VOLUME 1: Table of Contents
TEACHING ISSUES AND EXPERIMENTS IN ECOLOGY
Rubric for Answers to Questions for Thought. |
points |
In an 1/2 page appropriately formatted essay, the author provided a clear, concise,
and insightful answer that is substantiated by details of both content and context. If appropriate, additional Tables
and/or Figures are clearly presented and well-documented. Appropriate source materials are creatively woven into
the narrative using succinct summaries, graphics, and/or short quotes, and all sources are accurately cited.
However, the vast majority of the answer is the author’s own writing. The prose flows effortlessly and indicates a
high level of organization and effort by the author. |
10 |
Similar to above, except that the length and/or format are insufficient, there is a lack of
focus and/or over-reliance on source materials with little synthesis, the answer includes poorly conceived graphics,
or some sources are inadequately documented. In addition, paragraph structure may be weak and/or containing
poorly worded sentences, misspellings, grammatical errors, and/or other evidence of cursory proofreading. |
9-6 |
The answer lacks structure and coherency, lacks credible source materials and/or uses
non-credible sources. In addition, paragraph structure is weak and replete with poorly worded sentences, misspellings,
grammatical errors, and little evidence of proofreading. | 5-1 |
The authors did not satisfy any of the requirements of the assignment. |
0 |
Plagiarism, which if flagrant will result in failure in the course (see policy in your course
syllabus). | X |
___________________________________________________________________________
Rubrics for Stomata Research Proposals
Rubric for Research Proposal: Introduction. | points |
In two clear, well-written sentences, the authors stated the environmental difference of interest and clearly described
how and why stomata density should vary among environmental types. |
5 |
Similar to above, the authors stated the environmental difference of interest and described how and why stomata
density should vary among environmental types; however, their sentences are not clear, contain typos, or their ideas are poorly organized. |
4-3 |
The authors omitted or poorly described either the environmental difference of interest or how and why stomata
density should vary among environmental types. |
2-1 |
The authors did not satisfy any of the requirements of the assignment. | 0 |
Rubric for Research Proposal: Methods. |
points |
In one clear, well-written paragraph, the authors explained exactly where their plants are located
(including a map), where on their plants their leaves are located, and other pertinent details needed to replicate the collection of
their samples exactly. In addition, only methods unique to their study are given. | 5 |
Similar to above, however, the authors’ sentences are not clear, contain typos, or the ideas are poorly
organized - or, if the map or description of field sampling are unclear or ambiguous. | 4-3 |
The authors omitted major details of their sampling. | 2-1 |
The authors did not satisfy any of the requirements of the assignment. |
0 |
Rubric for Research Proposal: Possible Results. |
points |
In one clear, well-written paragraph that refers closely to one clearly labeled figure of hypothetical results,
the authors explained and visually demonstrated what their results would look like if their hypothesis were true vs. false. The explanations
are clear and precise (whether or not they used the suggestions in the “Guide”). | 10 |
Similar to above, however, a few of the authors’ sentences are not clear, contain typos, or the ideas are not
well organized - or, if the figure has only minor problems in visual clarity or documentation. |
9-8 |
Many of the authors’ sentences are not clear, contain typos, and/or the ideas are not well organized -
or, if the figure has substantial problems in visual clarity or documentation. | 7-5 |
The text is incomprehensible and/or the figure is uninterpretable. |
4-1 |
The authors did not satisfy any of the requirements of the assignment. |
0 |
___________________________________________________________________________
Rubrics for Stomata Oral Presentations
Oral Presentation: Introduction. | points |
Using about 3 minutes, the introductory comments and visual materials motivated interest in the research
topic in the mind of the reader and led her or him without digression through the process of constructing the
specific research question of the study. The authors stated the environmental difference of interest and clearly
and thoroughly described their hypothesis(es) for how and why stomata density should vary among environmental types.
