimental design are discussed but alternate strategies are not given
Poor

Limitations are discussed but are mostly irrelevant or are unclear
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.
Good

Draws some connections back to questions posed in the introduction. suggests that the data supports the hypothesis
Average

Attempt to Link back to questions posed in the introduction attempt to show data connection to hypothesis but poorly argued
Poor

Attempt to discuss implications made but not effectively written, no clear connection between results and hypothesis made
Overall effect/grammar
20 %
Grammar

Excellent

Excellent
Good

Only a few minor problems (subject-verb agreement issues)
Average

Some problems with grammar, few sentences poorly constructed
Poor

Some poorly constructed sentences and paragraphs, but bad grammar doesn't completely misconstrue meaning.
Overall effective Report

Excellent

Excellent
Good

Very good
Average

Good
Poor

Average




Subjects:

Types:





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 iRubrictm.



Copyright © 2024 Reazon Systems, Inc.  All rights reserved.
n98