Inquiry and Science Writing
Combines argumentative writing rubric with elements of inquiry.
|
|
Advancing
10 pts
|
Developing
7 pts
|
Poor
4 pts
|
Experimental Design
30 %
|
|
A testable question(s) is/are clearly written.
|
A question is written but may be unclear or un-testable.
|
|
|
The hypothesis is written as an "If...then...because" statement and clearly relates to the question asked.
|
The hypothesis clearly relates to and tries to answer the questions asked.
|
The hypothesis is missing or does not relate to the question asked.
|
|
The list of materials is complete.
|
The list of materials is mostly complete.
|
The list of materials is incomplete.
|
|
The procedures are written as clear, specific, numbered steps.
|
The procedures are written as steps, but may be confusing.
|
The procedure is incomplete or does not make sense to the reader.
|
Observations
30 %
|
|
Observations are detailed, organized, and accurate.
|
Observations are vague and/ or unorganized.
|
Observations are incomplete or absent.
|
|
Data and analysis are accurate and clear and includes student-generated drawings, charts, graphs, and narrative. May include equations when appropriate.
|
Data and analysis are accurate, yet unclear. Includes student-generated drawings, charts, graphs, and narrative.
|
Data and analysis are inaccurate or student-generated drawings, charts, graphs, and narrative are missing.
|
Scientific Drawings
1 pts
observations and graphical representations
|
Accurate. Big. Colorful.
Detailed. Best effort clearly given. Data charts and graphs are made with a ruler and have appropriate labels and numerical scale.
|
Missing 1 component of the ABCD drawing. Data charts and graphs are made with a ruler and have appropriate numerical scale. Labels may be missing.
|
Missing 2 or more components of the ABCD drawing. Mechanical problems with graph numerical scale, labels and /or accuracy due to poor drawing.
|
Conclusion
40 %
|
|
A precise developed claim is present. Explains the relevancy and importance of the topic. Explains the strengths and limitations of a distinguished relevant counterclaim.
|
A general claim is present. Acknowledges the relevance but does not explain the importance of the topic. There is not a clear distinction between the claim and counterclaim. Some minor errors are present in the counterclaim.
|
Claim is not present or it does not address relevance / significance of the topic. A convincing argument is not made. Counterclaim is not present or irrelevant.
|
Evidence
2 pts
Develops ideas with examples (observations, data, analysis, research, etc.)
|
Multiple pieces of evidence (observations and data, analysis, or research, etc.) are relevant, accurate and thoroughly explained.
|
Only one piece of evidence (observation or data) is used. Evidence has minor mistakes and is not explained in detail.
|
Evidence is wrong, repetitive or irrelevant.
|
Reasoning / Justification
2 pts
Explains how the evidence supports the claim
|
Claim is well-supported. Explains why the evidence was included and how the evidence supports the explanation.
|
Some reasons are more supported than others. Explains why the evidence was included or how the evidence supports the explanation but not both.
|
Specific reasoning for the claim is not stated. Makes simple assertion that the evidence “proves it” or it simply refers to the evidence without explaining it.
|
Science Content / Background
|
Accurate scientific information is included throughout the writing. Links evidence to an important concept or principle.
|
The topic is explained, but minor mistakes are made.
|
The topic is not developed and / or contains major mistakes.
|
|
Uses a variety of science vocabulary correctly.
|
Science vocabulary is used with minor mistakes in their definitions.
|
Science vocabulary is not used correctly.
|
|
Formal style reflects an objective tone. Creates a logical structure with complete sentences and paragraphs. Focus is always on the claim. Grammar is used correctly. Transitions clarify relationships.
|
Formal style is inconsistent. Complete sentences are used but informal language is present. Main ideas are clear, but stray from the claim. Some grammatical mistakes are made. Transitions are used but do not connect ideas.
|
Formal style is not present. Complete sentences are not used. There is no specific focus. There are major grammatical mistakes. There are no transitions between ideas. There is no clarity in the writing.
|
|
Student reflections are sincere. Reflections address how your ideas have changed; new understandings and connections made to prior (background) understandings.
|
Student has made an attempt to be sincere. Reflections address how your ideas have changed or new understandings and connections made to prior (background) understandings, but not both.
|
Reflections are incomplete or insincere. Student has not made connections or addressed new understandings.
|