The talk flowed effortlessly, was delivered skillfully and comfortably, and indicated a high level of organization,
rehearsal, and effort by the authors. Lastly, if PowerPoint was used, their visuals contained appealing color
combinations with NO animations or sound effects. | 10 |
Similar to above, however, the length was way above or below 3 minutes, the opening words and visual materials
were uninteresting, unfocussed, or confusing, and/or a few of their comments or visuals were not clear, irrelevant,
many comments were simply read from notes, and/or the ideas were not well organized. Lastly, if PowerPoint
was used, their visuals contained ineffective color combinations and/or distracting animations or sound effects. | 9-7 |
Similar to above, however, the length was way above or below 3 minutes, or the environmental difference and
hypothesis(es) were stated but the explanation for why stomata density should vary was poorly conceived or
unclear, and/or numerous comments or visuals were not clear, irrelevant, notes were read in monotone, or the
ideas were poorly organized. Lastly, if PowerPoint was used, their visuals contained annoying colors,
animations, or sound effects. | 6-4 |
The authors did not clearly state the environmental difference and/or their hypothesis(es) for stomata variation,
and/or many comments and visuals were unclear, and poorly organized. | 3-1 |
The authors did not satisfy any of the requirements of the assignment. | 0 |
Oral Presentation: Materials and Methods. | points |
Using about 3 minutes, the authors offered a clear description and visual materials (including a well-documented
map) that explained and showed exactly where their plants are located, where on their plants their leaves are
located, and other pertinent details needed to replicate the collection of their samples exactly. In addition,
salient methods from the lab handout were also cogently summarized (but in much less detail than their written
report), and any methods unique to their study were explained in sufficient detail to enable all steps to be replicated
exactly. Statistical tests to be performed were stated last. The talk flowed effortlessly, was delivered skillfully
and comfortably, and indicated a high level of organization, rehearsal, and effort by the authors. Lastly, if
PowerPoint was used, their visuals contained appealing color combinations with NO animations or sound effects. | 10 |
Similar to above, however, the length was way above or below 3 minutes, some ambiguity remains about
exactly where and how their samples were collected and/or their map is unclear, and/or the statistical tests
to be performed are not mentioned. In addition, a few of their comments or visuals were not clear, many
were simply read from notes, and/or their ideas were not well organized. Lastly, if PowerPoint was used
their visuals contained ineffective color combinations and/or distracting animations or sound effects. | 9-7 |
Similar to above, however, the length was way above or below 3 minutes, and/or there were substantive
omissions or ambiguities in explaining critical methods unique to their study. In addition, numerous comments
or visuals were not clear, were read in monotone, and/or their ideas were poorly organized. Lastly, if PowerPoint
was used their visuals contained annoying colors, animations, or sound effects. | 6-4 |
The authors did not clearly state where and how their samples were taken and how their stomata were counted,
and/or many comments and visuals were unclear, irrelevant, and poorly organized. | 3-1 |
The authors did not satisfy any of the requirements of the assignment. | 0 |
Oral Presentation: Specific Discussion of Results. | points |
Using about 3 minutes, the authors offered a clear description and a coherent, well-documented, and visually
appealing series of Tables and Figures that enabled the audience to follow effortlessly through the numerical
results of their study. All Tables and Figures enabled the audience to quickly perceive the findings, and clear
and concise comments pointed out the key conclusions to be drawn specifically from each graphic. Statistical
tests were specifically cited to reinforce proximate conclusions drawn from descriptive statistics that appeared
in their Tables and Figures. In addition, the authors briefly discussed each result in terms of the hypothesis under
investigation. The talk flowed effortlessly, was delivered skillfully and comfortably, and indicated a high level of
organization, rehearsal, and effort by the authors. Lastly, if PowerPoint was used, their visuals contained
appealing color combinations with NO animations or sound effects. | 10 |
Similar to above, however, the length was way above or below 3 minutes, explanations of some Tables and/or
Figures were unclear, inadequate, redundant, and/or there were minor omissions or misconceptions in explaining
any of their numerical results or statistical analyses. Results were insufficiently related to the hypothesis
under investigation. In addition, a few of their comments or visuals were confusing, possibly misleading,
were simply read from notes, and/or their ideas were not well organized. Lastly, if PowerPoint was used
their visuals contained ineffective color combinations and/or distracting animations or sound effects. | 9-7 |
Similar to above, however, explanations of some Tables and/or Figures were inadequate, and/or there were
major omissions or misconceptions in explaining numerical results or statistical analyses, in grounding the
results in the hypothesis under investigation, and/or many comments and visuals were very confusing,
misleading, or were read in monotone, and/or their ideas were poorly organized. Lastly, if PowerPoint was
used, their visuals contained annoying colors, animations, or sound effects. | 6-4 |
The authors omitted or otherwise failed to explain major portions of their results which may include Tables,
Figures, or statistical analyses, and many comments were unclear, irrelevant, and poorly organized. | 3-1 |
The authors did not satisfy any of the requirements of the assignment. | 0 |
Oral Presentation: General Discussion and Future Directions. | points |
Using about 3 minutes, the authors offered insightful and thought-provoking points that were substantiated
by details of both content and context (i.e., by mentioning or listing data presented in the Tables and Figures).
