Grading Rubrics for Bio111

Your oral presentations should be divided into four sections: Introduction; Materials and Methods; Results; Discussion. Each person will present one section and the assignments will change for each report so that everyone presents three different sections. The oral presentation must be pledged to indicate each member participated substantially.

For your written lab reports, each person must write his or her own, though you may confer about the content. They must be turned in immediately after your oral presentations. However, if you discover a serious problem during your oral report, you may request a 48 hour extension for your written report. This extension is not intended to be for minor typos, grammatical fixes, etc. The extension is intended to help you fix a major problem that became clear to you during your oral presentation. The written presentation must be pledged to indicate the author wrote the entire work, including any figure legends.

Common mistakes to avoid.

Oral Presentations

Category
Excellent
Average
Weak
Introduction (10 pts) The research question or problem is well-defined and connected to prior knowledge in the chosen area of study. Experiment connection to lecture material is clear and correct. The question or problem is defined adequately, but may lack a clear rationale or purpose that stems from prior knowledge. Experiment connection to lecture material is vague though attempted or there may be some factual errors. The study shows evidence of focus within a given topical area, but the search for new knowledge does not seem to be guided by an overlying question; there may be little or no stated connection to prior knowledge. No connection made to lecture material.
Experimental Procedure (10 pts) Not just restating of lab manual but summarize major steps and key variations from standard lab protocol in lab manual. Sufficient detail to understand variables and experimental design. Contain some minutia from lab manual and summarize a few steps and variations from standard lab protocol in lab manual. Some details provided to understand variables and experimental design. Mostly restated lab manual with emphasis on details and not major steps and key variations from standard lab protocol in lab manual. Insufficient detail to understand variables and experimental design.

Results  (15 pts)

 The data are analyzed and expressed in an accurate way. Statistical analysis of data is present. Most data are analyzed thoroughly and presented accurately, but with minor flaws. There may be no evident use of statistical analysis. The analysis and presentation may be inaccurate or incomplete.
Discussion  (15 pts) Inferences and conclusions are in all cases connected to, and are consistent with, the study findings. Draws conclusions that are supported by the data, but may not directly connect the conclusions to the relevant evidence. Reported inferences and conclusions are not supported by the data.
Experimental Design  (10 pts) The experimental design is appropriate to the problem; it is efficient, workable, and repeatable. If appropriate to the design, important variables are identified and contrasted to the standard conditions. The design allows for a sufficient number of comparisons of variables and of tests to provide meaningful data. The design is appropriate to the question or problem, but may fail to identify an important variable or to account for all important aspects of standard conditions. Or, it may lack enough comparisons or tests to obtain data that have a clear meaning. There may be some evidence of an experimental design, but it may be inappropriate or not used well. The design may fail to account for an important variable or a major aspect of standard conditions. Another experimenter would have difficulty repeating the experiment.
Figures and Tables (15 pts) The figures and/or tables are appropriately chosen and well-organized; data trends are illuminated. Figure labels are informative and complete. General trends in the data are readily seen from the figures and tables; in some cases, tables and figures may provide redundant information or data. Figure labels lack clarity and are incomplete. Data may be represented inaccurately or in an inappropriate format. Figure labels are missing or incorrect.
Clarity of Presentation  (15 pts) The presentation is visually appealing and easy to follow. It draws in the audience and keeps their attention. No destracting backgrounds or animations. The presentation is visually appealing, but may contain unclear information, and use font sizes that are difficult to read. Some appeal to audience and visual distractors kept to a minimum. The presentation consists of text only or may appear to have been hastily assembled. Presenters simply read text in slides, are difficult to hear or understand, flow of information is confusing. Slides have a lot of "eye candy" without much utility.
Answer Questions (10 pts) Responses to the questions exhibit sound knowledge of the study and the underlying science concepts; the presenters exhibit poise, confidence, and enthusiasm. Responses to the questions show familiarity with the study design and conduct, but may lack clear or accurate connections to basic science concepts. The presenter exhibit enthusiasm, but shows signs of discomfort with some of the questions. The presenters show difficulty in responding correctly to questions or responses lack insight or scientific creativity.

 

 

Written Presentations

Category
Excellent
Average
Weak
Title/names/pledge (5 pts) Title is concise and informative. Names spelled correctly; pledged. Title is overly wordy or too vague. Some names mising or spelled incorrectly; pledged. Unable to deduce content for title; maybe too cute to contain meaning. No names ; no pledged.
Abstract (10 pts) The research question or problem is well-defined and connected to prior knowledge in the chosen area of study. Methods are described adequately and the conclusions are clear and succint. The question or problem is defined adequately, but may lack a clear rationale or purpose that stems from prior knowledge. Methods are somewhat described and the conclusions are partially clear or not well stated. The study is poorly summarized and lacks overlying question; there may be little or no stated connection to prior knowledge. Methods and conclusions are unclear or not stated.

