COMMENTS ON LAB REPORT
6/10 = A report was turned in, but has very little to do with science, scientific procedures or scientific thought.
7/10 = A report that loosely followed the scientific format of reporting and was unclear on main points.
8/10 = A report that was organized well and main points were either unclear or some how undeveloped. Usually the data was not used to refute or support a clear hypothesis/prediction or the discussion was lacking depth, focus or biological significance.
9/10 = A report that was organized well and main points were clear and compelling. Reported data clearly made the authors main arguments and the discussion was thoughtful and interesting.
10/10 = A report that not only fit the criterion of a 9/10, but additionally made a clear, unique and original argument.
q The report included a thorough summary of entire investigation, and good discussion of results in a larger context.
q The report was complete, cogent and original. Well done!
q A few units or terms were used inaccurately.
q Focus report on observation/data collected in your study or activity.
q Report actual data values in text, then cite specific Figure/Table # that show complete data set, including values to which you just made reference.
q Too extraneous or redundant. Using outside information to support your data is important, when relevant. But lab reports are about your new data. Stay focused on main points that data supported or refuted.
q Some graph labels and captions were unclear, incomplete, or missing.
q Re-organize general hypothesis/principles and specific predictions/assumptions in order to focus reader on main points.
q Support all claims/assertions with justification with your data, esp. if statistical test were used.
q Data interpretation was not entirely accurate.
q Discussion/conclusion was incomplete or not thoroughly developed.
q Lacked cohesion. Needed transitions, focus and/or conclusion tying it back to main point(s).
q Latin names in italics: 1st Vinca minor then V. minor.