Skip to main content Skip to navigation
Engineering Lab Report Instruction Modules ENGINEERING LAB REPORT INSTRUCTIONAL MODULES

Assessment Rubric Design

The most updated lab writing instructional modules are available: engineeringlabwriting.org

Faculty Writing Instruction Guide 2: Designing Lab Report Assessment Rubrics

Well-designed assessment instruments will help instructors inform their expectations to students and assess student lab reports fairly and efficiently. A rubric can be an excellent assessment instrument for engineering lab reports. It identifies the instructor’s expectations from an assigned lab report and then explicitly states the possible levels of achievement along a continuum (poor to excellent or novice to expert).

The rubric can be constructed for individual labs or an entire course.

Step 1: Define the purpose of the lab report assignment/assessment for which you are creating a rubric
Instruction Rubric development example
The first step is to clarify the purpose of the assignment and identify student’s learning outcome(s) from lab report writing.
  • Assume an instructor focus on data presentation on one lab report assignment.
  • The following is the student outcome: Students can construct well-formatted tables, graphs, and photographs to present lab data.
  • This example contents are related to the module: F5: Data Presentation.
Step 2: Choose a Rubric Type: Analytical vs. Holistic
Instruction Rubric development example
Instructors need to select one out of two types of rubrics: analytical vs. holistic.

  1. Analytical rubrics break down the components of a learning task, giving students feedback with each component.
  2. Holistic rubrics provide a broad overview of student performance and allow you to assess a learning task as a whole.

See Figures 1 and 2 for the differences between the two types.
  • An analytic rubric offers feedback on areas of strength or weakness. Instructors can control each criterion’s relative importance.
  • A holistic rubric provides an overall sense of student performance. Instructors can save evaluation time by minimizing the number of the decision made.
  • In the context of entry-level engineering lab courses, an analytic rubric was chosen for the further rubric development on lab data presentation.

 


Figure 1. Analytic Rubric Example.

 


Figure 2. Holistic Rubric Example.

Step 3: Define the Criteria
Instruction Rubric development example
  • Instructors need to define grading criteria, which are the individual elements of a learning outcome that will be evaluated.
  • Make a list of knowledge and skills required for the lab report assignment. They must be unambiguous, measurable. Before finalizing, eliminate any that are not critical.
    1. Example student outcome is:

Students can construct well-formatted tables, graphs, and photographs to present lab data.

    A list of knowledge and skill required:

  1. Use software such as Excel to construct graphs and tables.
  2. Tables, graphs, and photographs are “stand alone” with useful captions.
  3. Indicate the units of measure (e.g. newtons) for the quantitative data.
  • Instructors need to define the levels of quality for student performance. Most rating scales include: 3 (below; meet; above), 4 (fail; fair; pass; exceed), 5 (never; sometimes; usually; mostly; always), or 6 (limited-low; limited-high; acceptable-low; acceptable-high; proficient-low; proficient-high).
  • More rating points can provide more detail; however, more rating points can also make grading more difficult and time-consuming.
    • This example rubric will use

3 levels

    • :

      • Score 1: Below expectations.
      • Score 2: Meets expectations.
      • Score 3: Exceeds expectations.

These 3 levels can become 6 levels when you can make high-low in each level.

Step 4: Design the Rating Scale
Instruction Rubric development example
Step 5: Write Performance Descriptors for Each Rating (Step 3 + Step 4)
Instruction Rubric development example
    The final step is basically to mix the outcomes of Step 3 and 4. Write descriptions of expected performance at each level to finalize the rubric. Well-written descriptions:

  • Describe observable and measurable behavior.
  • Use parallel language across the scale.
  • Indicate the degree to which the standards are met.
    From Step 3, three performances were identified for assessment in the lab report objective related to data presentation. A list of measurable student performances:

