IA Lab Rubric Example
Personal
Engagement
0: Does
not meet
standard
0: Does
not meet
standard
1: limited independent thinking,
personal interest, original design
2: Personal significance, initiative,
insight, not a textbook lab
1-2: Research question not focused,
background information is
superficial, methodology does little
to address control variables, limited
awareness of
safety/ethical/environmental issues
Analysis
0:Does
not meet
standard
1-2: Insufficient relevant raw data
Some basic data processing is
carried out but it is inaccurate or
insufficient to draw conclusions
from
Little consideration of measurement
uncertainty
Processed data is incorrectly or
insufficiently interpreted
Evaluation
0: Does
not meet
standard
1-2: Conclusion is outlined which is
not relevant to the research
question and/or not supported by
the data
Conclusion makes superficial
comparison to the accepted
scientific context
3-4: Clear topic, but research
question is not fully focused
Background information is
generally appropriate
Methodology of experiment
addresses some of the control
variables and is generally
appropriate for answering the
research question
Some awareness of
safety/ethical/environmental
issues
3-4: Relevant but incomplete raw
data that supports a simple or
partially valid conclusion
Data processing is appropriate
and sufficient but there are
inaccuracies and inconsistencies
Some consideration of
measurement uncertainty
Processed data is interpreted so
that a valid but incomplete
conclusion can be drawn
3-4: Conclusion is described which
is relevant to the research
question and supported by the
data
Conclusion makes some
comparison to the accepted
scientific context
Exploration
5-6: Relevant and fully focused
research question
Background information is
appropriate and relevant
Methodology takes into
consideration nearly all of the
factors that affect the data
Full awareness of
safety/ethical/environmental
issues
5-6: Relevant and complete raw
data that could support a detailed
and valid conclusion
Data processing is appropriate,
sufficient, accurate, and
consistent
Full consideration of
measurement uncertainty
Processed data is interpreted so
that a valid and complete
conclusion can be drawn
5-6: Conclusion is described and
justified which is entirely relevant
to the research question and
supported by the data
Conclusion makes relevant
comparison to the accepted
scientific context
Strengths and weaknesses of the
investigation are outlined but are
limited to practical/procedural
(human errors) issues
Very few realistic and relevant
suggestion for improvement and
extension of the investigation
Communication
0:Does
not meet
standard
Total Score: 17/24
1-2: Presentation is unclear, making
it difficult to understand the focus,
process and outcomes
The report is not well structured and
is unclear; information is missing or
presented in a disorganized way
The understanding of the
investigation is obscured by the
inappropriate or irrelevant
information
There are many errors in the use of
subject specific terminology and
conventions
Strengths and weaknesses of the
investigation are described and
provide evidence of some
awareness of the methodological
issues faced
Description of some realistic and
relevant suggestion for
improvement and extension of
the investigation
3-4: Presentation is clear and any
errors do not hamper
understanding
The report well-structured and
clear; information is presented in
an organized way
The report is relevant and concise
thereby facilitating a ready
understanding of the focus,
process, and outcomes of the
investigation
The use of subject specific
terminology and conventions is
appropriate and correct. Any
errors do not hamper
understanding
Strengths and weaknesses of the
investigation are discussed and
provide evidence of clear
understanding of the
methodological issues faced
Discussion of realistic and relevant
suggestion for improvement and
extension of the investigation