Independent Research Project Sample Gradesheet


Title Page (6):
2 — Title accurately reflects and identifies the topic of the experiment that was performed
1 — Title is too “cutsie” and/or only partially relates to the experiment that was performed
0 — Title does not relate to the experiment that was performed or no title is given for the paper
2 — Author and date included on the title page
1 — One or the other of the above is missing
0 — Author and date and/or the whole title page is/are missing
2 — No abbreviations are used in the title, and appropriate taxonomic data are included
1 — 1 to 2 abbreviations are used in the title, and/or taxonomic data are partially incorrect
0 — More than 2 abbreviations are used, and/or either taxonomic data are missing or are present but incorrect
Table of Contents and List(s) of Figures and Tables (8):
2 — Only initial page of each section of the paper (and any major subsections) is listed in TOC with corresponding page numbers
1 — Each page of the paper is listed in the TOC rather than just initial pages of each section or page numbers missing
0 — TOC missing
2 — Lists of Figures and of Tables are actually lists of figures and tables which occur elsewhere in the paper
1 — Lists of Figures and of Tables are incomplete, partial lists and/or contain some material that belongs elsewhere
0 — Either what is included here is graphics, calculations, or text that belongs elsewhere, or these lists are missing but needed
2 — Lists of Figures and of Tables presented as two separate lists
1 — Lists of Figures and of Tables presented in one list
0 — Lists of Figures and Tables missing, even though figures and tables are present in the text
2 — For each figure or table listed, the full title of the figure/table and its page number are listed
1 — Titles of figures/tables do not match those in the text of the paper or page numbers missing
0 — No titles were given for the figures and/or tables
Abstract (8): (Samples)
2 — First line(s) contain(s) proper citation for the paper and is/are single spaced, title matches title given on title page
1 — Incorrect citation format and/or titles do not match
0 — Citation line totally missing
2 — Concise summary of procedure included
1 — Either too wordy and/or not enough details given to understand what was done
0 — Summary of procedure missing or extremely verbose
2 — Concise summary of the data which points out important findings
1 — Either some data are missing and/or some unnecessary calculations and/or raw data included
0 — Summary of data missing or way too many raw data and/or calculations included
2 — Concise summary of the results/conclusions which highlights the significance/implications of the findings
1 — Conclusions drawn are irrelevant to and/or not based on the data
0 — No conclusions are included
Introduction (12): (Samples)
2 — Observations, question, hypothesis, prediction(s) clearly stated
1 — Either some of the above missing, or if seemingly present, not closely related to the experiment at hand
0 — Most of the above totally missing or totally unrelated to the experiment being performed
2 — Question, hypothesis, and prediction are present, and are well–integrated into the text in narrative form
1 — Question, hypothesis, and prediction are present, and are partially integrated into the text
0 — Question, hypothesis, and prediction either are listed totally separately (“The hypothesis is...”) or are missing
2 — Prediction clearly stated and correctly based on and derived from the hypothesis and proposed experiment
1 — A “prediction” seemingly present, but not a true prediction derived from the hypothesis and proposed experiment
0 — Prediction missing or totally unrelated to the experiment being performed
2 — Experiment related to everyday life, convincing demonstration of the need for and/or benefits derived from this research was included
1 — Weak justification and/or “contrived” relationship to practical applications
0 — Justification for this research is totally lacking, no relationship to any practical application
2 — The Introduction concisely explains what will be done and sets forth the goal of the experiment without a lot of extra “padding”
1 — The Introduction is mostly a repetition/reiteration of the Methods and Materials section and/or is rambling and not concise
0 — The Introduction is extremely unclear or too vague about what will be done and why
2 — Shows understanding of what the experiment is all about, no extraneous info (procedures, data) included
1 — Shows weak understanding of the experiment and/or some unnecessary/improper info included
0 — Totally misses the point of the experiment and/or includes much info that belong elsewhere
Literature Review (14): (Samples)
2 — The Literature Review is, indeed, a review of the scientific literature
1 — There is some discussion of the scientific literature, mixed with much text that belongs elsewhere in the paper
0 — The included text consists mostly of material that belongs in Methods and Materials or other sections of the paper
2 — The Literature Review is a well–organized, logically–flowing, insightful narrative which discusses pertinent, previous research
1 — The Literature Review includes a discussion of pertinent research, but jumps around a lot and is not well–organized
0 — The text reads like a book report or is a list of contents/topics of the individual publications read
2 — Evidence of a thorough search — several (4 or more), useful, scientific sources were consulted, only legitimate, reliable sources were used
1 — A mixture of valid and unreliable (Web pages on “My Pet Cat, Joe”) sources were used and or only one or two sources were used
0 — No evidence that any sources were consulted
2 — The student clearly distinguished between the validity of articles published in scientific journals and hyperbole on manufacturers’ Web sites
1 — The student was somewhat skeptical of manufacturer’s and/or other “pseudo–science” claims and made some attempt to verify them
