First, we will try the PREACH Rubric written for a word table where the ELA aspects need to be separated and the Texas Standards are needed. A little customizing in a word processor and you should be fine. Another version follows. I tried to make it so you can cut and paste it into whatever document you like to adjust for your needs. It is not perfect as I am always adjusting for each year for specific needs or school demands but it should get you started. Yes, my rubrics have zero because sometimes that is the assessed value of what is submitted. This will be a “living” page as I get requests for links and other items that will be added to the bottom. As better-formatted versions of the rubrics and other suggested ones are available with copyright and all that stuff, they will also be posted. Since this is all my own I can put it up as I see fit. I hope it helps and if you have a better version of something or improvement feel free to let me know to share the wealth.
|
Your Name |
Subject |
||||
|
Assignment Name |
Grade |
||||
|
Description of Assignment
|
Your lab report is to comply with the PREACH format expectations. See rubric for order of section and values; getting the report sections in the wrong order will cost you significant points. |
||||
|
Category |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
Your score |
|
Language Mechanics [TEKS ELA -9(B, C, D)] |
Zero errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation. |
1 to 2 or fewer errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation. |
3 to 6 fewer errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation |
More than 6 errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation. A word processor document is an expectation. |
Wrong font or size, margins, more than ten spelling, and grammar errors, Missing cover page |
|
|
Purpose: An introduction to the project is the first section [TEKS P-Intro 1b(1-2)] |
Clear and concise purpose. Written in sentence format. Bold or other heading indicator is present |
Clear and concise purpose. Written in sentence format but not clearly a heading. |
One element is not clear, concise, or not written as a sentence |
Not clear or concise or not written as a sentence. |
Incorrect location for section, missing a purpose statement. |
|
|
Research: AKA prior knowledge and theories. [TEKS P-Intro 1b(3, 7) 1c(5)] |
All elements of the purpose of research are addressed |
Missing or lacking depth in one element of the purpose or unclear in one element. |
2 or more mistakes in clarity or missing elements related to the purpose question. |
3 or more mistakes, but some research with citation is evident. |
Missing or failure to cite sources, including the textbook, or section is in the incorrect location |
|
|
Hypothesis [TEKS P-Intro 1b(3A, 7)] |
A clear and concise question is given, and the conclusion can state a simple Y/N as confirmed. |
Is lacking clarity or conciseness on the question that the conclusion can state a simple Y/N as confirmed |
Is lacking clarity and conciseness on the question that the conclusion can state a simple Y/N as confirmed |
It is not written as a Y/N question on confirmation. |
Missing or failing to use a complete sentence or section is in the incorrect location |
|
|
Experimental Variables [TEKS P-Intro 1b(4) 1c(1, 2)] |
All variables listed and categories as dependent, independent, and control |
All variables are listed but missing the control variable. |
One missing variable listed or failed to identify the independent and dependent variables |
Incorrectly identified the independent and dependent variables. |
Missing or failing to list the independent variable or section is in the incorrect location |
|
|
Experimental Materials list [TEKS P-Intro 1b(4) 1c(1, 2)] |
Present complete, with identification of items (a picture with labels works well here) |
Present complete, without full identification of items. |
Minor items are missing from the list, such as a tool, i.e., a “level,” to see if the table is correct. |
One major item is missing, but the list is substantially complete. |
Missing or more than 1 missing major item from the list. |
|
|
Experimental Procedure [TEKS P-Intro 1b(4) 1c(1, 2)] |
Well written and clear, step by step (think recipe book instructions) |
Well-written, but step by step or clarity needs work. |
It can be followed, but clarity needs work with steps needing to be interpreted. |
Difficult to follow or otherwise unclear. |
Missing or could not a reproducible experiment. |
|
|
Analysis of Data (Raw and Processed Data) [TEKS P-Intro 1c(4)] |
All graphs and tables are neat with labels, and the correct units are displayed, clarifying what is raw and what is processed data. |
All graphs and tables are neat with labels, and the correct units are displayed but could be organized better |
