MIT Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate (PAOC)

MIT/NSF Project:  Weather in a Tank

Rubric for students written reports

Course: Project Title:

Instructor Name: University/College: Instructor Email:

Student Name: (cc'ed student) Student Email:

1. Deficient 2. Fair 3. Good 4. Excellent
Completeness -- Misinterpreted project/Project design components not stated
-- No use of technical terms
-- Misuse of theories/ideas/concepts
-- No attempt to integrate laboratory and atmopsheric data
-- Late without permission
- Project not fully understood /conceptual framework for the project missing.
- Little use of technical terms/jargon obscures arguments
- Little discussion of relevant theory/concepts
- Insufficient integration and discussion of laboratory and synoptic observations
+ Project adequately designed/evidence of conceptual framework
+ All project components completed
+ Appropriate use of technical terms
+ Clear understanding of theory and application to the project
+ Adequate attempt to integrate laboratory and synoptic data
++ Project very well designed and executed. Conceptual framework clear and concise
++ Goals of the project and report clearly stated and thoroughly carried out
++ Excellent understanding and use of technical terms
++ Exceptional balance between theory and observation and creative application
++ Laboratory and synoptic data integrated seamlessly
Data/Analysis -- No evidence of data or fudged data
-- Excuses given for not collecting data
-- No use of theory to interpret observations or data
-- No idea what to do with data
-- No visuals, pictures, graphics, or diagrams to display data
-- No discussion of errors
-- No evidence given to support conclusions
- Random or sporadic data collection and record keeping
- Inaccurate or sloppy representations of observations and/or data
- Incomplete or incorrect analysis of data
- Limited use of theory to interpret observations and/or data
- Inadequate use of visuals, pictures, or other graphics to display data
- Inadequate discussion of errors
- Conclusions weak or not fully supported by data
+ Consistent, clear data collection methods
+ Careful records of a variety of measurements
+ Data fully utilized and sufficient to test theory
+ Appropriate use of visuals, pictures, or other graphics to display data
+ Appropriate discussion of errors
+ Addresses (many) questions that arise from the data
+ Adequate discussion of conclusions supported by data
++ Original data carefully and consistently collected, documented, and graphed
++ Additional data collection designed to answer questions and test ideas/concep
++ Novel scientific techniques employed and matched to problem
++ Creative and highly technical use of visuals, pictures, or other graphics to display and explain fine points of data analysis results
++ Evidence of complete error analysis
++ Conclusions are insightful, fully based on data, and point to applications in new settings or to continued theoretical research
Organization -- Lacks a discernable organizational framework
-- Internal divisions are unclear or absents
-- No section headings, subheadings
-- Sections are rambling and disparate
-- Supporting elements not present or not tied into text
- Organizational framework is somewhat mechanical or awkward
- Many organizational elements present (introduction, body, and conclusion), but there is a weak logical flow
- Sections are not well integrated
- There are few section headings or inappropriate section headings that do not enhance readability
- Lacks important appendices or supporting documents
+ Establishes and maintains and overall framework that facilitates the expression of ideas
+ Constructs adequate internal divisions (introduction, body, and conclusion) that help the reader navigate the text
+ All relevant sections are present
+ Headings and subheadings are used, but could be more descriptive
+ Some appendices and supporting documents are included
++ Establishes and maintains a coherent and unifying framework
++ Arranges ideas logically or sequentially and connects them seamlessly
++ Creates clear internal divisions (e.g. an introduction, body, and conclusion)
++ Sections headings and subheadings are clearly marked and are labeled in a way that enhances readability
++ All relevant appendices and supporting documents are included
Aesthetics -- Exhibits little control of the conventions of edited written English, with frequent, serious mechanical errors that make the paper difficult to read.
-- Lack fluency, precision, and/or economy in vocabulary; incorrect or clumsy use of scientific language may obscure meaning
-- Misuses or omits standard source documentation for citations (e.g. MLA or APA style)
- Generally controls the conventions of edited written English, but with occasional lapses that may be distracting, but not confusing
- Uses vocabulary and scientific language that is adequate, but phrasing may be wordy, repetitious, or imprecise
- Inconsistent use of graphics to enhance the text
- Uses appropriate documentation style (e.g. MLA, APA), with citations fundamentally correct; may have minor errors in style and/or format
+ Demonstrates consistent but not universal control of the conventions of edited written English (grammar, punctuation, spelling)
+ Uses vocabulary and scientific language efficiently and economically/phrasing is clear but not elegant
+ Uses graphics (tables, graphs, drawing) where appropriate to enhance reading or understanding
+ Conforms to the appropriate documentation style (e.g. MLA, APA) this is almost completely correct in format
++ Controls all conventions of edited written English with few, if any, grammar, spelling, or punctuation errors
++ Exhibits accuracy, precision, and fluency with a broad range of vocabulary including scientific language
++ Uses a writing style that is engaging to the reader
++ Graphics are well integrated and connected to the text
++ Conforms to appropriate documentation style (e.g. MLA, APA)
Use of Sources -- No citations or references to sources
-- No evidence or referral to required readings
-- No evidence of note taking in class/no referral to class discussions
-- Generalizes from personal opinion
- References often not cited or poorly cited
- Inappropriate or gratuitous incorporation of reference
- Lack of the most appropriate and relevant citations from required readings
- Few references to class discussions
+ Frequent, reliable citations to support several key points
+ Incorporation of and demonstrated understanding of relevant required readings
+ Inclusion of additional relevant readings
+ Frequent reference to class discussions
++ Variety of appropriate sources cited from journal articles, books, and Internet sites, etc.
++ Evidence of exceptional ability to comprehend and apply information from required readings
++ Seamless integration of highly relevant additional readings to support key points
++ Effective use of class discussions to clarify ideas or illustrate points


Write few comments on the report:

Your IP address will be recorded.

Back to Assessment


Please report suggestions, comments and problems to Lodovica Illari.
Copyright 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology