Experimental
Design Rubric
Hypothesis Checklist
(4 Skill Points) SCORE:
_____
|
Criteria
|
4 (Mastery)
|
3 (Proficient)
|
2 (Approaching)
|
1 (Needs Revision)
|
|
Presents a clear and testable
hypothesis that answers investigative question
|
Hypothesis concisely but clearly
establishes a logical, measurable, and testable prediction that explains the
relationship between variables and is supported with a logical rationale.
|
Hypothesis concisely but clearly establishes
a logical, testable prediction that explains the relationship between
variables and is supported with a logical rationale but may not be obviously
measurable.
|
Hypothesis concisely but clearly
establishes a logical, testable, and measurable prediction that explains the
relationship between variables but it lacks an explanation OR hypothesis
establishes an illogical or incorrect prediction.
|
Hypothesis neither establishes a clear,
logical, testable, and measurable prediction that explains the relationship
between variables nor contains adequate rationale.
|
Analysis Checklist (4 Skill Points) SCORE:
_____
|
Identifies whether or not
hypothesis is supported by data.
|
Specifically states if and to what degree
the hypothesis is supported by the data, accounting for complexities and
anomalies in the data.
|
(NONE)
|
States whether or not the hypothesis is
generally supported by the data but does not discuss complexities – ex. data
that does not fit trend.
|
Does not clearly state whether or not the
hypothesis is supported by the data
|
|
Analyzes data in order to draw
and support conclusions
|
Correctly and clearly states a conclusion
about the hypothesis that is supported by discussing multiple pieces of sets
of data and sophisticated calculations
|
Correctly states a conclusion about the
hypothesis that is supported by a set of data and calculations
|
Correctly states a conclusion about the
hypothesis that is vague or is supported by vague evidence OR states an
incorrect claim with evidence as support
|
States a conclusion about the hypothesis
with little to no evidence
|
Reflection Checklist (4 Skill Points) SCORE: _____
|
Identifies
relevant sources of error.
|
Clearly identifies and describes at least
one relevant source of error that is NOT simply human error during the
experiment.
|
Identifies and describes one relevant
source of error that is NOT simply human error OR clearly describes a source
of error that is simply human error during the experiment.
|
Identifies but does not clearly describe
the source of error in the experiment.
|
Identifies but does not attempt to describe
the source of error.
|
|
Describes
how the data is changed by the error.
|
Specifically and clearly describes how the
data collected was altered by the error.
|
Clearly describes which data was altered by
the error but does not clearly describe how it was altered.
|
Addresses that the source of error changed
the data but does not explain its effect clearly.
|
Does not address how the source of error
changed the data.
|
|
Proposes
changes to procedure to eliminate/minimize sources of error
|
Clearly defines a logical change to the
procedure that should be made AND clearly explains why it should be made.
|
Clearly defines a logical change to the
procedure that should be made and only acknowledges why it should be done.
|
Defines a change to the procedure but does
not explain the reasoning behind it OR proposes an illogical change but
explains its rationale.
|
Does not propose a logical change to the
procedure.
|
Content Knowledge Checklist (4 Content Points) SCORE: _____
|
Supplies
possible explanation(s) for the data.
|
Supplies plausible explanation(s) that is
thoroughly explained using scientific concepts/ vocabulary from class and
logical reasoning
|
Supplies one plausible explanation that is
explained using logical reasoning and vocabulary from class.
|
Supplies an explanation that while
possible, is very implausible and possibly illogical OR states a logical,
plausible explanation that does not discuss content/vocabulary from class
|
Supplies an explanation that is very weak
either in terms of logic or connection to class material
|
|
Demonstrates
knowledge of class material
|
Very consistently demonstrates
deep knowledge of related material by correctly using vocabulary and
explaining examples clearly.
|
Consistently demonstrates
knowledge of related material by correctly using vocabulary and explaining
examples.
|
Demonstrates
knowledge of related material by using vocabulary and explaining examples,
but with some errors.
|
Does not demonstrate sufficient knowledge
of class material through errors or lack of usage/ explanation.
|
Application Checklist (4 Content Points) SCORE: _____
|
Answers
the essential question
|
Clearly and thoroughly answers the
essential question and supports the detailed answer with evidence from the
experiment as well from notes/research/etc.
|
Clearly answers the essential question and
supports the answer with evidence from the experiment OR from
notes/research/etc.
|
Answers the essential question, but the
answer is lacking enough detail and/or evidence OR offers an answer that is
illogical or inconsistent with evidence from lab or class.
|
Does not thoroughly answer the essential
question.
|
|
Discusses
applications of the experiment and topic
|
Identifies and explains multiple detailed
examples of how the experiment or concepts/vocabulary related to it can be
used in science and/or the real world.
|
Identifies and explains a detailed example
of how the experiments or concepts/vocabulary related to it can be used in
science and/or the real world.
|
Identifies an example of how the experiment
can be applied, but does not support it thoroughly.
|
Identifies an example of the topic’s
applications but without support.
|
Writing Conventions Checklist (4 Work Habit Points) SCORE: _____
|
Communicates
clearly and efficiently.
|
Very consistently
uses clear language and follows grammar and spelling rules (uses 3rd
person, past tense, etc.).
|
Consistently uses
clear language and follows grammar and spelling rules (uses 3rd
person, past tense, etc.).
|
Mostly uses clear
language and follows grammar and spelling rules.
|
Comprehension is difficult due to lack of
proofreading.
|
|
Helps
reader to understand the experiment.
