Rubric for Written Reports

Summarizes goal of project and results concisely. Specific information provided. Well-written summary that includes brief description of each section, highlighting the most important points. Is understandable on its own. Is within 150 word limit.

Most information is presented, but some items may be missing. Gives summary but does not always focus on most important components of project. Is within word limit.

Insufficient summary of what was done. Few specific results presented. Summary provides some information but fails to stand on its own to explain project. Additional information needed to understand project.

Abstract is missing or contains no specific information. Provides little or no information on the project. Is not within the word limit.

Presentation is clear and logical. Reader can easily follow line of reasoning. Logical connection of points.

Presentation is generally clear. Sentence flow is generally smooth. A few minor points confusing or not clearly connected.

Reader can follow presentation with effort. Organization not well thought out. Points are not clearly made.

Presentation is very confused and unclear. Reader cannot follow it or deduce the main points presented.

Discusses pertinent background information. Clearly explains significance of topic. Results and conclusions are clearly stated? Information is consistently accurate.

Gives general information about the topic, but some relevant information may be missing, or significance is not clearly explained. Description of results is generally clear?. No significant errors made.

Insufficient information on background, relevance, significance is given. Some information is accurate, but enough errors are made to be distracting.

Provides little or no information on background and significance. Information is inaccurate or with many errors. Discussion is very difficult to follow? Reader learns little.

Includes references to methods, related studies, and standards, all complete and in appropriate style in text and reference list. Tables/figures cited appropriately.

Appropriate references are generally present; some may be incomplete or in incorrect style. Most references are appropriately presented.

Few references are given. Style is incorrect and/or incomplete. Many references are incorrect and/or incomplete.

No references provided. Style is incorrect and/or incomplete.

Writing is free of errors in grammar, punctuation, sentence structure, capitalization, spelling.

Writing is generally error-free, but some errors in language or grammar may occur. Writing is in passive voice.

Enough errors in style or grammar occur that they become distracting.

Errors are frequent and distracting, so that it is hard to determine meaning.

Level is appropriate for presentation of scientific results. Uses appropriate voice. Flows smoothly. Follows correct format for chosen presentation?. Maintains reader’s interest. Flows smoothly. Logical connection of points. Academic tone (no I/we, you). No contractions. All sentences clearly written and cohesive with one another. Subtitles used adequately. Flows smoothly. Logical connection of points. Follows standard journal paper style.?

Level is generally appropriate. Sentence flow is generally smooth and logical. Generally consistent use of chosen format. Few problems with other components of writing style. Journal paper style is generally followed?. Minor errors may be present.

Voice (active/passive) may change randomly. Flow is not consistently smooth; appears disjointed. Chosen format not followed consistently. Some problems with other components of style. Journal paper style is not followed consistently.?

Writing style is consistently at an inappropriate level. No logical connection of ideas or flow of sentences. Chosen format not followed. Frequent problems with other components of style. Journal paper style is not followed?