All interpretations flowed logically from the data and analyses presented. Alternative interpretations were
insightfully discussed. Implications or extensions of the results of the investigation logically led from the
material presented and elicited clear and interesting directions for future research. The talk flowed effortlessly,
was delivered skillfully and comfortably, and indicated a high level of organization, rehearsal, and effort by
the authors. Lastly, if PowerPoint was used, their visuals contained appealing color combinations with NO
animations or sound effects. | 10 |
Similar to above, however, some interpretations were choppy and/or disconnected. In addition, new
observations/ interpretations were presented that should have been made earlier. Some explanations
of some Tables and/or Figures were unclear or inadequate, and/or there were minor omissions or
misconceptions in summarizing numerical results or statistical analyses. In addition, a few of their
comments or visuals were confusing, irrelevant, notes were simply read, and/or the ideas were not well
organized. Lastly, if PowerPoint was used their visuals contained ineffective color combinations and/or
distracting animations or sound effects. | 9-7 |
Similar to above, however, some interpretations were illogical, and/or the hypothesis was insufficiently
addressed using the evidence from the data collected. Numerous explanations of Tables and/or Figures
were unclear or inadequate, and/or there are major omissions or misconceptions in explaining their
numerical results or statistical analyses. Future directions were unclear and/or uninteresting. In addition,
numerous comments or visuals were confusing, irrelevant, misleading, were read in monotone, and/or
the ideas were poorly organized. Lastly, if PowerPoint was used their visuals contained annoying colors,
animations, or sound effects | 6-4 |
The authors omitted or otherwise failed to explain major portions of their results which may include Tables,
Figures, or statistical analyses, and many comments were unclear, irrelevant, and poorly organized. | 3-1 |
The authors did not satisfy any of the requirements of the assignment. | 0 |
___________________________________________________________________________
Rubrics for Stomata Written Reports
Rubric for Written Report: Abstract. | points |
In a 200-250 word paragraph, the authors concisely summarized the main sections of their report. Relevant details
are given, including the hypothesis(es) and critical methods unique to their study, summaries of numerical results,
and a cogent synopsis of their discussion. The prose flows effortlessly and indicates a high level of organization and
effort by the authors. | 5 |
Similar to above, however, the authors omitted or insufficiently described important information from one of their
sections, and/or a few of their sentences are not clear, contain typos, or are not well organized. | 4-3 |
The authors omitted or poorly described important information from more than one section and/or many sentences
are not clear, contain typos, or are poorly organized. | 2-1 |
The authors did not satisfy any of the requirements of the assignment. | 0 |
Rubric for Written Report: Introduction. | points |
In 1-2 pages, the introductory comments motivate interest in the research topic in the mind of the reader and lead
her or him without digression through the process of constructing the specific research question of the study. The
authors stated the environmental difference of interest and clearly and thoroughly described their hypothesis(es) for
how and why stomata density should vary among environmental types. The prose flows effortlessly and indicates a
high level of organization and effort by the authors. | 5 |
Similar to above, however, the opening prose is uninteresting or laborious, or the environmental difference and
hypothesis(es) are stated but the explanation for why stomata density should vary is poorly conceived or unclear,
and/or a few of their sentences are not clear, contain typos, or are poorly organized. | 4-3 |
The authors did not clearly state the environmental difference and/or their hypothesis(es) for stomata variation,
and/or many sentences are not clear, contain typos, or are poorly organized. | 2-1 |
The authors did not satisfy any of the requirements of the assignment. | 0 |
Rubric for Written Report: Materials and Methods. | points |
In 1-2 pages, this section includes a clear description and a well-documented map (labeled Figure 1) that explain
