Skip to main content

- Username
- Password
forgot?

iRubric: Water Bottle Rocket-physics honors rubric

iRubric: Water Bottle Rocket-physics honors rubric

edit print share Copy to my rubrics Bookmark test run assess... delete Do more...
Water Bottle Rocket-physics honors Water Bottle Rocket Assessment of water bottle rocket or rocket car. Rubric Code: U239B2C By RichardBerman Ready to use Public Rubric Subject: Physics Type: Project Grade Levels: 6-8

Water Bottle Rocket/initial build Assessment of Bottle Rocket, as built (does it follow instructions set forth for baseline rocket)
	Poor 1 pts	Fair 2 pts	Good 3 pts
Stable? 3 pts Rocket is stable and moves straight and true.	Poor Rocket does not fly true and is unstable.	Fair Rocket almost flys true during stability test	Good Rocket flys true during stability test
Nose cone 3 pts Nose cone secure and aerodynamic	Poor Nose cone absent or not secure and aerodynamic	Fair Nose cone somewhat secure and aerodynamic	Good Nose cone secure and aerodynamic
Tail fins 3 pts At least three sturdy tail fins of appropriate size and placement.	Poor Tail fins absent or not sturdy and/or not of appropriate size and placement.	Fair Tail fins somewhat sturdy and of appropriate size and placement.	Good Tail fins sturdy and of appropriate size and placement.
Building behavior 3 pts Students behavior while building the rocket.	Poor Did not stay on task. Group dynamics is lacking in positive leadership or work ethic.	Fair Had to be reminded to work and make efficient use of class time.	Good Worked hard with a positive attitude.
Experimental section make sure each experimental build chooses one factor to change so that the effect of that change can be analyzed
Water Bottle Rocket/experimental build 1 Assessment of Bottle Rocket, as built (does it change one factor from instructions set forth for baseline rocket in order to test the impact)
	poor 1 pts	fair 2 pts	good 3 pts
experimental analysis 1A 3 pts is there documentation describing what the one factor to be changed was, why it was changed, and what result was (suggestion-nosecone variation)	poor information is poorly documented or not present at all	fair information is somewhat documented, but no inferences are drawn from the findings	good information is well documented, and inferences are drawn from the findings as far as what further research/experimentation could be done with this factor
experimental analysis 1B 3 pts is there documentation describing what the one factor to be changed was, why it was changed, and what result was	poor information is poorly documented or not present at all	fair information is somewhat documented, but no inferences are drawn from the findings	good information is well documented, and inferences are drawn from the findings as far as to whether further testing on this factor should be done
Water Bottle Rocket/experimental build 2 is there documentation describing what the one factor to be changed was, why it was changed, and what result was
	poor 1 pts	fair 2 pts	good 3 pts
experimental analysis 2A 3 pts is there documentation describing what the one (other) factor to be changed was, why it was changed, and what result was (suggestion-wing size/shape/number)	poor information is poorly documented or not present at all	fair information is somewhat documented, but no inferences are drawn from the findings	good information is well documented, and inferences are drawn from the findings as far as what further research/experimentation could be done with this factor
experimental analysis 2B 3 pts is there documentation describing what the one factor to be changed was, why it was changed, and what result was	poor information is poorly documented or not present at all	fair information is somewhat documented, but no inferences are drawn from the findings	good information is well documented, and inferences are drawn from the findings as far as to whether further testing on this factor should be done
experimental analysis synthesis use the research from experimental analysis 1 and 2 to determine the optimal build of the rocket based on the factors you tested and the research data
	poor 1 pts	fair 2 pts	good 3 pts
synthesis results and findings 3 pts compare results of baseline build vs all phases of research to determine effects of changes	poor none/very little data is presented, Findings are not presented/presented in a very disjointed way, no summary or a very minimal summary is present	fair very little/some data is presented to back up findings, findings are present, and a summary of results is present	good data is presented that is used to support the findings, summary of results is present that provides a recommendation for further factors to be studied

Keywords:

Center of mass, Center of pressure, Stable?, Nose cone, Tail fins

Subjects:

Physics

Types:

Project

Discuss this rubric

You may also be interested in:

More rubrics by this author

More Physics rubrics

More Project rubrics

Do more with this rubric:

Preview

Preview

Preview this rubric.

Edit

Edit

Modify this rubric.

Copy

Copy

Make a copy of this rubric and begin editing the copy.

Print

Print

Show a printable version of this rubric.

Categorize

Categorize

Add this rubric to multiple categories.

Bookmark

Bookmark

Bookmark this rubric for future reference.

Assess

Test run

Test run

Test this rubric or perform an ad-hoc assessment.

Grade

Grade

Build a gradebook to assess students.

Collaborate

Apply this rubric to any object and invite others to assess.

Share

Publish

Publish

Link, embed, and showcase your rubrics on your website.

Email

Email

Email this rubric to a friend.

Discuss

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.

n16