Project Part 1
Feedback for 5-3-2 Project Part One: Planning Document Second Draft
Top of Form
|
Submission Feedback |
|
|
Thank you for your submission, China. I enjoyed reading your draft, however, there are some sections of your paper that need to be corrected. Please check each section of the rubric to find my suggestions for improvement. Please make these revisions in Soomo so that when you download your planning document, it will show your corrected draft. Once you have completed those revisions, you will be right on track to being successful on your final draft. Also, take time now to look at the final draft rubric to ensure that you achieve the new performance level descriptor "exemplary" on your final draft. Please keep working hard. |
|
|
Rubric Name: SCI 200 Project Part One Second Draft Rubric
This table lists criteria and criteria group name in the first column. The first row lists level names and includes scores if the rubric uses a numeric scoring method.Criteria
Proficient
Needs Improvement
Not Evident
Introduction: Issue
5 points
Describes selected issue in natural sciences and its significance
3.75 points
Describes selected issue in natural sciences and its significance but with gaps in detail or clarity
0 points
Does not describe selected issue in natural sciences and its significance
5 / 5
Introduction: Science Resources
10 points
Describes at least three relevant and appropriate science resources that could be used to investigate selected issue
7.5 points
Describes at least three science resources that could be used to investigate selected issue but with gaps in appropriateness, relevance, or detail or is missing one or more sources
0 points
Does not describe science resources that could be used to investigate selected issue
10 / 10
Introduction: Specific Question
5 points
Develops specific question related to selected issue based on review of science resources
3.75 points
Develops specific question related to selected issue, but question is not based on review of science resources
0 points
Does not develop specific question related to selected issue
5 / 5
Body: Audience
10 points
Identifies an audience that would be interested in issue and question, citing source(s)
7.5 points
Identifies an audience, but audience is not appropriate for issue and question, or there are gaps in citation
0 points
Does not identify an audience
7.5 / 10
Criterion Feedback
China, please add a relevant APA in-text citation to this paragraph to achieve proficiency. Be sure to add the long citation to the reference page on the last page of your planning document.
Body: Message
10 points
Describes how and why message can be tailored to audience, providing specific examples and citing source(s)
7.5 points
Describes how and why message can be tailored to audience but with gaps in examples or citation
0 points
Does not describe how and why message can be tailored to audience
10 / 10
Body: Identify Principle(s)
10 points
Identifies natural science principle(s) that apply to issue and question, citing source(s)
7.5 points
Identifies natural science principle(s) that apply to issue and question but with gaps in accuracy or citation
0 points
Does not identify natural science principle(s) that apply to issue and question
10 / 10
Body: Explain Principle(s)
10 points
Explains how identified principle(s) apply to issue and question, citing source(s)
7.5 points
Explains how identified principle(s) apply to issue and question but with gaps in detail, clarity, or citation
0 points
Does not explain how identified principle(s) apply to issue and question
10 / 10
Conclusion: Hypothesis
15 points
Formulates hypothesis that addresses question based on investigation of question
11.25 points
Formulates hypothesis that addresses question, but hypothesis is not based on investigation of question
0 points
Does not formulate hypothesis that addresses question
11.25 / 15
Criterion Feedback
This hypothesis needs clarity, China. You have successful formulated a hypothesis, however, there is a lack of it being based upon empirical (experimental) evidence because it cannot be tested in this lifetime. Therefore, this hypothesis does not address your question completely. To strengthen this key element of your research paper you must base your hypothesis on your investigation. Doing so demonstrates that you used logic to come up with it. This was a new element within your research paper so it can be difficult to incorporate this aspect. I suggest, for your final draft, that you use the wording from your research question and add specific themes you learned from your investigation. For example, if your research question was "Do hovercrafts make for the best mode of transportation in off-shore townships in Virginia?", and your investigation found that hovercrafts use huge amounts of gas, your hypothesis might be "hovercrafts are more useful than cars for people living in off-shore townships, despite not being economical". An easier way to write your hypothesis is to use this template as a guideline: If _____[I do this] _____, then _____[this]_____ will happen. (Ex. If I give elementary aged children chocolate candy, then they will behave in a hyperactive manner.) I want you to grow from this feedback I've provided. Also, please watch this video: https://youtu.be/gjDcLprBxRo. Please make sure that your final draft contains these suggested changes. Keep working hard. You are just one step away!
Conclusion: Natural Scientist
15 points
Explains how a natural scientist would go about collecting evidence to support or refute hypothesis
Explains how a natural scientist would go about collecting evidence to support or refute hypothesis, but explanation has gaps in clarity, detail, or logic
0 points
Does not explain how a natural scientist would go about collecting evidence to support or refute hypothesis
11.25 / 15
Criterion Feedback
China, you received needs improvement for this section because your experiment is not based in the natural sciences. Please review your scientific research articles for ideas on how to create a unique natural science experiment that a natural scientist might use to test your research question and collect evidence to support or refute your hypothesis. Typically, this requires that you list the hypothetical next steps (with specific detail) of a natural scientist, if they were to continue researching your hypothesis. Please make this adjustment and you will be on track to be successful for your final draft.
Reference List
5 points
Provides reference list that includes all science resources used to investigate issue and question, and list is formatted according to current APA guidelines
3.75 points
Provides reference list that includes all science resources used to investigate issue and question, but list has gaps in adherence to current APA formatting guidelines
0 points
Does not provide reference list that includes all science resources used to investigate issue and question
5 / 5
Articulation of Response
5 points
Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization
3.75 points
Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas
0 points
Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that prevent understanding of ideas
3.75 / 5
Criterion Feedback
China, there is an opportunity for improvement here. I like that you have submitted your rough draft. However, the way you have articulated your thoughts has caused your submission to have some problems with readability and articulation of its main ideas due to lack of details, format, and citation issues. Please take some time to review your submission and correct those errors. The correct the format issues, please use the setup sheet to assist to preparing your planning document. You can find it in announcement named "Important Planning Document Information." If you need assistance with your citations or anything else, please contact the SNHU Writing Center for assistance. They will be happy to help.
Rubric Total ScoreTotal
88.75 / 100
Overall Score
Overall Score
Proficient
Instructors should not modify this row (it will automate from the scores above). This score represents the average evaluation across all rubric criteria.
Needs ImprovementInstructors should not modify this row (it will automate from the scores above). This score represents the average evaluation across all rubric criteria.
Not EvidentInstructors should not modify this row (it will automate from the scores above). This score represents the average evaluation across all rubric criteria.
|
|
|
|
Score
|