HOLISTIC GRADING SCHEME

FOR ESSAYS, PAPERS AND LAB. REPORTS

(This description of  a holistic grading scheme is a modified version of one used at Dartmouth College.)

Essays, papers, and lab. reports should be written in grammatically correct English just as in any course at KSU. You are expected to express your ideas using proper sentences, paragraphs, punctuation, etc. Writing should be succinct and to the point. An incoherent narrative will be considered an expression of faulty scientific reasoning. The evaluation of written work is holistic, with quality levels and criteria as stated below. Numbers are listed in parentheses beside each quality level, based on a grading scale of 100 points. Exam. questions or papers worth more or less than 100 points will be adjusted proportionally.

EXCEPTIONAL (92 – 100 points)

The work goes well beyond the task assigned. It is impressive, unusually complete, and imaginative. Excellent use is made of the reference material cited within the paper or of examples cited in the essay. The scientific conclusions are clearly supported by the data presented and there is evidence of originality in the analysis. For reports or papers, reference material shows excellence with respect to both breadth and depth. Only outstanding submissions will be designated at Exceptional.

STRONG (85 – 91 points)

The work fully engages the major scientific principles embodied in the topic. Data are good and/ or are well chosen to convey information. The scientific analysis makes good use of the data presented. The writing demonstrates a clear understanding of the fundamental issues of the topic being explored. For reports or papers, reference material is appropriate for the topic being discussed.

RESPECTABLE (75 – 84 points)

A sensible approach to addressing the issues contained in the topic being explored is shown. The writing engages most of the appropriate scientific issues and principles. However, some problems are evident: the choice of data or examples is correct, bur incomplete; the scientific analysis, though correct for the most part, shows gaps and pertinent information may be missing. These omissions do not seriously hinder the usefulness of the work. For papers or reports, the reference material is good but incomplete.

MARGINAL (70 – 74 points)

The work partially engages the major scientific principles embodied in the topic being explored. The work generally relates to the assigned task, but gaps and problems are prominent and interfere with its effectiveness.
Data or examples are poorly chosen and do not contribute substantially to the scientific analysis. The analysis has serious gaps. Reference material is shallow or only marginally appropriate.

WEAK (60 – 69 points)

The work shows little depth. The effort is spotty with only fragmentary evidence of understanding the sue of data, examples, and reference material in reporting on the subject. The analysis is grossly incomplete, and reference material is absent or inappropriate.

MINIMAL (less than 60 points)

There is little or no meaningful effort in evidence. The approach taken is devoid of knowledge of the principles embodied in the topic being explored. Analysis is absent or shallow. No appropriate references are cited.

LAB REPORT

GRADING CHECKLIST

The following checklist contains many of the common mistakes I have found in lab reports. The items that have been checked are those that need improvement. Many of these items refer to sections of the text by J. Pechenik: A Short Guide to Writing about Biology. Time constraints do not allow for extensive comments on all reports, and many times the types of mistakes are similar among students. This checklist was made to help you improve your subsequent reports. As always, if you have any questions, please come see me.

____ Watch your spelling and grammar.

____ Write/ print more neatly or type your report.

____ See pp. 6-18 in Pechenik.

____ Omit unnecessary words/phrases/sentences.

INTRODUCTION (see pp. 216-223 Pechenik)

____ Expand this section. What is known about this topic (cite some references)

____ What are the objectives of this study? What hypothesis/es were you testing?

____ Detailed description of methods should be included in the methods section.

MATERIALS & METHODS (see pp. 165-171Pechenik)

____ When and/or where did you collect the data? (Remember, enough detail should be included so that someone else can repeat your experiment).

____ What is the scientific name of the organism(s) studied. Remember scientific names should be in italics or underlined.

____ How did you take your measurements? For example, include instruments used, include a description of what was measured (e.g. diameter, length, etc.)

____ What was your sample size?

____ What kind of statistical analyses were performed?

____ Omit unnecessary words/phrases/sentences.

____ Do not include minor details (e.g. I typed data into the computer…)

RESULTS (see pp. 171-206 Pechenik)

____ Include title, legends, and/or labels on graphs and figures.

____ Plot INDEPENDENT variable on the X-axis; DEPENDENT on the Y-axis.

____ Verbalize your results –tell the reader what you found.

____ Do not include interpretations (save these for the discussion)

____ Present your statistical information (see Pechenik pg. 67-69 for examples)

____ Present in logical order; use past tense.

DISCUSSION (see pp. 207-215, Pechenik)

____ What is the hypothesis that you are testing?

____ Have you falsified or failed to falsify your hypothesis?

____Support your statements with specific data or statistics.

____ Do your results support or contradict what has been found previously (e.g. in the literature)?

____ Do your results make sense? Discuss them in terms of experimental procedure, scientific (biological) knowledge, etc.

____ Expand this section.

____ Reword and rephrase this section. Pay attention to the logical flow of your argument.

LITERATURE CITED (see pp. 70-79, Pechenik)

____ You need to add some citations. If the information or idea is not yours, and is not common knowledge, you need to add a citation.

____ Improper format.

____ You’ve got things listed in this section that you did not cite in your text (or vise-versa). Only include references that you actually cite.