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.