WARNING: This in-course summative assessment is related to the Admission to Student Teaching institutional gateway for physics teacher education majors. In order to receive the positive recommendation of the PTE coordinator required for Admission to Student Teaching, all candidates must earn an overall average score of 2 (Acceptable) on this performance task. In addition, no single dimension may be scored unacceptable.
The following structured rubric will be used to assess the quality of the written
report. Criteria were derived from D.C. Baird's Experimentation: An Introduction
to Measurement and Experiment Design, Chapter 7.
| Dimension | Unacceptable (0 points) |
Inadequate (1) |
Acceptable (2) |
Excellent (3) |
| Writing | Poor writing in general; lack of paragraph structure, spelling and grammatical errors; hard to understand. | Acceptable writing but has several grammatical and spelling errors. | Well constructed paragraphs, each with topic sentence; appropriate grammar; spell checked. | Very easy to read; professionally written; suitable for publication. |
| Title and Abstract | Missing entirely. | Either inappropriate title or missing abstract. | Appropriate title and abstract on separate cover page along with name. | N/A |
| Format | Sections essentially indiscernible from one another. | Lacks subject headings; sections run together. | Well organized; each of four sections clearly labeled (INTRODUCTION, PROCEDURE, RESULTS, and DISCUSSION). | Exceptionally well organized; subheadings included. (See dimensions list in first column of rubric.) |
| Introduction: Topic Statement | Missing or so imprecise as to be misleading. | Present but poorly formulated or imprecise. | Gets reader's attention; clearly states nature of capstone project. | N/A |
| Introduction: Experimental Intention or Purpose | Missing or clearly misstates intention or purpose of experiment. | Inaccurate in detail, but presents the basic concept clearly. | Explains experimental purpose; details experimental circumstances and descriptive of system used. | Very clearly and concisely stated introduction; provides substantial detail. |
| Procedure: Outline | Fails to include outline of steps followed. | Provides some steps, but is incomplete or inaccurate in depiction. | Provides summary of step-by-step procedure. | Provides considerable detail of step-by-step procedure. |
| Procedure: Variables | Fails to or inaccurately define pertinent variables. | Identifies variable, but fails to distinguish pertinent forms. | Clearly identifies all pertinent variables. | N/A |
| Procedure: Dimensional Analysis | Inaccurate, incomplete, or missing dimensional analysis; or required instructor to provide dimensional analysis. | Completed accurate dimensional analysis but only with help from instructor. | Accurately and concisely conducts dimensional analysis to predict hypothetical form of expected system behavior. | Includes consideration for error terms following derivation of hypothetical model. |
| Procedure: Independent, Dependent, and Controlled Variables | Fails to distinguish between or include all pertinent variables | Distinguishes independent, dependent, and controlled variables, but fails to include all. | Clearly and accurately distinguishes independent, dependent, and controlled variables. | N/A |
| Procedure: Specific Measurement Detail | Fails to provide date required to support conclusions. | Provides data but not in a systematic form. | Provides detailed data, and presents in an easily readable form (e.g., tables) | N/A |
Procedure: Precautions |
No concern shown for controlling experimental error, either systematic or experimental. | Inadequate concern shown for experimental error; inadequately controls for systematic error. | Concerns about controlling experimental error are clearly addressed as part of experiment. | Shows great care for minimizing experimental error and for completely eliminating systematic error. |
Procedure: Apparatus Diagrams |
Inaccurate, incomplete, missing. | Clear hand drawing showing detail of system studied. | Clear computer-based drawing showing detail of system studied. | N/A |
| Results: Measured Values | Inaccurate, incomplete, missing. | Provides data, but not summary statistical information as would be appropriate. | Clear statements of summary statistical data as appropriate. | N/A |
| Results: Measurement Uncertainties | Inaccurate, incomplete, missing. | Poor consideration or statistical treatment of experimental error. | Clear and accurate treatment of statistical uncertainty. | Uses error terms derive from hypothetical model. |
| Graphs | Improper, incomplete, or irrelevant graphs; improper or inaccurate analysis. | Properly drawn shows regression LINE, and clear statement of slope and y-intercept; axes improperly labeled. | Properly drawn and labeled; shows regression LINE, and clear statement of slope and y-intercept; axes properly labels with numbers, variable names, and units. | In addition to that to the left, also includes an accurate characterization of physics meaning of slope and y-intercept. |
| Discussion: Comparison between Model and System | Lacks adequate comparison between model and system via analysis of experimental uncertainty. | Barely adequate comparison between model and system via analysis of experimental uncertainty. | Accurate and detailed comparison between model and system via analysis of experimental uncertainty. | N/A |
| Discussion: Speculation Concerning Discrepancies between System and Model | Attempts to explain reason for differences between hypothetical model and system on the basis of systematic error alone. | Attempts to explain reason for differences between hypothetical model and system on the basis of random and systematic error. | Attempts to explain reason for differences between hypothetical model and system on the basis of random error alone. | N/A |
| Summary Statement | Missing, improper and/or inaccurate conclusions. | Present, but contain substantial inaccuracies. | Concise, accurate summary statement tying together purpose and conclusion. | N/A |
| Independence of Thought and Action (multiplier ranging from 0 to 1). | 0.0-0.3 = completed task with unauthorized assistance of another student, faculty member, or textbook, or required unacceptably large amount of help by instructor. | 0.3-0.9 = completed experimental procedures with substantial assistance to a small amount of assistance. | 1.0 = completed experimental task without any external assistance. | N/A |
| Was the goal of the experiment made clear from the outset? |
| Was the theory base adequately described? |
| Was the experimental process adequately described? |
| Was the experimental design appropriate to the goals? |
| Were data presented adequate to justify any conclusions? |
| Was the final result clearly indicated? |
| Was statistical analysis adequate? |
| Was error analysis adequate? |
| Was the presentation of information clear and well organized? |
Was the researcher knowledgeable and able to answer questions and/or objective criticism? |
To what degree did the student exhibit self-reliance and independence of thought and action? |
The required minimum score on this project is 2.0. Project scoring less than 2.0 average, or having one or more unresolved unacceptable performances, will be returned for correction under the Student Assessment-as-Learning policy. Extra credit is available with scores above 2.0.