  1. Use software such as Excel to construct graphs and tables.
    • Below expectations: Rely on handwriting to construct graphs and tables.
    • Meet expectations: Use software such as Excel for at least one figure or table.
    • Exceed expectations: Construct all figures and tables using software such as Excel.
  2. Tables, graphs, and photographs are “stand alone” with useful captions.
    • Below expectations: Fail to use any captions for tables, graphs, and photographs.
    • Meet expectations: Use captions for tables, graphs, and photographs, but they are incomplete.
    • Exceed expectations: Use completed captions for all figures (figure number, title, axis title, legend, etc.), tables (table number, title, etc.), and photographs (figure number, title, size bar, etc.).
  3. Indicate the units of measure (e.g. newtons) for the quantitative data.
    • Below expectations: Fail to indicate any units for the quantitative data in tables, graphs, and photographs.
    • Meet expectations: Indicate units occasionally for the quantitative data in tables, graphs, and photographs.
    • Exceed expectations: Indicate units for all the quantitative data in tables, graphs, and photographs.
Step 6: Build and Revise the Rubric
Instruction Rubric development example
    Construct a table-formatted rubric to a single page for reading and grading ease. After getting feedback from colleagues, teaching assistants, students, consider the effectiveness of the rubric and revise accordingly.
    After testing the example rubric for the first lab, the rubric made the following adjustment for the second lab:

  1. Tables, graphs, and photographs should contain useful captions such as number, title, etc.
    • Below expectations: Fail to use any captions for tables, graphs, and photographs.
    • Meet expectations: Use captions for tables, graphs, and photographs, but they are incomplete.
    • Exceed expectations: Use completed captions for all figures (figure number, title, axis title, legend, etc.), tables (table number, title, etc.), and photographs (figure number, title, size bar, etc.).
  2. Indicate the units of measure (e.g. newtons) for the quantitative data.
    • Below expectations: Fail to indicate any units for the quantitative data in tables, graphs, and photographs.
    • Meet expectations: Indicate units occasionally for the quantitative data in tables, graphs, and photographs.
    • Exceed expectations: Indicate units for all the quantitative data in tables, graphs, and photographs.

Rubric Examples:

Writers in early engineering lab courses are able to Mostly related to High-Exemplary (3) Med-Satisfactory (2) Low-Need Improve (1)
1) Address technical audience expectations by providing the purpose, context, and background information, incorporating secondary sources as appropriate. Intro Analyze the technical audience’s expectations and the context for the lab report.

Provide purpose, context, and technical background proficiently.

 The writer’s understanding of the context and audience supports a generally successful report. Attention to purpose, context, and technical background are generally appropriate, with some lapses. Little to no awareness of the audience’s needs and the context.

The purpose, context, and technical background provided are too basic or inadequate.
2) Present experimentation processes accurately and concisely. Methods Lab processes presented are accurate and concise so that the writer can repeat the lab with the description. Graphics, such as photographs, are used effectively. The presentation of the lab processes is accurate; however, it is highly wordy or unnecessarily detailed. Graphics, such as photographs, are used but lack clarity. The writer cannot repeat the lab with the presentation. The lab processes are highly concise, simple, or not well organized.
3) Illustrate lab data using the appropriate graphic/table forms. Results The writer uses effective strategies to use graphic/table forms when communicating lab data/results.

Graphic/table forms are stand-alone and professional. They contain all required features to follow standard conventions and include useful captions.  Figures, tables, and illustrations are correctly and usefully labeled.

 When communicating lab data/results, strategies using graphic/table forms were generally appropriate, with lapses.

Graphic/table forms are generally appropriate; however, they contain minor errors. Figures, tables, and illustrative materials are labeled.

 The writer fails to use effective graphic/table forms when communicating lab data/results.