0 — The student blindly accepted manufacturers’ and/or other “pseudo–science” claims without seeking verification in the scientific literature
2 — Summary in author’s own words of literature specifically pertinent to the experiment — judicious use of quotes
1 — Summary of literature loosely related to the experiment, general textbook background information, and/or relying too heavily on direct quotes
0 — Unsynthesized, direct quotes from sources with no indication of understanding thereof, or mostly to totally unrelated to current experiment
2 — All publications that were used/cited were also listed in the Bibliography
1 — Only some of the publications that were cited were included in the Bibliography
0 — None of the works cited matched with what was listed in the Bibliography
2 — Proper format used for citations/references to back up all statements/assertions made
1 — Incorrect biological citation format (CBE) and/or some facts asserted without citations
0 — Citation of sources missing and/or evidence that little effort was made to consult a variety of sources
Methods and Materials (30): (Samples)
2 — Experiment is a real experiment, using published or new techniques, designed to answer an unique, original question
1 — Experiment is a real experiment, but a repetition of someone else’s work that has previously been done, and the outcome of which is known
0 — “Experiment” is actually just copying an unoriginal demonstration, the outcome of which is known
2 — If applicable, Methods and Materials referenced an existing, published protocol, highlighting any variations from that protocol
1 — Existing, published protocol is referenced, but many “picky” details are included, anyway, or not enough description of variations/changes
0 — Existing protocol was not cited, too many, needless, “picky” details were included
2 — Procedure was presented in a logical, chronological order
1 — Presentation of the procedure jumped around, somewhat, and was somewhat difficult to follow
0 — Presentation of the procedure was very unorganized and jumped around so much that it was extremely difficult to follow
2 — Methods and Materials section recounted what was done in this experiment, using past tense and passive voice
1 — Some, mixed use of present/future tense and/or use of “I did...” and/or use of “you must do...”
0 — The whole section was written as though telling what “I did...” or giving orders to the reader
2 — Adequate control and experimental groups included, only one variable (everything else the same), well designed experiment
1 — Faulty experimental design — control group pr experimental group is missing
0 — No groups specified, groupings unrelated to the expermint, or too many variables   the hypothesis cannot be tested using this methodology
2 — Adequate replication (at least 3 subjects/specimens per group) included in the expermental design, well designed experiment
1 — Faulty experimental design — some replication, but not enough to verify the data
0 — Improper experimental design — only one subject in one or both groups, the hypothesis cannot be adequately tested using this methodology
2 — Adequate separation/isolation of the groups to prevent cross–contamination (fertilizer seepage, etc.)
1 — Faulty experimental design — possibility that treatment of experimental group could affect the control group
0 — Improper experimental design — no isolation where needed, such that proposed treatment of experimental group will affect the control group
2 — Well–designed experiment: # of subjects, ages, sex(es), # of trials per subject, body mass & dosage per kg, etc. specified where needed
1 — Some flaws in experimental design: some factors that should have been considered and specified were not taken into account
0 — Poorly–designed experiment: many factors that should have been considered and specified were not taken into account
2 — Methodology includes specification of adequate, meaningful data (numbers) to be gathered plus statistical means of analyzing those data
1 — Data to be gathered are unrelated to the hypothesis, not enough data related to the hypothesis, and/or specified data analysis is not appropriate
0 — Data to be gathered are not specified or have nothing to do with the hypothesis being tested and/or analysis of data not included
2 — Unambiguous account of procedure, procedure appropriate for hypothesis being tested
1 — Too sketchy or too many picky details and/or part of the procedure unrelated to the hypothesis being tested
0 — Unclear as to what was done and why and/or incorrect account of actual procedures performed, or methodology totally unrelated to hypothesis
2 — Supporting reasons, where needed, given to justify/explain the author’s plan/research protocol, concise and to–the–point
1 — Justification/explanation partially missing or extremely verbose and redundant, reasoning behind the methodology is confusing
0 — Justification missing, reasoning behind the procedures totally unclear or justification/reasoning are unrelated to the experiment being proposed
2 — Only information pertinent to Methods and Materials is included
1 — Inclusion of some extraneous information: procedures not performed or text that belongs in another section
0 — Most of the text included is inappropriate for the Methods and Materials section
2 — Materials needed and procedure performed incorporated into text in paragraph form
1 — Materials needed in list form separate from text
0 — Materials needed and some of the procedures presented as a list rather than in paragraph form
2 — Student’s grasp of techniques and equipment was excellent, methodology was scientifically valid, yielding quantitative results
1 — Student’s grasp of techniques and equipment was adequate, some invalid methodology yielding dubious results
0 — Student’s grasp of techniques and equipment was poor (cathode is not positive electrode, pH is not flow of electrons, etc.)
