Thomas Edison High School | Über Rübric for Lab Reports | MYP Science Year 5/DP Science | Revised 8/2015
Name: ________________________________________________________
Evidence
MYP.
DP.
MYP
MCA
0
RF
1-2
DNM
3-4
PM
5-6
M
7-8
E/E
Communication (4)
A-i, A-ii
Engagement (2)
Communication
Introduction
No key vocabulary
from unit is used.
Vocabulary is used
mostly or entirely
incorrectly, out of
context, or appears
only in phrases copied
from notes. Writing is
unclear, incoherent, or
disorganized.
Missing, plagiarized
or entirely incorrect
Background is
superficial, limited in
relevance, or does not
aid in understanding
investigation context.
Little to no evidence
of initiative, personal
input, interest, or
curiosity.
Scientific concepts
outlined are partly
accurate, but may
omit some key
information and
connections to lab
activity are limited.
Little evidence of
initiative, personal
input, or curiosity.
Scientific concepts
described are mostly
accurate, but may
omit some key
information. Some
justification is given
for research question
but does not show
why it is interesting
or important.
Accurately and
completely outlines
relevant scientific
concepts from valid
sources and relates
how it applies to
research question.
Explains why
research question is
important and/or
personally interesting
Vocabulary from the
unit is used but some
key terms are missing
or used incorrectly, or
does not clarify
discussion, or phrases
are unoriginal.
Presentation or
structure may lack
clarity in places.
Key vocabulary from
the unit is used
accurately and
appropriately
to clarify discussion
and to explain why
data is meaningful.
Presentation wellstructured & clear.
Key vocabulary from
the unit is used in the
student’s own voice in
such a way as to reveal
deep conceptual
understanding.
Presentation is wellstructured & entirely
clear. Ideas of others
are properly cited
where used.
B-i, B-ii
B-iii
Exploration (6)
B-iii, B-iv
C-ii
Reasoning
C-iii
A-iii
Analysis (6)
Research Question/
Hypothesis/
Prediction
Missing, plagiarized
or entirely incorrect
No focused research
question, or question
irrelevant to
experiment, or
hypothesis is based
on flawed logic, or
prediction contradicts
hypothesis.
Experimental
design
Methods and
Materials
Missing or
plagiarized
Omits several
constants or
variables that
may influence
relevance,
reliability, or
sufficiency of
collected data.
Missing, plagiarized
or entirely incorrect
Does not outline how
variables are to be
manipulated, or is
greatly lacking in
detail. No mention of
environmental,
safety, or ethical
issues.
Purpose is not a
question, or
hypothesis does not
answer question, or
prediction does not
logically follow from
hypothesis, or
hypothesis is not
explained/supported
One or two of
the items from
the 5-6 level
missing, or IV
is not precisely
quantifiable, or
DV is not
precisely
measureable.
Research question is
relevant; hypothesis
is explained with
some support.
Prediction is
consistent with
hypothesis, and
explicitly identifies
expected relationship
between variables.
Research question is
fully focused and
hypothesis is a
testable answer.
Hypothesis is
supported using
correct scientific
reasoning. Specific
prediction logically
follows from
hypothesis.
Includes, if
appropriate:
independent
and dependent
variables, at
least three
constants, and
at least one
control setup.
Outlines how to
manipulate variables
and collect data, but
is not detailed
enough for a student
unfamiliar with the
experiment to follow
it. Limited discussion
of safety, ethical,
environmental issues.
Procedure is
reproducible and
describes how to
manipulate variables
and collect data, but
missing important
details. Safety,
ethical, and
environmental issues
addressed explicitly.
Selects appropriate
materials/equipment.
Explains how to
manipulate variables
& collect sufficient,
relevant data.
Logical, clear, and
detailed enough to be
reproducible. Full
awareness of safety,
environmental, and
ethical issues shown.
Considers all
(or nearly all)
factors that
may influence
relevance,
reliability, and
sufficiency of
collected data.
