Hypotheses: Testable and consider alternatives 5 1 3
• Hypotheses are clearly stated, testable and consider plausible alternative xplanations	• No hypothesis is indicated. The hypothesis is stated but too vague or confused for its value to be determined A clearly stated, but not testable hypothesis is provided. A clearly stated and testable, but trivial hypothesis is provided.	A single relevant, testable hypothesis is clearly stated The hypothesis may be compared with a “null” alternative which is usually just the absence of the expected result.	Multiple relevant, testable hypotheses are clearly stated. Hypotheses address more than one major potential mechanism, explanation or factors for the topic.	A comprehensive suite of testable hypotheses are clearly stated which, when tested, will distinguish among multiple major factors or potential explanations for the phenomena at hand.
Hypotheses: Scientific merit 5 1 3
• Hypotheses have scientific merit.	Hypotheses are trivial, obvious, incorrect or completely off topic	Hypotheses are plausible and appropriate though likely or clearly taken directly from course material.	Hypotheses indicate a level of understanding beyond the material directly provided to the student in the lab manual or coursework.	Hypotheses are novel, insightful, or actually have the potential to contribute useful new knowledge to the field.

Writing quality

4 1 2 3 5

Grammar, word usage and organization facilitate the reader’s understanding of the paper.

Grammar and spelling errors detract from the meaning of the paper. Word usage is frequently confused or incorrect. Subheadings are not used or poorly used. Information is presented in a haphazard way.

Grammar and spelling mistakes do not hinder the meaning of the paper. • General word usage is appropriate, although use of technical language may have occasional mistakes. Subheadings are used and aid the reader somewhat. There is some evidence of an organizational strategy though it may have gaps or repetitions.

Grammar and spelling have few mistakes. Word usage is accurate and aids the reader’s understanding. Distinct sections of the paper are delineated by informative subheadings. A clear organizational strategy is present with a logical progression of ideas.

Correct grammar and Spelling Word usage facilitates reader’s understanding. Informative subheadings significantly aid reader’s understanding. A clear organizational strategy is present with a logical progression of ideas. There is evidence of an active planning for presenting information; this paper is easier to read than most.

Attractiveness 1 3 4 5
Illegible writing, loose pages	Legible writing, some ill-formed letters, print too small or too large, papers stapled together.	Legible writing, well-formed characters, clean and neatly bound in a report cover, illustrations provided.	Word processed or typed, clean and neatly bound in a report cover, illustrations provided
Answers to Questions 1 3 4 5
The response, although on topic, is an unsatisfactory answer to the question. It may fail to address the question, or it may address the question in a very limited way. There may be no evidence of elaboration, extension, higher-order thinking or relevant prior knowledge. There may be some evidence of serious misconceptions	The response is a marginal answer to the question. While it may contain some elements of a proficient response, it is inaccurate, incomplete and/or inappropriate. There is little evidence of elaboration, extension, higher-order thinking or relevant prior knowledge. There may be some evidence of serious misconceptions.	The response is a proficient answer to the question. It is generally correct, complete and appropriate although minor inaccuracies may appear. There may be limited evidence of elaboration, extension, higher-order thinking and relevant prior knowledge, or there may be significant evidence of these traits but other flaws (e.g., inaccuracies, omissions, inappropriateness) may be more than minor. There may be evidence of minor misconceptions.	The response is an excellent answer to the question. It is correct, complete, appropriate and contains elaboration and/or evidence of higher-order thinking and relevant prior knowledge. There is no evidence of misconceptions. Minor factual errors will not necessarily lower the score.

Results: Data presentation 5 1 2 3
Data are summarized in a logical format. Table or graph types are appropriate. Data are properly labeled including units. Graph axes are appropriately labeled and scaled and captions are informative and complete. Presentation of data:	Labels or units are missing which prevent the reader from being able to derive any useful information from the graph. Presentation of data is in an inappropriate format or graph type Captions are confusing or indecipherable.	Contains some errors in or omissions of labels, scales, units etc., but the reader is able to derive some relevant meaning from each figure. is technically correct but inappropriate format prevents the reader from deriving meaning or using it. Captions are missing or inadequate	Contains only minor mistakes that do not interfere with the reader’s understanding and the figure’s meaning is clear without the reader referring to the text. Graph types or table formats are appropriate for data type. includes captions that are at least somewhat useful	contains no mistakes uses a format or graph type which highlights relationships between the data points or other relevant aspects of the data. may be elegant, novel, or otherwise allow unusual insight into data has informative, concise and complete captions.
Discussion: Alternative explanations
Alternative explanations are considered and clearly eliminated by data in a persuasive discussion. Alternative explanations:	are not provided are trivial or irrelevant are mentioned but not discussed or eliminated.	are provided in the discussion only may include some trivial or irrelevant alternatives. Discussion addresses some but not all of the alternatives in a reasonable way.	Some alternative explanations are tested as hypotheses; those not tested are reasonably evaluated in the discussion. Discussion of alternatives is reasonably complete, uses data where possible and results in at least some alternatives being persuasively dismissed.	have become a suite of interrelated hypotheses that are explicitly tested with data. Discussion and analysis of alternatives is based on data, complete and persuasive with a single clearly supported explanation remaining by the end of the discussion.

Hypotheses – Testability ___________

Hypotheses – Merit ___________

Writing Quality - ___________

Attractiveness - ___________

Answers to Questions - ___________

Results: Data Presentation - ___________

Discussion (Conclusions) ___________

Scoring:
5: Proficient: A high degree of competence
4: Capable: An above average degree of competence
3: Satisfactory: A satisfactory degree of competence
2: Emerging: A limited degree of competence
1: Beginning: No key elements are adequately developed

Rubric modified from that used by: University of South Carolina, Department Biological Sciences