Lab+rubric

Introduction has both background information AND an explanation of what the lab intends to accomplish || One minor ommission
 * Category || 5 points || 4 points || 3 points || 2 points || 1 point ||
 * Style || Correct spelling and grammar - not too informal - adheres to style of professional science writing || A few errors in style and grammar, reads well || Moderate number of errors, still readable || Large number of errors in grammar and general style - difficult to read || Incomprehenisble ||
 * Structure || Contains all required sections in the appropriate order || Contains all required sections, but out of order - perhaps tables or graphs are not in the results section || Contains all required material, but section headings are missing - might be hard to tell what are results and what is discussion || A number of section headings are missing, little attention to order evident in report || No sections of report evident - no attention to structure by author ||
 * Abstract/Introduction || Abstract has three parts: what you did, why you did it what you found - main result clearly stated

- not stating main result for example,

- not including enough background in abstract for example || Two or more ommissions, but still includes proper structure of abstract and introduction || Abstract clearly does not meet guidelines

Too brief, or incoherent introduction || Virtually nothing of substance in these sections of the paper

- or these sections are missing ||
 * Methods || Clear explanation of EVERYTHING that was done during the lab

A reader could conduct the exact same lab procedure by following along the description given here || Minor omissions of materials, or concentrations of chemicals, but otherwise a thorough explanation of the lab procedure || Many details missing. It's clear what is being done, but not how to do it. || Attempt made at describing materials and methods, but it's not clear what has been done. || Section present, but virtually no attempt to describe what was done. ||
 * Data/Results || All data and graphs are clearly presented. Tables and graphs have legends to describe what they are. Qualitative results like smells, colors etc. are described. Any obvious patterns in the data are described. || All but one or two small omissions. Perhaps the tables don't have a legend, or qualitative observations are not described, but everything else is there || All the data is here, but not described well. Qualitative observations might be absent. Graphs are here, but not explained. || Missing graphs. No explanation of data at all. No legends on tables. || Might have some data but everything else is missing. If no lab data is presented, this score is appropriate. ||
 * Discussion/Conclusion || All calculations are explained or shown. All discussion questions are answered. Clear evidence that the writer has thought about the significance of results in terms of the main objective and concepts of the lab activity. || One or two questions remain unanswered, or answered too briefly. All other requirements are met. || Questions not answered at all, but some thought appears to be given to the meaning of the results. || Attempt made to discuss the results, and present a conclusion, but writer seems to have not understood the main result in terms of the objective. No questions answered. || No evidence of thoughtful analysis of data and results. ||