All graphs and tables are present with errors labels or correct units. |
Graphs and tables are not present, sloppy, or missing more than one unit or label. |
Missing or unusable for reproducing analysis. |
|
|
Analysis of Data (Calculations) [TEKS P-Intro 1c(4)] |
Calculations are correct and with examples for each type |
Calculations are accurate, and with one example calculation missing or in error |
Calculations are accurate and with two example calculations missing or in error |
One or more calculations are incorrect/missing or missing all the example calculations |
Missing or significant errors in calculations, making results incorrect or unproven. |
|
|
Analysis of Data (Results/Claim) [TEKS P-Intro 1c(4)] |
All Results are clearly shown, and explanations are clear and clear from the data and calculations |
All Results are clearly shown, but the connection to data is less than clear |
Results are shown but confusing or incomplete |
Results are partially inaccurate based on the data. |
Missing or does not match the data. |
|
|
Analysis of Data (Lab Questions, if any) [TEKS P-Intro 1c(4)] |
All questions are written out and answered accurately |
All questions are answered accurately |
50% of questions are answered correctly |
At least one the question was answered correctly. |
Missing or zero questions were answered correctly. |
|
|
Conclusion and Evaluation [TEKS P-Intro 1c(3)] |
Includes the following elements: 1. Results support or reject the hypothesis. 2. Explanation of experimental errors. 3. Description of how to improve the lab. 4. Explanation of what was learned |
The conclusion includes 3 of the elements described for full marks or fails to make recommendations for improvements. |
The conclusion includes 2 of the elements described for full marks |
The conclusion consists of only 1 of the elements described for full marks |
Missing or the conclusion does not match the results in the data section. |
|
|
Total Points |
|
/48 |
||||
|
Period or Block |
1 mark if filled out |
Name: |
1 mark no name no other marks possible. |
|||
|
Subject |
1 mark if filled out |
|
Page |
special item 2 marks possible, # out of # |
||
|
Topic |
1 mark if filled out |
|||||
|
EQ |
Date |
1 mark possible |
||||
|
Cue 7 Marks |
Body 5 Marks |
|||||
|
Questions from pre-class (C1) or during class (C2), plus important items to stand out from body (C3). Point for having the right parts in the right place. Points for quality of the stuff. More points for sections that take thinking. Summary is worth 10 points yet, the header is 4 points plus 2 for the page numbers. Why does this work, because the student has to think about where to put what and do it. That combination increases learning by 20 to 80% on grades |
Scale for Note taking– On Scale of 29/25 Marks possible 4 regions/boxes Header, Body, Cue and Summary big enough to use. Header and set up (7/5 marks); Sufficient name to identify student – No name no other points possible, or you went from a possible 100% to Zero Percent. = (1 mark), Subject. = (1 mark), Period. = (1 mark), Date. = (1 mark) Page # out of # completed at the end = 2 marks its own special category. Body (5 marks); Substantially Complete = 5, Most of the major items = 3, Some relevant notes = 1, Insufficient = 0 or negative if inappropriate (Yes, you can go backwards plus disciplinary actions) Cue or Questions – (6-7 marks); Appropriate entries and well thought out. = 4-5 marks, Minimal original thoughts or questions = 3-4 marks, Only copies of other people’s questions = 1-2 marks, Insufficient = 0, Inappropriate = negative marks (Yes, you can go backward plus disciplinary actions) Summary – (10 marks): All the major points of the lesson referenced and evidence that participated in the class discussion, or other evidence of Metacognitive thinking about how this all goes together (9-10 marks), Most of the major items of the lesson addressed or referenced, some evidence of Big Picture Thinking = (6-8 marks), Some evidence of thought about what happened during a lesson, or at least some legitimate references to the pre-class activity(4-6 marks), Insufficient to show fully participated but some relevant entries = (0 – 3 marks), Inappropriate = negative marks (Yes, you can go backward plus disciplinary actions) |
|||||
|
Summary and Translations |
||||||
|
Notes are not optional, must follow format for points. Following the system and thinking about what happened in the lesson increases learning with little or no extra time on part of the student. The Rubric has 2 extra credit points built in, and there are another two available, did you spot how is possible to get 29/25 or 116%? Did you explain in the how to do CNTS notes why it works to raise grades and lower the time needed? |
||||||