Chemistry 1811 - Principles of Chemical Structure Laboratory

Research reports are written for several reasons. In an idealistic sense, they aid in construction of a more accurate representation of our world. Practically speaking, research reports provide a means to disseminate experimental findings, which eliminates the need for work to be repeated in the future. In the "real world" research reports are often used to communicate laboratory work to management. In such situations, management often bases company decisions on the results of the report.

The grading for each report will be based on the rubric, or a set of scoring "rules," shown below. The rubric defines and explains the criteria against which your work will be judged. It also makes public key criteria that you, as a student, can use in developing, revising, and judging you own work.

An illustration of how the rubric works: If a research report contains all of the components and adheres to all the specifics described under the Proficient column, it receives a majority of points; it receives slightly less if it matches the criteria closely and more for greater deviations from it. The exact grade is at the discretion of the grader and is not negotiable.

CHEM 1811 Research Report Rubric

	Exemplary (50-46 points)	Proficient (45-40 points)	Acceptable (39-35 points)	Unacceptable (34-0 points)
Abstract	A concise description of the experiment is given, as well as the experimental method. The important findings are clearly stated.	An adequate description of the experiment is given, as well as the experimental method. Most of the important findings are clearly stated.	A description of the experiment is given, as well as the experimental method. Both, however, are overly wordy. Only some of the important findings are stated.	An inadequate description of the experiment is given, or the experimental method is missing. Few of the important findings are stated.

Introduction	A thorough account of the background information for the experiment is given. A clear, cogent explanation of the significance of the work is provided. The specific question(s) which is to be addressed is clearly stated. The methods employed to explore the question(s) are sound and thoroughly explained.	Most of the background details are provided. The significance of the work is noted but not fully explored. A specific question is stated but is slightly incomplete. It is not totally clear how the question will be explored.	Some of the important details concerning the background information are missing. The significance of the work is not properly conveyed. A question is stated but it is incomplete, vague, or poorly constructed. The methods employed to explore the question(s) do not fully address the question(s).	Important details concerning the background information is missing and/or wrong. The significance of the work is not clear and/or addressed. The question to be explored is inappropriate or missing. Little or no mention of how it will be addressed is given.

Experimental Methods	The experimental details are complete, sequential, and easy to follow. The experiment is easily reproducible.	Most of the experimental details are complete, sequential, and easy to follow. The experiment is likely reproducible.	Some of the experimental details are missing or unclear. The experiment may not be reproducible.	Many of the experimental details are missing or unclear. The experiment is likely not reproducible.

Results & Discussion	The collected data and calculations make physical sense and are accurate.* All appropriate tables, calculations, graphs, figures, et cetera are included. A thorough analysis of the experimental results is given. The discussion includes detailed comments on the data, any assumptions, possible errors and bias, and whether the data tell the reader something about the question(s) posed.	The collected data and calculations make physical sense but are not always accurate.* All appropriate tables, calculations, graphs, figures, et cetera are included. A complete analysis of the experimental results is given, but some of the details of the discussion are incomplete. A good connection between the data and the question posed is made.	The collected data and calculations don't always make physical sense and are sometimes inaccurate.* Some of the appropriate tables, calculations, graphs, figures, et cetera are missing. An analysis of the experimental results is given but the discussion is slightly inaccurate and/or incomplete. A weak connection between the data and the question posed is made.	The collected data and calculations make little physical sense and are frequently inaccurate.* Several of tables, calculations, graphs, figures, et cetera are missing. The analysis of the experimental results is superficial or missing. No clear connection between the data and the question posed is made.

Style & Grammar	The style is consistent with the research report expectations. All tables, calculations, graphs, figures, et cetera and associated titles are properly formatted. Reference are properly cited in text and formatted in footnotes. Sentences are complete and grammatical, and they flow together. The work has been proofread and spell-checked.	For the most part, the style is consistent with theresearch report expectations. Most tables, calculations, graphs, figures, et cetera and associated titles are properly formatted. References are properly cited in text but contain very minor formatting errors. Most sentences are complete and grammatical, and they flow together. Clearly proofread but the document contains a few spelling errors.	Several parts of the report are inconsistent with the research report expectations . Many of tables, calculations, graphs, figures, et cetera and associated titles are improperly formatted. Some references are missing and/or contain significant formatting errors. Spelling and/or grammatical errors occur throughout the document, and it is sometimes hard to follow. The document was not carefully proofread.	The document does not adhere to the research report expectations . Tables, calculations, graphs, figures, et cetera and associated titles are improperly formatted. References are missing and/or are improperly formatted. There are frequent spelling and/or grammatical errors, showing a complete lack of proofreading. The types and number of errors make the report difficult to read.

*You are not necessarily graded for the "right" answer, but your data and calculations should make physical sense and be accurate based on your experimental results. If your data varies significantly from that which is expected, your Report should address this.