AP Biology—pGLO Modified Scientific Paper Rubric
Name:
Total Score: ________________ / 28 Points

Results
(8 Points)


Discussion
(16 Points)





References
(2 Points)
Communication
(2 Points)

Photographs and sketches are wellorganized and include descriptive
titles, appropriate labeling, keys,
etc.
Data summarized in a clear,
concise, logical manner. Patterns
identified & described, but no
conclusions drawn.
Conclusions / Interpretations are:
o Scientifically valid &
logical
o Well-supported by the data
o Clearly addressing the
question & hypothesis.
If appropriate, unexpected data is
discussed with possible
explanations for such data.
Sources of error are identified &
explained with appropriate
recommendations made to eliminate
errors.
Specific questions to extend or
apply knowledge are generated.
A thoughtful, strong discussion of
applications for this technology and
how findings relate to the findings
of other scientists is included.
Appropriate in text citation of
literature is included.
Accurate, alphabetical list of
references is listed.
Language skills are superior.
Communication is professional, fluent,
and engaging to the audience.









Photographs and sketches are
well-organized. There are
minor errors in titles, labels,
and/or keys.
Reasonable, but somewhat
unclear summary of the data.
Patterns in data not clearly
identified.
Conclusions / Interpretations are
present and scientifically valid
but may lack one of the
following:
o Enough scientific
explanation (too much
is implied)
o Data to support.
Identifies unexpected data but
does not explore reasons for
such data.
Sources of error are identified.
Generates some questions for
future study.
Discusses applications of
technology and / or how findings
relate to other scientists, but
discussion of one or both is
weak.
In text citation is incomplete.
Accurate, alphabetical list of
references is listed.
Language skills are above average—
demonstrating above average
professionalism, fluency, and
audience engagement.









Photographs and sketches are
present, but there are major errors
or omissions in titles, labels,
and/or keys.
Data is summarized, but there
may be some inaccuracies.
Patterns in data not clearly
identified.
Conclusions / interpretations are
scientifically valid but
incomplete.
Unexpected data is mentioned but
not appropriate or complete.
Sources of error are trivial.
Questions for future study are
generated but are inappropriate or
lack thought.
Incomplete attempt to discuss
applications of technology and
how findings relate to the work of
other scientists.

In text citation is missing.
A list of references is present but
incomplete.


Language skills are inconsistent—
attempting to be professional and
fluent, an inconsistently engaging the
audience.
Modified from a rubric produced by Brad Williamson. http://www.nabt.org/blog/2010/05/04/mini-posters-authentic-peer-review-in-the-classroom/
Communication modified from a rubric developed by the Rock Bridge High School Studies Department.






Photographs and sketches
presented in a confusing
&/or sloppy fashion. Major
errors in titles, labels, and
keys.
Summary of data is unclear
& illogical. Patterns in data
not identified.
Conclusions / Interpretations
are extremely incomplete
&/or illogical.
Unexpected data is not
mentioned.
Sources of error are not
mentioned.
Questions for future study
are completely missing.
Discussion of applications
and how findings relate to
the work of other scientists
is missing.
In text citation is missing.
A list of references is
missing.
Language skills are lacking—
demonstrating a deficiency in
being professional, fluent, and
engaging to the audience.