Biology Report

Toxicology Lab Report Rubric

Criteria 0 pt Poor (1 pt) Fair (2 pts) Good (3 pts)

Section 1: What were you trying to explain and why? (Introduction)

1. The author describes the concept under investigation and why it is useful or needed.

No discussion of concept.

The concept is defined but not explored in terms of its meaning within the scientific community.

The concept is defined and discussed briefly in terms of its

meaning within the scientific community.

The concept is defined and fully discussed in terms of its

meaning within the scientific community.

2. The author clearly states the research objective and relates

it to the concept.

Research objective is not stated.

The specific problem under

investigation is stated but not related to the concept.

The specific problem under

investigation is stated and briefly discussed in terms of the concept.

The specific problem under investigation is discussed; its

relationship to concept is discussed in detail.

Section 2: How did you go about your work and why?

1. The author provides an adequate list of materials List not provided. List provided but has significant

omissions. List provided and is adequate.

Complete, detailed list of materials provided.

2. The author provides an adequate description of how the

investigation was done

The method is not

described.

The author provided minimal

description of the method.

The author provides description of how investigation was done but is

lacking in detail

The author provides adequate

detailed description of how investigation was done

3. The author provides an adequate description of measures taken to reduce error.

Measures taken to reduce error are not described.

The author provided minimal

description of measures to reduce error

Information on techniques employed

to reduce error provided but is lacking detail.

Appropriate methods to reduce

error described in detail.

4. The author correctly identifies the objective, hypotheses,

control, independent and dependent variables. None identified.

2 or more items not included or incorrectly identified

Only 1 item missing or misidentified. All items included and correct.

Section 3: The Evidence (Results)

1. The author provides valid and reliable data and presents the data in an organized format(both text and tables) .

No data presented.

The author presents insufficient data or data is unorganized, only

raw data provided, or missing text discussion of data.

The author presents sufficient data in an organized chart as well as in text discussion but labels, units and/or significant figures are missing or

incorrect.

The author presents sufficient data in an organized chart and text with correct labels, units

and significant figures.

2. The author provides a sufficient answer to the research

question in data discussion.

Question not answered.

Brief answer to question that

lacks detail Detailed answer to question.

Detailed answer to question that also relates answer to concept.

Section 4: The Argument (Conclusion)

1. The author uses the experimental data as evidence to support their claim.

Does not support claim with evidence.

The author provides support but

used evidence based on unreliable or invalid data.

The author provides support for all of his/her ideas using valid and reliable data BUT uses only some of data.

The author provides support for all of his/her ideas using valid

and reliable data AND uses most of the data.

2. The author’s claim is consistent with known values and/or

with other groups in their lab section.

No comparison and conclusion was

inaccurate.

The conclusion is correct, but no comparison with other groups

was included.

The conclusion is partially correct, but comparison with other groups

was used to explain error in values.

The conclusion is correct and the values were compared in a meaningful way with the values

of the other groups or with known values.

The Writing 1. Directions: Section headers present; typed

None present. Missing most section headers or

part of report not typed

Missing one section header. Entire submittal typed.

All section headers present and

entire submittal typed.

2. Organization and Sentence Fluency. The writing has a sense of purpose and structure.

Not applicable

The writing lacks coherence and organization. The writing is

difficult to follow. Sentences tend to be incomplete, rambling

or awkward

The overall structure of the report is inconsistent or skeletal. Occasional awkward sentence construction may

force the reader to slow down or reread.

The organization of the writing enhances the central idea and its development. The writing has an

easy flow and rhythm.

3. Word Choice. The author used appropriate words to express

his or her ideas. Not applicable

The writing includes many misused words and/or phrases not used in scientific reports, such as “it is proven” or “it’s

correct”.

The writing includes a variety of generic words with no inappropriate terminology. One or two instances

of misused terminology.

The writing includes a broad range of words that have been

carefully chosen. All terminology is correctly used.

4. Conventions. The author used appropriate grammar,

spelling, punctuation, paragraphing, capitalization and formatting (superscripts and subscripts).

Not applicable The author made multiple technical writing errors.

The author made two or three

technical writing errors.

The author used appropriate grammar, spelling, punctuation, paragraphing, capitalization and

formatting.