Understanding and Evaluating a Scientific Journal Article
The following district objectives will be assessed in this activity.
Concept 1: Observations, Questions, and Hypotheses
PO 1 Formulate predictions, questions, or hypotheses based on observations. Evaluate
appropriate resources.
Concept 3: Analysis, Conclusions, and Refinements
PO 2 Evaluate experimental design, analyze data to explain results and propose further
investigations. Design models.
Concept 4: Communication
PO 3 Communicate results of investigations.
Strand 2: History and Nature of Science
Concept 2: Nature of Scientific Knowledge
PO 4 Understand how science is a process for generating knowledge.
PO 5 Describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of
theories.





Each row of the following rubric represents information that can be
retrieved from most scientific journal articles.
Read the article given.
Write a summary of the article that includes the points from the rubric
below.
Your summary will be graded according to these criteria.
Write your summary on a separate sheet of paper.
Identification
of the problem
Hypothesis
Rationale
3 Points
2 Points
1 Point
0 points
The major focus of the
paper is identified. The
Independent variable is
identified and the
dependent variable is
identified. If there are
different levels of
independent variables,
these are identified also.
The hypothesis of the
experiment is stated
clearly.
The major focus
of the paper is
identified. Other
components are
missing or
incorrect.
An attempt is
made, but
identification
of IV, DV and
the major
focus of the
article is
incorrect.
Not
attempted
The hypothesis of
the experiment is
stated but with
partial
correctness.
Not
attempted
The rationale of the
experiment is stated
clearly.
The rationale of
the experiment is
stated but with
partial
correctness.
The
hypothesis of
the
experiment is
incorrectly
stated.
The rationale
of the
experiment is
incorrectly
stated.
Not
attempted
Review of
Literature
The most pertinent
references for the article
should be presented in a
logical order (funnel
effect).
References are
presented in a
way that results
to the current
study but not in a
way that shows a
funnel effect.
References
are presented
but with no
logical order.
Not
attempted
Methods &
Materials
Summarize the
experimental design.
(How was data collected
and what was done with
the data)
Data is summarized
correctly.
The
experimental
design is
presented
incorrectly
and with
incorrect
methodology.
Data is
summarized
incorrectly.
Not
attempted
Results
Discussion
Interpretations that the
author made concerning
the data are highlighted.
State whether the
hypothesis is supported
or refuted. If the
hypothesis is refuted,
state the new hypothesis
generated.
These are areas of the
paper that are
inadequately explained.
Elements that are
missing from the article
may be mentioned here.
The experimental
design is
presented
incorrectly but
with correct
methodology, or
summarized
incompletely.
Data is
summarized with
partial
correctness.
One part of the
discussion is not
highlighted but
the others are
done correctly.
Several parts
of the
discussion are
missing from
the summary.
Not
attempted
Some show areas
are mentioned,
some areas
mentioned in the
summary are not
real shadow
areas.
Some, but not all
of the areas of
future study are
identified.
Elements that
are noted can
be found in
the article and
real shadow
areas are not
mentioned.
Areas of
future study
that are
mentioned
are not
appropriate.
Not
attempted
Shadow
Areas
Areas of
possible study
Areas of future study
from the paper itself are
mentioned.
Total Score _____/27
Not
attempted
Not
attempted