|
Thoroughly aids
understanding of the experiment with a concise yet detailed procedure, clear
data tables, a diagram of the setup, and logical sequencing.
|
Aids understanding
of the experiment with a detailed procedure, clear data tables, and logical
sequencing.
|
Complete
understanding is hampered by a lack of completion of the one of the
following: detailed procedure, clear data tables, and logical sequencing.
|
Understanding of the experiment is
difficult due to multiple components being missing
|
|
Credit to sources
|
While writing in his/her own words, correctly and properly
directly cites/ paraphrases and refers to case studies within text
|
While writing in his/her own words, cites/ paraphrases and
refers to case studies within text with minor errors
|
While writing in his/her own words, cites/ paraphrases and
refers to case studies within text but with clear errors
|
Citations/ paraphrasing are missing or it is obvious that
student is not giving due credit to sources through his/her style of writing
|
Design
Rubric
|
Mastery – 4
|
Proficient – 3
|
Satisfactory – 2
|
Needs Revision – 1
|
|
|
Claim
|
States clear,
well-reasoned, nuanced claim for design
|
States clear,
well-reasoned claim for design
|
States a logical, but
vague claim for design
|
States an illogical or overly
vague design
|
|
Support of claim
|
Thoroughly supports
claim(s) for design with several detailed, convincing, specific
reasons/pieces of evidence as well as refuted counterclaim(s) of alternative
designs
|
Supports claim(s) for
design with multiple detailed, specific reasons/pieces of evidence as well as
attempts at forming counterclaims/ refutations of them
|
Supports claim(s) for
design with multiple detailed, convincing specific reasons/pieces of evidence
but neglects to make use of counterclaim OR reasons/pieces of evidence are
lacking in detail or specificity
|
Supports claim(s) for
design with reasons/ evidence that are not convincing due to lack of detail,
specificity, or clarity OR not having enough pieces of evidence to support
each claim
|
|
Demonstrates knowledge
|
Consistently demonstrates
deep knowledge of material gained by research by constantly: using vocabulary, explaining examples
clearly, incorporating statistics, etc.
|
Consistently demonstrates
knowledge of material gained by research by: using vocabulary, explaining examples
clearly, incorporating statistics, etc. and minor errors or occasions for
further explanation may be present
|
Demonstrates knowledge of
material gained by research by using
vocabulary, etc. but with multiple or glaring errors or lack of a detail
|
Does not demonstrate
sufficient knowledge of material from research through errors or lack of
usage/ explanation.
|
|
Credit to sources
|
While writing in his/her
own words, correctly and properly directly cites/ paraphrases and refers to
case studies within text
|
While writing in his/her
own words, cites/ paraphrases and refers to case studies within text with
minor errors
|
While writing in his/her
own words, cites/ paraphrases and refers to case studies within text but with
clear errors
|
Citations/ paraphrasing
are missing or it is obvious that student is not giving due credit to sources
through his/her style of writing
|
|
Writing conventions
|
Writes elegantly and in a
sophisticated manner while very consistently adhering to spelling and grammar
conventions
|
Very consistently adheres
to spelling and grammar conventions
|
Consistently adheres to
spelling and grammar conventions
|
Mostly adheres to
spelling and grammar conventions
|
Action
Rubric
|
Mastery – 4
|
Proficient – 3
|
Satisfactory – 2
|
Needs Revision – 1
|
|
|
Claim
|
States clear,
well-reasoned, nuanced claim
|
States clear,
well-reasoned claim
|
States a logical, but
vague claim
|
States an illogical or
indefensible position
|
|
Support of claim
|
Thoroughly supports
claim(s) with several detailed, convincing, specific reasons/pieces of
evidence as well as refuted counterclaim(s)
|
Supports claim(s) with
multiple detailed, specific reasons/pieces of evidence as well as attempts at
forming counterclaims/ refutations of them
|
Supports claim(s) with
multiple detailed, convincing specific reasons/pieces of evidence but
neglects to make use of counterclaim OR reasons/pieces of evidence are
lacking in detail or specificity
|
Supports claim(s) with
reasons/ evidence that are not convincing due to lack of detail, specificity,
or clarity OR not having enough pieces of evidence to support each claim
|
|
Demonstrates knowledge
|
Consistently demonstrates
deep knowledge of material gained by research by constantly: using vocabulary, explaining examples
clearly, incorporating statistics, etc.
|
Consistently demonstrates
knowledge of material gained by research by: using vocabulary, explaining examples
clearly, incorporating statistics, etc. and minor errors or occasions for
further explanation may be present
|
Demonstrates knowledge of
material gained by research by using
vocabulary, etc. but with multiple or glaring errors or lack of a detail
|
Does not demonstrate
sufficient knowledge of material from research through errors or lack of
usage/ explanation.
|
|
Credit to sources
|
While writing in his/her
own words, correctly and properly directly cites/ paraphrases and refers to
case studies within text
|
While writing in his/her
own words, cites/ paraphrases and refers to case studies within text with
minor errors
|
While writing in his/her
own words, cites/ paraphrases and refers to case studies within text but with
clear errors
|
Citations/ paraphrasing
are missing or it is obvious that student is not giving due credit to sources
through his/her style of writing
|
|
Writing conventions
|
Writes elegantly and in a
sophisticated manner while very consistently adhering to spelling and grammar
conventions
|
Very consistently adheres
to spelling and grammar conventions
|
Consistently adheres to
spelling and grammar conventions
|
Mostly adheres to
spelling and grammar conventions
|
No comments:
Post a Comment