Discussion of Conclusions Rubric
When you read a submission think about your overall, holistic impression of the competence of the scientific reasoning demonstrated in the Discussion of Conclusionssection, and then score it, keeping in mind that with a holistic evaluation, we reward what is there rather than penalize for absence of any one feature. Remember that these are only descriptors, not primary traits that must be measurable in the submission to warrant a particular score (you may find other features that suggest the student is engaging in scientific reasoning, and these should be noted). When deciding on how to score a submission, it may be helpful to ask whether the item has some, many or all of the features listed under a particular score.
Some Descriptors of Competence in Scientific Reasoning
- 5 Strong Competence
-
- Explicit discussion of research hypothesis or question
- Clear understanding of research design, including the method’s limitations and strengths
- Clear understanding of cause and effect appropriate to research level and design
- Clear indication of inductive or deductive reasoning underlying hypothesis
- Critical evaluation of results, including alternative explanations of results
- Meaningful discussion of experiment’s limitations
- Examines results in light of current state of knowledge
- 4 Competence
-
- Attempts to generate and test a hypothesis or answer a research question
- Examines appropriateness of research design
- Considers reasoning underlying hypothesis
- Some interpretation and analysis of results, may consider alternative explanations of results
- Attempts to deal with experiment’s limitations
- Examines results in light of current state of knowledge
- 3 Weak Competence
-
- Recognition of problem/hypothesis, but not of derivation of testable hypothesis
- Description of methodology without thought on appropriateness of methods used
- Data analysis with minimal discussion or interpretation of results
- Little or no consideration of alternative explanations of results
- Ignores experimental limitations
- Fails to examine results with regard to current state of knowledge
- 2 Minimal Competence
-
- Minimal discussion of problem/hypothesis
- No consideration of experiment’s methodology
- Presents results without interpretation
- Neglects differences between expected (literature) values and experiment
- Demonstrates scientific knowledge, but without interpretation or analysis
- 1 Lacking any Evidence of Scientific Reasoning
-
- Discussion and/or Conclusions section limited to only a few sentences
- Does not state results
- Discussion dominated by phrases such as “I liked this lab.”, “This lab went well.”, etc.
- 0 No Discussion or Conclusions Section
-
- Submission is completely missing the section where scientific reasoning would be demonstrated