| | | Spectroscopy Experiment Results & discussion only |
| Pts. earned | Pts. available | Item |
| | | Point Code: Total score = 3: Missing (0), Inadequate (1), needs Improvement(2) Complete (3). If Total not 3 than scores are 0, 50, 75, or 100% of total |
| Title, etc. | 1 | Spectroscopy of atoms. |
| | 1 | Descriptive title that refers to the main point(s) in the report and is not the one from the manual. Also includes Partner, TA, and section. (0, 0.5, 0.75, 1) |
| Data & Results |
| | 3 | Well written paragraph(s) introducing reader to the data presented and referring to the figures and tables |
| | 3 | Table 1. Calibration with Helium, Labeled, and discussed in text |
| | 3 | Figure 1. Calibration Plot of Helium with trend line and equation included, labeled, discussed |
| | 3 | Table 2. Calculated, Experimentally Observed Hydrogen Spectrum Lines, error column |
| | 3 | Table 3. Experimentally Observed Hg Spectrum Lines with literature values |
| | 3 | Table 4. Experimentally Observed Other (with lit values) Spectrum Lines |
| | 1 | Uncertainty in wavelength from scale reading (0, 0.5, 0.75, 1) |
| | 3 | Observations on LED array (can give partial points) 0.5 if listed rather than narrative - take off only once for LED's & bulbs |
| | 3 | Observations on light bulbs(can give partial points) |
| 0 | 25 | Data & Results Total |
| Discussion & Conclusion |
| | 3 | Data tables of each element are compared to literature values |
| | 3 | Reasoning for differences between experimental and literature values are given |
| | 3 | Compare and contrast the light bulbs, LEDs, and atomic light sources. |
| | 3 | Describes if the evidence supports the scientific claim or conclusion. |
| | 3 | Provides additional evidence that supports claim.- references |
| | 1 | Is able to identify assumption and uncertainties in equipment and propagation of uncertainties through calculations |
| | 1 | Describes how these uncertainties impact the final answer (matches literature? able to assign lines?) |
| | 1 | Discusses if the experiment worked well and describes how the design of the experiment or their execution of the experiment could be improved. |
| | 3 | Correctly state if hypothesis supported or not, Revised hypothesis if necessary that fits evidence. |
| 0 | 21 | Discussion Total |
| References |
| | 1 | Listed three or more reliable references (not yahoo or Wikipedia) (handout, can be textbook) |
| | 1 | Provides a valid citation for the known support of scientific claim. (example: Sources for atomic lines, discussion of bulbs and LEDs |
| | deduction | Deduction: Information from sources not cited. ( paraphrased - no in-text citation but referenced -2, (Large direct quote with quotations & in-text citation -2) direct quote but did not in-text site but did reference-4 , direct quote/copy not referenced - AIV process) |
| | 3 | Used sufficient in-text citations |
| 0 | 5 | References Total |
| Overall | | Other Overall Quality considerations and Total |
| | 3 | Proper use of spelling, grammar, and punctuation |
| | 3 | Report Organized (lacks coherence (0) , minimal organization (1), some areas of difficulty (2), Organization enhances ideas (3 ) |
| | 3 | Writing has good flow and sentence fluency |
| | | Other Deduction or addition (Explain in comments) |
| 0 | 9 | Overall quality considerations Total |
| 0 | 61 | Report Overall Grade - points |
| 0.0% | 100.0% | Report Percentage |
| 0.00 | 25.00 | Scale to 25 (pnts/25 before late penalties) |
| Late Points |
| | 20 | Days Late |
| 0 | -25 | Point deduction for late work (calculated automatically). |
| 0.0 | | total points |
| 0.00 | 25.00 | Final Report Points out of 25 |
| 0.00% | 100.00% | Final Report Percentage |
Malansari23
atomic_spectra_gradeing_excel_sp15plt.xlsx