Introduction (10 pts)

 The research question or problem is well-defined and connected to prior knowledge in the chosen area of study. The question or problem is defined adequately, but may lack a clear rationale or purpose that stems from prior knowledge. The study shows evidence of focus within a given topical area, but the search for new knowledge does not seem to be guided by an overlying question; there may be little or no stated connection to prior knowledge.
Experimental Procedure (10 pts) Methods are not just restating of lab manual but summarize major steps and key variations from standard lab protocol in lab manual. Sufficient detail to understand variables and experimental design. More details than oral version; tables may provide extra clarity. Methods contain some minutia from lab manual and summarize a few steps and variations from standard lab protocol in lab manual. Some details provided to understand variables and experimental design. A couple more details as in oral version; lists in text instead of tables when appropriate. Mostly restated lab manual with emphasis on details and not major steps and key variations from standard lab protocol in lab manual. Insufficient detail to understand variables and experimental design. Details as confusing as in oral presentation.
Results  (15 pts) The data are analyzed and expressed in an accurate way. Statistical analysis of data is present. Data are described in writing and not just refered to in figures/tables. Rationale for the experiment and meaning (deductions) of the data provided. Most data are analyzed thoroughly and presented accurately, but with minor flaws. There may be no evident use of statistical analysis. Some data are described in writing both some is only refered to in figures/tables. Rationale for the experiment and meaning of the data is unclear or confusing. Some discussion (inferences) mixed in with results. The analysis and presentation may be inaccurate or incomplete. Data only refered to in figures/tables. Rationale for the experiment and meaning of the data is missing. Discussion (inferences) attempted instead of results.
Discussion  (15 pts) Inferences and conclusions are in all cases connected to, and are consistent with, the study findings. Draws conclusions that are supported by the data, but may not directly connect the conclusions to the relevant evidence. Reported inferences and conclusions are not supported by the data.
Figures and Tables (10 pts) The figures and/or tables are appropriately chosen and well-organized; data trends are illuminated. Figure legends and labels are informative and can stand alone without the text. All figures described in the text. General trends in the data are readily seen from the figures and tables; in some cases, tables and figures may provide redundant information or data. Figure legends and labels lack clarity and are incomplete (some information to understand figures is only in text). One or more figure not described in the text. Data may be represented inaccurately or in an inappropriate format. Figure legends are missing or incorrect. Figures presented but not described in the text.
References (5 pts) Adequate citation and correct format (see CBE style). Wikipedia is not used at all. Incomplete citation and irregular format (see CBE style). Wikipedia is used only for introduction. No references or wrong format (see CBE style). Wikipedia is the only source cited.
Clarity of Writing   (10 pts) There are no grammatical or spelling errors that detract from readability; use of technical terminology is appropriate. Section headers used appropriately. Minor errors in grammar and spelling may be present, but they do not detract from the overall readability; there may be one or two misuses of technical language. Section headings seem a bit lacking or overused. The readability may be seriously limited by poor grammar, spelling, or word usage. No section headings and page layout unpleasant (small font size and narrow line spacing).
Connection to lecture (10 pts) Authors connected the lab material to the lecture so that the relationships are clear and enlightening. Some attempts are made to connect lecture and lab, but obvious ones are missing or are unclear. No connection between lab and lecture or incorrect connections made erroneously.

Adapted from: Deborah Allen and Kimberly Tanner. 2006. Rubrics: Tools for Making Learning Goals and Evaluation Criteria Explicit for Both Teachers and Learners. CBE - Life Sciences Education. Vol. 5:197–203.

Common mistakes to avoid in your written or oral presentations:

  • "data" is a plural noun, therefore you should state, "These data show....."
  • Connect to lecture material more clearly. Simply saying we studied promoters is insufficient. Talk about promoter regulation, what gene your promoter came from, what is the inducer and how is this related to the gene's function.
  • Citation style was incorrect. Use (Name, year) in the text and CBE citation style. Also, if you used information from a source, cite it in the text where you used it. If you do not cite the source, then you cannot list it in your references.
  • Do not write in passive voice. It is OK to use first person. Use active voice as often as possible.
  • Do not use capital letters for names of compounds or elements (red fluorescent protein).
  • Include page numbers on your written reports. Also, list all coauthors, with your name first.
  • Do not state the volume of a liquid used, state the final concentration of the solute.
  • Fluorescence is measured by a fluorometer, not a spectrophotometer.
  • You cannot "prove" your hypothesis, though you can support it with evidence.
  • When analyzing data, always start with the control conditions. Species names should be in italics (e.g. E. coli).
  • Do not use the word create, use alternatives such as construct, build, produce, make, etc.
  • If the absorption increased over time, don't say the activity increased over time. Increasing activity would not produce a straight line - it would produce a curve arching upwards.

Dr. Campbell's Bio111 Page

Biology Home Page

© Copyright 2012 Department of Biology, Davidson College, Davidson, NC 28035
Send comments, questions, and suggestions to: macampbell@davidson.edu