Cell Biology Lab Senior Thesis requirements and grading rubric

Cell Biology Lab Senior Thesis requirements and grading rubric

Title: encapsulates the essence of the paper without being overly general
Abstract: See guidelines in McMillan…must include summary statements of each
section of thesis; obviously written last; does not include unnecessary detail
Introduction: Provides the reader with the necessary background and clearly states
a hypothesis. This section should cite at least four primary sources from the
scientific literature.
Methods: Provides a technical description of what was done to collect the data
presented. This section should be written in paragraph format in the past tense.
See McMillan for details.
Results: The section should include descriptive text and four original figures with
robust legends. The figures and legends should be able to “stand alone” and you will
be expected to present them to the entire class.
Discussion: This section states a general conclusions supported by the figures and
data. If there are flaws in the experimental design they should be discussed here.
Remember this was original work so there was not a “right” answer. The discussion
links back to the hypothesis and looks forward to make connections to the literature
and future directions. This section is critical and is a chance for students to
demonstrate the depth of their understanding of the project and the literature.
Works Cited: This is a critical section and the works cited list and the citation in the
body of the document should conform to this style guide.
Students often ask about the length of the paper. Quality is more important than
length but expect this work to be more than 10 pages.
Evaluation Rubric
Required Content (100 pts)
Possible points for required sections:
Title (5 points)
1‐5 points: title is informative; authors’ names are included
Cell Biology Lab Biology 4800
Fall 2015
Abstract (10 points)—abstract is very important…at least 10 points
2 pts each:
• summary of intro (no references cited)
• summary of methods
• summary of results (no figures cited)
• summary of conclusion/discussion
• appropriate tense, length and detail
Introduction ( 20 points)
15‐20 points: background complete; at least four references cited; references are
relevant; hypothesis stated; hypothesis follows logically from background
10‐15 points: some important background/references missing
1‐10 points: significant background missing; reference missing or irrelevant;
hypothesis missing or illogical
Methods (20 points)
15‐20 points: all methods included; each described in past tense in a terse
paragraph; appropriate detail provided; reader would be able to repeat
experiment
10‐15 points: one or two methods missing; some minor details missing; some
methods too wordy
1‐10 points: more than two methods missing; serious omissions of important
details; methods arranged chronologically rather than by topic; mixing of
topics
Results (25 points)
20‐25 points: all necessary figures included; each figure formatted properly and
stands alone; each figure is described in the text with appropriate reference
to the figure in parentheses, including summary of experiment and a clear
statement of results shown in figure
10‐20 points: one or two figures missing; some formatting problems; one or two
figures is poorly labeled/presented; one or two figures not well‐described in
text
1‐10 points: more than two figures missing; significant formatting and presentation
problems with most figures; little or no text describing experiments and
results; inappropriate reference to figures (e.g., “the figure below”, “the graph
on the right”, etc)
Cell Biology Lab Biology 4800
Fall 2015
Discussion (20 points)
15‐20 points: a general conclusion is stated with summary of results that support
the conclusion; the conclusion relates back to the original hypothesis;
possible explanations of results are included, with appropriate reference to
literature that supports the explanation; future experiments are suggested
that would validate the results; flaws in experimental design are discussed
10‐15 points: one or two points above missing; connection back to original
hypothesis in introduction is unclear; some references to literature not
entirely appropriate
1‐10 points: results are just repeated without conclusions or explanations; little or
no literature is cited; no attempt to relate results/conclusion back to original
hypothesis; little effort to link experiment and results to existing knowledge
or knowledge obtained from reading
Works Cited (see next section)
Evaluations Criteria for whole