3. All components presented in an exceptional manner.

2. Needs some modification or clarification

1. Information missing or redesign needed.

Framing the Investigation:

3. Provides a focused rationale for the investigation and forms a hypothesis that is testable. Adequate background information is given. The hypothesis focuses and defines an investigation of scientific relationships.

2. Rationale or hypotheses are weak and complicated to test. Little background information is given. The hypothesis weakly focuses or defines an investigation of scientific relationships.

1. There is no rationale or hypothesis for the experiment or the hypothesis isn’t testable. No background information is given. There is no focus or definition of an investigation of scientific relationships.

Designing the Investigation:

3.    Procedure is formulated which is detailed, practical, and will provide sufficient data for analysis. A detailed replicable procedure is presented. There is a practical design that should provide valid data sufficient to answer the question and hypothesis.

2.    Procedure is loose, impractical, or provides too little data for accurate analysis. The procedure isn’t detailed and may not be replicable. The design is loosely designed and may not answer the question or hypothesis.

1.    Procedure is missing, incoherent, or doesn’t address the hypothesis. The procedure is not detailed and is not replicable. The design is not practical and will not provide data sufficient to answer the question or hypothesis.

Collecting and Presenting Data:

3.    Relationships investigated are analyzed, are used to support the conclusions, and are evaluated for insightful revisions or extensions with future experimentation.

2.    Relationships investigated are poorly analyzed, weakly support the conclusions, and are weakly evaluated for insightful revisions or extension for future experimentation.

1.    Relationships investigated are not analyzed, do not support the conclusions, and do not examine or evaluated insightful revisions or extensions for future experimentation.

Analyzing and Interpreting Results:

3.    Applies scientific methods to correctly analyze and explain the relationships investigated. Conclusions address the initial question and hypothesis. The experiment is analyzed and critiqued in light of the results and suggestions are made for modification of the experiment. Results are presented in a coherent manner using well-prepared data, graphs, and analysis. Suggestions and input are received from those to which the results were presented.

2.    Scientific methods are weakly used to correctly analyze and explain the relationships investigated. Conclusions weakly address the initial question or the hypothesis. The experiment is weakly analyzed and critiqued in light of the results and few suggestions are made for modification of the experiment. Results are presented in a loose manner using data, graphs, and analysis that could have been prepared in a more coherent manner. There are few suggestions and input received from those to which the results were presented.

1.    Does not apply scientific methods to correctly analyze and explain the relationships investigated. Conclusions do not address the initial question and the hypothesis. The experiment is not analyzed and critiqued in light of the results and there are no suggestions made for modification of the experiment. Results are not presented in a coherent manner using well-prepared data, graphs, or analysis. There are no suggestions and input received from those to which the results were presented.