Graphic/table forms contain little or no required features. Multiple errors are found in the graphics/tables. Figures, tables, and illustrative materials are not labeled.
4) Analyze lab data using appropriate methods (statistical, comparative, uncertainty, etc.). Results /Discussion The writer analyzes lab data using appropriate methods (statistical, comparative, uncertainty, etc.) professionally. The writer draws significant technical knowledge from an in-depth analysis consistent with the complexity of the experimentation. Lab data analysis is generally appropriate; however, the analysis methods have some lapses, or the analysis results of lab data are not well aligned with the complexity of the experimentation. The writer fails to analyze lab data. The writer’s lab data analysis is limited, and the data analysis methods have significant errors. Sometimes, the writer may “let the data do the talking.”
5) Interpret lab data using factual and quantitative evidence (primary and/or secondary sources). Results /Discussion The writer interprets lab data using factual and quantitative evidence appropriately. The writer addresses existing knowledge (engineering principles or outside reference data/information as the secondary sources) to connect the in-depth lab data analysis (the lab data as the primary sources). The writer interprets lab data using secondary sources; however, the writer’s explanation about the meaning of lab data is appropriate with some lapses. The writer addresses existing knowledge to connect the in-depth lab data analysis; however, it is limited. The writer fails to interpret the lab data. The writer’s explanation about the meaning of lab data is wrong or not based on factual and/or quantitative evidence.
6) Provide an effective conclusion that summarizes the laboratory’s purpose, process, and key findings, and makes appropriate recommendations. Conclusion The writer draws meaningful conclusions and reflects on the experiment as a whole in ways that provide closure and bring the analysis to a satisfying ending. The writer provides closure by summarizing the analysis but may draw limited or inconsistent conclusions from the analysis. The writer fails to close the report. The conclusion is inconsistent with the report’s purpose and other sections’ contents (intro and body).
7) Develop ideas using effective reasoning and productive patterns of organization (claim-evidence-reasoning, cause-effect, compare-contrast, etc.). IMRDC The writer communicates ideas effectively through reasoning and productive patterns. The writer uses appropriate strategies (claim-evidence-reasoning, cause-effect, compare-contrast, advantages-disadvantages, problem-solution, etc.) to make arguments logically to the audience with a proper flow. The writer communicates ideas through reasoning and productive patterns with some lapses. Paper generally has a well-constructed flow; however, it sometimes wanders from one idea to another. The write fails to use reasoning and productive patterns to make arguments. No strategies are used when making arguments and/or describing factual evidence — disjointed connections of ideas within or across paragraphs.
8) Demonstrate appropriate genre conventions, including organizational structure and format (i.e., introduction, body, conclusion, appendix, etc.). IMRDC The writer provides a purposeful structure that clearly articulates the experiment’s purpose as a whole document. The report has a well-structured introduction, body, and conclusion. Each of these three parts (intro, body, conclusion) well functions in one report. The writer provides a structure (intro, body, and conclusion) generally appropriate for a lab report as a whole document. Generally, each part (intro, body, conclusion) relates to the primary purpose of the report. The report’s structure (intro, body, conclusion) may be inappropriate, incomplete, or missing. The writer made significant errors in the functions of these three parts (intro, body, conclusion).
9) Establish solid and consistent control of conventions for a technical audience (grammar, tone, mechanics, citation style, etc.). IMRDC The writer provides an error-free document. Style, tone, tense, and voice are appropriate for a lab report. Errors in mechanics and grammar are minimal and highly infrequent. The report employs a syntax and diction appropriate to the lab report genre. The citations of source material are clear and consistent, and the citation style is appropriate. Style, tone, tense, and voice are generally appropriate, with some lapses. Errors in mechanics and grammar are generally minor but may be sufficiently frequent to distract a reader. The writer’s diction and syntax are sometimes effective.

Source citations are uniformly included but may be incomplete.

Figures, tables, and other illustrative materials are generally well-formatted and labeled.

 Choices of style, diction, tone, tense, and voice are inconsistent with or inappropriate for a lab report. The writer’s stylistic choices may seem random. Errors are frequent and seriously detract from meaning or prevent the reader from adequately understanding the writer’s meaning. The writer omits some citations for sources and may inconsistently label tables, figures, and other visual material.

 

 

Resources

  1. Designing Grading Rubrics, Brown University, https://www.brown.edu/sheridan/teaching-learning-resources/teaching-resources/course-design/classroom-assessment/grading-criteria/designing-rubrics
  2. Assessment: What is a Rubric?, DePaul University’s Office for Teaching, Learning and Assessment, https://resources.depaul.edu/teaching-commons/teaching-guides/feedback-grading/rubrics/Pages/default.aspx
  3. Creating a Rubric: an Online Tutorial for Faculty, the Center for Faculty Development at the University of Colorado Denver, https://www.ucdenver.edu/centers/cfda
  4. Dannelle D. Stevens & Antonia J. Levi, An Introduction to Rubrics (Sterling, VA: Stylus, 2005).
  • Washington State University