2 — Student planned ahead, constructed and stuck with a time table, completing the research and rough drafts in a timely manner
1 — Student did some planning, but did not correctly estimate time needed or did not stick with a time table, and got somewhat behind schedule
0 — Student did not plan ahead and was not done with the research by the time the paper was due
Data (14): (Samples)
2 — Data presented as appropriate type of graph (line vs bar) — (or chart/table, if more appropriate)
1 — Wrong type of graph used, some things that should have been graphed weren’t
0 — No graphs or totally unclear as to what graphs represent
2 — Only final, analyzed data and statistics (means, standard deviations, etc.) are included
1 — Some calculations and/or unprocessed, raw data included
0 — Data that should have been included aren’t and/or too many calculations and raw data are included
2 — Data concisely presented — no redundancy or duplication (text does not reiterate the same data)
1 — Some repetition of the same data in multiple forms (graph plus table or text)
0 — Redundant presentation of the same data (graph plus table plus text)
2 — Proper graphing technique — titles present, units given, correct type of graph (line vs bar), proper size
1 — Partially–correct graphing technique — some things done incorrectly or missing
0 — Poor graphing technique — many things done incorrectly or missing — and/or hand–drawn and not neatly done
2 — Data which were gathered were specifically pertinent to the hypothesis being investigated
1 — Some of the gathered data were unrelated to the hypothesis
0 — The data which were gathered had nothing to do with the hypothesis being tested
2 — Only data, statistics, and comments highlighting the data are included — no conclusions are drawn
1 — Some conclusions are presented as “data”, possibly/somewhat skewing interpretation of the data
0 — Too many conclusions are presented as “data”, so the “conclusions” drawn, later are actually based on conclusions rather than data
2 — Appropriate comments in text pointing out and highlighting significant data
1 — Text restates graphs and/or contains some material that belongs in other sections
0 — No explanatory text or text totally inappropriate for Data section
Conclusions (12): (Samples)
2 — Conclusions drawn show a good understanding of the experiment and the data, and “tie it all together”
1 — Conclusions drawn show a weak understanding of portions of the experiment and/or data
0 — Conclusions show no understanding of what was done, why, and the significance of the data obtained
2 — Consists of conclusions which are drawn based on a careful analysis of the data, and data and statistics are cited to support stated conclusions
1 — Consists of some weak or unsupported conclusions plus some extraneous data and/or other information, some needed statistics not calculated
0 — Consists mostly of re–iteration of data without drawing meaningful conclusions from those data, or “conclusions” are based only on opinion
2 — The actual data which were collected and statistics which were calculated really do support the conclusions which were drawn
1 — The actual data and statistics only partially or ambiguously support the conclusions, but also suggest the possibility of a different interpretation
0 — The data and statistics point to an entirely different conclusion, the alleged relationship between the data and the conclusions is contrived
2 — Only text pertinent to the Conclusion section was included
1 — Some text belonging in other sections of the paper was included here
0 — Most of the text belongs in another section of the paper (for example, re–describing the procedure followed)
2 — Good thoughts/ideas on possible flaws in procedure
1 — Some thoughts about validity of procedure
0 — No further thought put into the significance of the procedure
2 — Good thoughts/ideas on possible future, spinoff experimentation are included
1 — Some thoughts about future experimentation
0 — No further thought or scientific curiosity relative to spinoff experimentation
Bibliography (6):
2 — Proper biological (CBE) bibliographic format is used to cite the sources
1 — Some other format (MLA, APA) used to cite sources
0 — Totally incorrect format used
2 — Ample to adequate (at least 4), pertinent references included in bibliography
1 — 1 to 4, pertinent references included
0 — No pertinent references are included or there was no Bibliography
2 — All references are from scientific sources (research journals or Web sites created by scientists who are recognized authorities in that field)
1 — Some scientific references and some from “popular” sources such as magazines and most Web sites (including drug manufacturers)
0 — No scientific references are included
Grammar, etc. (40): (many examples are included in the samples from the various sections)
2 — Student obviously made use of feedback on rough drafts to improve final paper
1 — Student made some use of feedback on rough drafts to improve final paper
0 — Student ignored and did not make use of feedback on rough drafts
2 — Organization of text/paper is very logical and flows well
1 — Text is somewhat poorly organized and/or is somewhat redundant or illogical in a few places
0 — Text is extremely redundant and/or has many non–sequiturs and/or illogical leaps
