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.
Four research reports will be collected throughout the semester. Each one will be worth 25 points, with the sum of them accounting for 20% of your final course grade.
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 23-20 points; it receives 23 points if it matches the criteria closely and 20 points for slight deviations from it. The exact grade is at the discretion of the grader and is not negotiable.
CHEM 181L Research Report Rubric
|
Exemplary
(25-24 points) |
Proficient
(23-20 points) |
Acceptable
(19-15 points) |
Unacceptable
(14-0 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 & Motivation | A thorough account of the background information for the experiment is given. A clear, cogent explanation of the significance of the work is provided. A well thought-out and complete hypothesis, as well as how it will be tested, is clearly stated. | Most of the background details are provided. The significance of the work is noted but not fully explored. A hypothesis is clearly stated but is slightly incomplete. It is not totally clear how the hypothesis will be tested. | Some of the important details concerning the background information are missing. The significance of the work is not properly conveyed. A hypothesis is stated but is incomplete, vague, or poorly constructed. The method of testing is incomplete. | Important details concerning the background information is missing and/or wrong. The significance of the work is not clear and/or addressed. The hypothesis is inappropriate or missing. Little or no mention of how it will be tested is given. |
| Experimental Section |
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. |
| Analysis | The collected data and calculations make physical sense and are accurate.* 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 hypothesis should be accepted or rejected. | The collected data and calculations make physical sense but are not always accurate.* 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 hypothesis is made. | The collected data and calculations don't always make physical sense and are sometimes inaccurate.* 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 hypothesis is made. | The collected data and calculations make little physical sense and are frequently inaccurate.* The analysis of the experimental results is superficial or missing. No clear connection between the data and the hypothesis is made. |
| Style & Grammar | The style is consistent with the research report model. 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 the research report model. 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 model. 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 model. 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.