The total possible is 100 points. Here is a sample of the grade sheet that will be used to evaluate the project. You are encouraged to use this as a checklist to make sure your paper contains all these things and is correctly organized.
Each of the following areas is worth two points each, for a possible total of 100 points. For each question, an answer of “yes” is worth 2 pt., an answer of “sort-of” is worth 1 pt., and an answer of “no” is worth 0 pt. For questions regarding grammar, 0 to 2 errors in that category will count as a “yes” answer, 3 to 5 errors will count as a “sort-of” answer, and over 5 will count as a “no” answer.
Initial Pages and Overall Organization: | ||||
1. | Did the title accurately reflect the topic/content of the paper/experiment? | |||
2. | Were the authors’ names included on the title page? | |||
3. | Was there a Table of Contents? | |||
4. | Did the Table of Contents have correct page numbers, and were the pages numbered? | |||
5. | Overall, was the paper well-organized, were the correct sections present, and did each section have a heading? | |||
6. | Did each section contain only material appropriate to that section (no data in Methods and Materials, etc.)? | |||
Introduction: | ||||
7. | Was the hypothesis clearly stated? | |||
8. | Was the prediction clearly stated? | |||
9. | Was the prediction correctly based on and derived from the hypothesis and proposed experiment? | |||
10. | Was there an explanation of why this research is important – how does it relate to “everyday life” – of what benefit will it be to others? | |||
Literature Review: | ||||
11. | Was there evidence of a “thorough” search – were several, useful sources consulted (as per guidlines stated above)? | |||
12. | Was the author critically selective in evaluating/filtering the sources – were only legitimate, reliable sources of information used (no Web pages on “My Pet Cat, Joe”)? | |||
13. | Did the author do a good job of concisely summarizing the reported findings of others in his/her own words? | |||
14. | Were references cited where needed? | |||
15. | Was a proper citation format used (CBE, MLA, etc.)? | |||
Methods & Materials: | ||||
16. | Was the procedure clearly thought-out and stated? (in paragraph form, not a list; telling what was done, not giving orders to someone) | |||
17. | Was there a control group and an experimental group? | |||
18. | Was there repetition – more than one organism (or “peer group”) per treatment? | |||
19. | Were the data to be gathered and methods of gathering them explained? | |||
20. | Were the means of analyzing the data stated? | |||
21. | Were the needed equipment/supplies mentioned in the narrative? | |||
22. | Were supporting reasons given to justify the author’s plan? | |||
Data: | ||||
23. | Was a speculation included on what data might reasonably be found? | |||
24. | Was a valid analysis of those data done – for example, averages where needed to show effects of treatment on a test group? | |||
25. | Were the data presented concisely – no redundancy or duplication? | |||
26. | When/where feasible, were the data presented as a graph? | |||
27. | Was the type of graph appropriate to/for the type of data being represented? | |||
28. | Did the graph have a proper title, and were the axes titled and units given? | |||
29. | Did the text highlight and comment on significant data points without being redundant or duplicating the data and without drawing conclusions? | |||
Conclusions: | ||||
30. | Were conclusions drawn from the experiment that was supposedly done? | |||
31. | Were these conclusions backed up/supported by quotes of the supposed data that were collected? | |||
32. | Were the conclusions that were reached reasonable for the supposed data? | |||
33. | Were speculations on other possible experimental outcomes and the significance thereof included? | |||
34. | Were more questions and possible experimentation generated and mentioned? | |||
Bibliography: | ||||
35. | Were at least four references consulted? | |||
36. | Were at least two of those to journal articles or books? | |||
37. | Was at least one of those to a “reliable” Web site? | |||
38. | Was a correct bibliographic citation format used (CBE, MLA, etc.)? | |||
Presentation: | ||||
39. | Was the paper typed using a computer/word processor and presented in a “business-like,” professional manner (no goofy, irrelevant graphics)? | |||
40. | Were appropriate abbreviations and symbols used when needed (“m” for meters, “ ° ” for degrees, etc.), and were super- and subscripts used when needed (H2O)? | |||
41. | Were all units/measurements given in the metric system? | |||
42. | Was the paper proofread and was a spell-checker used, if needed – was correct spelling used throughout the paper? | |||
43. | Were complete sentences used? | |||
44. | Was “-’s” used properly (“its” vs “it’s”, “cats” vs “cat’s” vs “cats’,” etc.)? | |||
45. | Was there verb tense agreement throughout the paper? | |||
46. | Was there singular/plural agreement throughout the paper, especially among personal pronouns (“he/she” vs “they”)? | |||
47. | Were various “sound-alike” words used properly (there, their, they’re, to, too, two, etc.)? | |||
Overall Effort & Thought: | ||||
48. | Was there sufficient evidence of effort expended? | |||
49. | Was there evidence that the author used insight, thoughtfulness, and critical thinking when writing the paper? | |||
50. | Was the paper in on time? |