2 — Correct page numbering format used (Roman numerals for “introductory” pages, Arabic for the body of the paper)
1 — Pages numbered, but format is incorrect
0 — Page numbers are missing
2 — Page numbers inserted by word–processing/computer software as part of the document
1 — Page numbers added in, later, but a computer or typewriter was used
0 — Page number hand–written onto the document
2 — Proper use of passive voice throughout the paper
1 — 1 to 3 uses of first person or implied you
0 — More than 3 uses of first person or implied you
2 — Proper subject–verb and verb tense agreement used throughout the paper
1 — 1 to 3 errors in agreement
0 — More than 3 errors in agreement*
2 — The paper has obviously been proofread and correct spelling and capitalization are used throughout
1 — 1 to 3 errors in spelling and/or capitalization
0 — More than 3 errors in spelling and/or capitalization*
2 — Correct use of “—’s” and sound–alike words (there, they’re , their)
1 — 1 to 3 errors in usage
0 — More than 3 errors in usage*
2 — Proper scientific abbreviations, spacing, super– and subscripts, and symbols used throughout the paper and done correctly on a computer
1 — 1 to 3 errors in scientific notation and/or added in by hand or improperly inserted via computer
0 — More than 3 errors in scientific notation*
2 — All measurements given in the metric system, proper use of significant figures (appropriate number of decimal places used)
1 — 1 to 3 uses of English system measurements and/or some incorrect use of “sig figs”
0 — More than 3 measurements in English system units and/or no thought given to proper use of “sig figs”
2 — All scientific names and abbreviations are properly introduced the first time used [“Escherichia coli”, “colony forming unit (CFU)”]
1 — Some abbreviations [“E. coli”, “CFU”] are used without proper introduction
0 — Many abbreviations are included with no explanation of what they mean
2 — All scientific names are properly spelled, capitalized, and italicized, order and family names are properly spelled and capitalized
1 — Some problems with spelling, capitalization, and/or italicization of scientific names or names of other taxa
0 — No effort was made to insure proper usage of scientific and other taxonomic names
2 — Complete sentences of an appropriate length were used
1 — 1 to 3 “sentences” that are either not complete sentences or else are run–on sentences
0 — More than 3 “sentences” that are either not complete sentences or else are run–on sentences*
2 — The student obviously was aware of and correctly distinguished between terms such as “growth” or “growth rate” vs “length” or “width”
1 — In several places, terms such as “growth” were used when “length” was meant, and the distinction between them was blurry
0 — Incorrect terminology was used too frequently, throughout the paper, and no recognition of the differences in meaning was apparent
2 — Other grammar and sentence structure are correct throughout the paper, including proper use of commas, periods, etc.
1 — 1 to 3 errors in other grammar and/or sentence structure
0 — More than 3 errors in other grammar and/or sentence structure*
2 — Section headings are included and each section begins on a new page, sections presented in proper order
1 — Either headings are not included or each section does not begin on a new page, some sections presented out of order
0 — The paper is not properly divided into sections*
2 — Paper presented in a professional, scientific style — no goofy, irrelevant graphics, no cutsie fonts, consistent formatting throughout the paper
1 — Formatting not consistent or use of 1 to 2 irrelevant graphics or some inappropriate font(s) used
0 — Very unprofessional–looking paper — too many irrelevant graphics and/or totally inappropriate font face or color
2 — A computer or word processor was used, the text is legible and neat
1 — A typewriter was used, the text is less legible and/or there are obvious corrections/overstrikes and/or hand–written corrections
0 — The paper was hand–written
2 — Evidence of sufficient effort expended
1 — Obviously, some work has been done, but more effort would have helped
0 — The paper looks as though very little effort went into the experiment and/or the paper
2 — Evidence that the author used insight, thoughtfulness, and critical thinking when designing the experiment and writing the paper
1 — Mostly OK, but some “fuzzy thinking” in a few places
0 — The paper gives the appearance of being “slapped together” just to get it done, with evidence of almost no thinking
y
n
 — Was the paper in on time? 10% will be deducted per class period for late papers.

* You are not writing at a college level and need to go to the Learning Center for help.

Acknowledgement: Excerpts used in the samples were taken from papers written by students in sections of majors’ Biology Lab I, II, and III. To avoid embarrassing some, all will remain anonymous.


Summary
Section Possible Score
Title Page 6
Table of Contents 8
Abstract 8
Introduction 12
Literature Review 14
Methods and Materials 30
Data 14
Conclusions 12
Bibliography 6
Grammar, etc. 40
Total 150
# Periods Late/Late Points
Actual Total

Copyright © 1998 by J. Stein Carter. All rights reserved.
This page has been accessed Counter times since 3 Jan 2003.