Lab Writeups For
Fifth and Sixth Grades
Here you will find a grading rubric and a sample lab writeup for fifth and sixth grades. The rubric you find here is the actual document that I'm staring at as I grade stacks of lab writeups for fifth and sixth graders. It should help you get an idea of what I'm looking for.
Go here for a lab writeup by an actual student in fifth grade.
Go here for a lab writeup written by the teacher as an example.
RUBRIC FOR GRADING LAB WRITEUPS
Exceptional work: 20 points
Writeup is excellent: clear and concise. The writer addresses all of the first five steps of the scientific method as presented in class. The steps are discussed in the proper order. The discussion of step three--testing the hypothesis--is clear and would allow another student to do the same experiment.
The writer mentions any "x factors" that might throw off the results.
The writeup flows. The writer nearly always follows the language arts rules.
Any necessary data is correctly analyzed, and the charts, tables, and/or graphs are neat and well-designed.
Presentation is effective and easy to read.
Very good work: 18 points
Writeup is clear. The writer addresses all of the first five steps of the scientific method as presented in class. The steps are discussed in the proper order. The discussion of step three is clear.
The writer clearly makes an attempt to write clearly. The writer nearly always follows the language arts rules.
Any necessary data is correctly analyzed, and the charts, tables, and/or graphs are neat, though they may need some explanation.
Presentation is easy to read.
Good work: 16 points
Writeup is clear. The writer addresses all of the first five steps of the scientific method as presented in class. The steps are discussed in the proper order. Step three may be less than complete.
The writing is clear (if brief or choppy), and the writer often follows the language arts rules.
Any necessary data is correctly analyzed, and the charts, tables, and/or graphs are neat, though they may need some explanation.
Presentation is relatively easy to read.
Acceptable work: 14 points
Writeup is generally clear. The writer addresses most of the first five steps of the scientific method as presented in class. The steps are discussed usually in the proper order. Little attention is given to describing the procedure of the experiment.
The writing is generally clear, but language arts mistakes sometimes make the writeup hard to understand.
Analysis of the data is attempted, but may be lacking in necessary detail. The associated graphics (charts, tables, and/or graphs) may need substantial explanation to be understood.
Presentation may sometimes be difficult to understand.
Borderline work: 12 points
Writeup is not clear. The writer does not address all five steps of the scientific method. The steps that are discussed may be discussed out of order. The experimental procedure may be only mentioned in passing.
The writing displays substantial problems which make understanding difficult.
Analysis of the data may be referred to, but not actually attempted. It may be implied or ignored. There may not be any charts, tables, or graphs. If there are, they are very difficult to understand.
Presentation is so sloppy that understanding may be nearly impossible.
Unacceptable work: 10 points
Writeup is nearly nonexistent. The writer probably does not address many of the steps of the scientific method.
The writing is nearly impossible to understand.
The writer does not attempt to analyze the data, if indeed there is any data to analyze. It might be difficult to believe that an actual experiment took place. There are probably not charts, tables, or graphs. If there are, there might as well not be, for all the good they do.
Presentation is so sloppy that understanding may be nearly impossible.
Missing the mark: 8 points
Writeup is essentially nonexistent. The writer may be addressing the wrong topic entirely.
The writing is nearly impossible to understand.
The writer does not attempt to analyze the data, if indeed there is any data to analyze. It might be difficult to discern that an actual experiment took place. There are probably not charts, tables, or graphs. If there are, there might as well not be, for all the good they do.
Presentation may be impossible to understand.
.....
SAMPLE LAB WRITEUP
Francis Q. Zyzzyx
6th
9/11/00
assignment #3
"Underground Layers"
a lab for sixth-grade science
QUESTION
The class was asked the following question: would it be possible to guess the invisible underground layers in a bowl of play dough just from seeing three core samples?
HYPOTHESIS
I don't think that it will be possible to correctly guess the underground layers, even with three core samples. Too much can change in the spaces between samples for you to get an accurate idea of what everything looks like underneath.
TESTING THE HYPOTHESIS
Our group received a bowl from another group. We tried to guess, just from looking at the top, what the underground layers looked like. We drew our guesses on our worksheet.
Then we stuck three straws into the clay in a straight line and pushed them down to the bottom of the bowl. When we pulled the straws out, we saw the layers that the different colors of clay formed under the surface. We drew the straws and their layers on our worksheet, then tried to guess what the rest of the layers looked like, based on that information.
Finally, we cut the play dough in half and looked at the layers that were actually revealed. We drew what we saw on our worksheet.
ANALYZING THE DATA
When I looked at all three drawings on the worksheet, I saw that they were not too different from each other. My guess was pretty close to the actual layers, and taking the core samples didn't change things very much. The only things that really changed were the thickness of the layers and the order that the different colors appeared. The core samples helped me get that information, and my second drawing was closer to reality than the first. The shape of the layers stayed pretty much the same.
CONCLUSION
My original hypothesis was wrong. I didn't think that I'd be able to guess at the layers just from taking core samples, but I could.
. . . . .
home |
faq |
schedule |
online help |
contact |
supply list |
downloads |
wish list
webtroll@hotmail.com
© 1996-2003 by michael klingensmith
|
