Department of Human and Environmental Sciences Assessment Criteria and Feedback for Laboratory Reports (L = level ; W = % weighting of each element) Assessment Category L W % Fail < 40% Third 40 49% Lower Second 50 59% Upper Second 60 69% First 70% and above Overall presentation, structure and style Clear introduction and abstract; fluency; logical structure; following of guidelines, ease of reading; spelling; grammar; 4 5 6 25 20 15 Failure to follow guidelines of a full report; many grammatical and spelling errors; poor fluency; difficult to understand; lack of abstract; aims missing from introduction Limited or poorly conceived structure ; frequent grammatical and spelling errors; Brief or irrelevant introduction; poor abstract; incorrect/weak aims/objectives Structure is generally correct; grammar and spelling mainly good; recognisable academic style; introduction contains relevant information but may lack depth; abstract present but lacking quantitative data. Aims of experiment clearly stated at end of introduction A logical style; easy to read with reinforcement rather than repetition; very good grammar and spelling; good academic style that requires little correction; introduction is relevant; abstract contains quantitative results A logical, fluent, well-organised style which clearly leads the reader through the material facilitating a challenging argument; polished grammar and accurate spelling; introduction Referencing Use of recommended system; referencing within the text; accuracy of citations in the text and reference list. 4 5 6 5 5 5 No or little attempt to use either the recommended system or an alternative. An attempt to use the recommended system but frequent inaccuracies and inconsistencies. Recommended system used and generally conforms to faculty guidelines. Recommended system used and almost completely conforms to faculty guidelines. Recommended system used, fully conforms and accurately used. Use of literature Relevance of literature; appropriate depth/breadth and integration of literature. 4 5 6 10 10 10 Little or no evidence of the use of literature or irrelevant literature used. Limited use of relevant literature and presented with little or no comment; inappropriate breadth and/or depth of sources. Clear evidence of the use of an appropriate range of sources. Literature appropriate to the depth/breadth and level of the assignment and interpreted accordingly. Highly developed critical approach to literature resulting in a fully substantiated argument; literature used such that the product may be suitable as a student resource for the relevant level (1,2 or 3) Presentation of methods* and results Accuracy; quality of results presentation; evidence of understanding; calculations 4 5 6 45 35 25 Few key points addressed; chaotic presentation of results; poor or no figure legends and table headings; no or little evidence of understanding. No comment on methods Some key results present. Little/no text to describe results. Incomplete figure legends and table titles. Adaptations to methods not recorded. Most results present but may contain occasional errors in data handling. Some text describing results is present. Correct use of tables and figures. There is a record of adaptations to methods used. Methods (if required) are clear but may lack detail. All results are presented and explained clearly. There may be a few minor errors in data handling/analysis. Clear methods (if appropriate) with full detail. No errors in presentation of results. All calculations are correct and data is correctly analysed. Written text is clear and easy to understand. Method presentation (if required) is of near journal standard. Discussion Critical analysis; integration of evidence; drawing of conclusions. 4 5 6 15 30 45 No or little evidence of analysis, discussion or reflection; incorrect or no conclusions. Little attempt to analyse results obtained; poor interpretation suggesting a low level of understanding. Generally descriptive discussion but shows some evidence of understanding of relevance of data obtained. Conclusions are relevant. Clear attempt to analyse/discuss results obtained. Some attempt to put into the context of the literature (if relevant). Clear conclusions made. Shows understanding of subject. Evidence of an evaluative approach throughout the discussion through which the reader is guided to clear and appropriate conclusions; shows a critical appreciation of the limitations of the experiment/techniques
Failure to follow guidelines
Pssst…We can write an original essay just for you.
Any essay type. Any subject. We will even overcome a 6 hour deadline.
<< SAVE15 >>
Place your first order with code to get 15% discount right away!