Control is
justified by
good scientific
reasoning.
C-i
Claim
C-iv
C-v
Discussion:
Evaluation
Discussion:
Improvement
Evaluation (6)
Discussion:
Conclusion
Discussion:
Conclusion
Missing, plagiarized
or entirely incorrect
Data interpreted
inaccurately, or raw
data presented
without necessary
processing and/or
calculations, or
processing is
inadequate to support
a valid conclusion.
Data processing is
incomplete or has
several errors or
inconsistencies or
does not help answer
research question.
IB only: statistical
test is performed, but
is incorrect or is
inappropriate to data
Data interpreted
accurately. Data is
processed and/or
calculations done to
allow a broadly valid
but incomplete or
limited conclusion to
the research question.
Plagiarized, or no
claim is made
Claim is nonspecific or not
relevant to
experiment.
Conclusion does
not refer to
hypothesis.
Missing or
plagiarized
Decision to
accept/reject
hypothesis
contradicts results
or is not connected
to analysis of
experimental data.
Accepts or rejects
hypothesis, but
discussion is
lacking in detail.
Decision to
accept/reject is
consistent with
results, but direct
logical connection
is not made.
Prediction is
addressed but not
used to evaluate
hypothesis.
Decision to accept/
reject hypothesis is
based on explicit
comparison of
predicted vs.
actual results of
experiment. Trend
in experimental
data is described.
Raw data processed
to enable direct
comparisons between
trials or groups.
Processed data is
correctly interpreted.
Makes a clear
claim that is
entirely relevant
to investigation;
thoroughly
evaluates validity
of hypothesis.
Results
Analysis
Missing, plagiarized
or entirely incorrect
Results do not
represent data
actually obtained in
experiment, or data
is not sufficient to
answer research
question. Graph is
missing, messy, or
lacks axis label(s).
Data incomplete or
inaccurate, or no
tables used, or units
are missing, or
graph is scaled
inappropriately, or
chart type is not
appropriate for data.
Error/uncertainty
not discussed.
Data is sufficient to
answer research
question. Impact of
error or uncertainty
is considered. Graph
or data table correct
except minor errors
which do not hinder
understanding.
Data is sufficient to
fully answer
research question,
neatly organized in
tables, and includes
units and sig figs or
uncertainty.
Computer-generated
graphs correctly
labeled & scaled.
Multiple trials done.
IB only: suitable
statistical analysis is
performed and
correctly interpreted.
Explicitly accepts
or rejects
hypothesis in
detail.
Makes detailed &
direct comparison
between results
and prediction.
Evaluation of
hypothesis is based
on correct analysis
of patterns in data
and graph; specific
data cited to justify
conclusion. Trends
discussed in detail.
Missing or plagiarized
No claim is made as to
validity of experiment,
or claim is made with
no support/explanation.
No specific strengths or
weaknesses identified.
Comparison to accepted
scientific context, if
present, is superficial.
Explains why student
thinks experiment is
valid/believable, but
provides little specific
support for claim. Some
strengths or weaknesses
may be outlined but not
discussed thoroughly.
Evaluates if experiment
is valid or believable;
includes one good
reason for claim.
Strengths/weaknesses
are outlined; practical &
procedural issues are
discussed in brief.
Accepted scientific
context is addressed.
Evaluates if experiment
is valid or believable;
includes several good
reasons for claim.
Strengths/weaknesses
(e.g. limitations of data,
sources of error and
methodological issues
discussed thoroughly.
Discusses accepted
scientific context
relevant to results.
Missing or
plagiarized
States changes
to experiment
but they are of
questionable
value to the
investigation.
Outlines an
improvement or
extension that is
relevant to the
lab topic.
Describes some
improvements
or extensions to
the method that
would benefit
the scientific
investigation.
Discusses
several realistic
and relevant
improvements
or extensions to
the method that
would benefit
the scientific
investigation.