iRubric: Chemistry Lab Reports rubric

none of the required format elements are followed

Missing 4 or more required sections; report done in pencil or extremely messy; no headings are present

Missing 2 or 3 required sections; report handwritten but neatly done in blue or black ink; missing headings

Missing 1 required section; reports is typed but not to parameters; not all headings are present

All required sections are included; the report is typed using given parameters; headings are present

Is incoherent

Formal tone is not set; frequent use of slang, contractions, and "you" phrasing; most paragraphs are not defined or show no logical development; sentence structure is often incomplete and work is repetitive or inappropriate

Less formal tone is apparent; much use of slang, contractions, or "you" phrasing; many paragraphs are not well defined, or show little logical development; sentence structure and word choice is repetitive but appropriate

Formal tone is generally found; a few slang or "you" phrases are present; some paragraphs show lack of consistency or logic or transition; sentence structure and work choice are usually varied and appropriate

precise use of scientific and other vocabulary to create a formal tone; paragraph formation is logical and shows good transition between ideas; sentence structures are varied

Not done

Many materials are missing, and the procedure is missing many steps or is indecipherable; the citation is incorrect; no changes in the procedure are listed

Some materials are missing; lab procedure is incomplete, but could be followed by someone who had already done the lab; citation is incomplete; most changes in the procedure are not noted

Missing minor materials or information that could reasonably be guessed by someone unfamiliar with the lab; citation is correct though format is wrong; most changes in procedure are noted

Written in such a way that the reader could repeat the experiment exactly using nothing but the lab report; only trivial or unimportant information is missing; citation is correctly done with corrections noted

Not done

Many sections are missing or are incomplete or incorrect; no real explanation of data is given; conclusions are not drawn or are so short that they are incomprehensible; sections show little to no evidence of though, understanding, or effort; superficial/limited content

Conclusion is complete or missing one section but many of the sections are trivial, incorrect, or not well-thought out; there is little to no theoretical explanation; the hypothesis is unsupported and a clear understanding of the lab is not evident; limited content with inadequate explanation

Conclusion is complete; some ideas are trivial, some well-thought out; hypothesis is supported and most data is explained, though not all at a theoretical level; it shows clear evidence of understanding of the topic and purpose; sufficiently developed content with adequate explanation

Conclusion is complete and includes thought about all results, not just those related to experimental hypothesis; hypothesis is supported by evidence; observations are interesting and show a deep level of thought and understanding; theoretical explanations are given for results; substantial, specific and illustrative content demonstrating strong development and sophisticated ideas