Rubric

You can earn four points per blog post plus two points for the correct source citation and four points for mechanics.  This project is worth 30 points.  Detailed grading guidelines below:

1. Summarize the experiment and identify the population of interest and the experimental units.  

4 points: includes accurate and well written summary, correctly identifies the population and units

3 points: minor error in summary, population, or units

2 points: major error in summary, population, or units (or two minor errors)

1 point:  two major errors in summary, population, or units

2. How were the experimental units selected?

4 points: accurately explains how units were selected, using vocabulary from class

3 points: accurately explains how units were selected, without using vocabulary from class

2 points: makes minor error in explaining how units were selected

1 point:  makes major error in explaining how units were selected

3. Describe and critique the design and administration of the study.  Include specific comments on control, randomization, and replication.  What was measured and how?

4 points: discusses the design (including control, randomization AND replication) accurately

3 points: discusses the design (including two of: control, randomization and replication) somewhat accurately

2 points: discusses the design (including two of: control, randomization and replication), but not accurately

1 point:  discusses the design (including one of: control, randomization and replication), but not accurately

4. Comment on any bias and confounding variables present in the experiment.  Is there a possible placebo effect?

4 points: accurately and thoroughly  addresses bias, confounding variables, and placebo effects

3 points: minor error in addressing bias, confounding variables, and placebo effects

2 points: major error in addressing bias, confounding variables, and placebo effects (or two minor errors)

1 point: two major errors in addressing bias, confounding variables, and placebo effects

5. Comment on the graphical and numerical analysis of the data.  Should anything have been done differently?

4 points: accurately identifies and explains any misleading graphs or numerical analysis

3 points: accurately identifies any misleading graphs or numerical analysis, but does not explain

2 points: minor error in identifying and explaining any misleading graphs or numerical analysis

1 points: major error in identifying and explaining any misleading graphs or numerical analysis

6. What conclusions were drawn from this study?  Do you agree?  Do you feel that the results of the experiment can be generalized to the population of interest?

4 points: accurately and thoroughly discusses conclusions and generalizations

3 points: minor error in discussing conclusions and generalizations

2 points: major error in discussing conclusions and generalizations (or two minor errors)

1 point:  two major errors in discussing conclusions and generalizations

Additional Points:

2 points: Include the bibliographical information of the article.  If you found the article online, include a link.  If you did not find it online, make a copy of the article and turn it in to Ms. Peterson.

4 points: English mechanics (grammatically correct, punctuated properly, no spelling mistakes, well written, etc.)