and show exactly where their plants are located, where on their plants their leaves are located, and other pertinent
details needed to replicate the collection of their samples exactly. In addition, salient methods from the lab handout
are also cogently summarized (but in much less detail than the handout), and any methods unique to their study
are explained in sufficient detail to enable all steps to be replicated exactly. Statistical tests to be performed are
stated last. The prose flows effortlessly and indicates a high level of organization and effort by the authors. | 5 |
Similar to above, however, some ambiguity remains about exactly where and how their samples were collected
and/or their map is unclear, and/or there are minor omissions or ambiguities in explaining any methods unique to
their study, and/or if the statistical tests to be performed are not mentioned, and/or a few of their sentences are
not clear, contain typos, or are poorly organized. | 4-3 |
The authors did not clearly state where and how their samples were taken and how their stomata were counted,
and/or many sentences are not clear, contain typos, or are poorly organized. | 2-1 |
The authors did not satisfy any of the requirements of the assignment. | 0 |
Rubric for Written Report: Results - Text. | points |
In one page, this section presents the numerical results of summary statistics and statistical tests of the hypothesized
differences in stomata density. All Tables and Figures are presented in their numbered order, and
clear and concise sentences point out the key conclusions to be drawn specifically from each one. Statistical tests
are specifically cited to reinforce proximate conclusions drawn from descriptive statistics in either Tables or Figures.
However, the authors abstained from discussing their results in terms of their hypothesis, which is the subject of the
Discussion section next. The prose flows effortlessly and indicates a high level of organization and effort
by the authors. | 10 |
Similar to above, however, explanations of some Tables and/or Figures are unclear or inadequate, and/or there
are minor omissions or misconceptions in explaining any of their numerical results or statistical analyses, and/or
a few of their sentences are not clear, contain typos, or are poorly organized. | 9-7 |
Similar to above, however, explanations of some Tables and/or Figures are inadequate, and/or there are major
omissions or misconceptions in explaining numerical results or statistical analyses, and/or many sentences are
unclear, contain typos, or are poorly organized. | 6-4 |
The authors omitted or otherwise failed to explain major portions of their results which may include Tables,
Figures, or statistical analyses, and/or many sentences are unclear, contain typos, or are poorly organized. | 3-1 |
The authors did not satisfy any of the requirements of the assignment. | 0 |
Rubric for Written Report: Results - Tables and Figures. | points |
A coherent, well-documented, and visually appealing series of Tables and Figures is presented that enables a
reader to quickly perceive the numerical results of summary statistics and statistical tests of the hypothesized
differences in stomata density. These graphics complement each other, show a minimum of redundancy, enable
a reader to flow effortlessly through the results, and indicate a high level of organization and effort by the authors.
All Tables and Figures are presented in their numbered order, and clear, concise, and well-written “legends”
appear for each Table and Figure that enable each to stand alone. | 5 |
Similar to above, however, some Tables and/or Figures are inadequately documented, poorly conceived,
unnecessarily redundant, possibly misleading, or visually confusing. Or, some legends exhibit minor omissions
or misconceptions, and/or a few of their sentences are not clear, contain typos, or are poorly organized. | 4-3 |
The authors omitted or otherwise failed to include major portions of their results in their Tables and Figures,
and/or many graphics are misleading, and/or many sentences are not clear, contain typos, or are poorly organized. | 2-1 |
The authors did not satisfy any of the requirements of the assignment. | 0 |
Rubric for Written Report: Discussion. | points |
In 1-2 pages, this section interprets the data presented in the Results section in light of the hypotheses presented
in the Introduction. Sentences convey insightful and thought-provoking points that are substantiated by details
of both content and context (i.e., by referring to the data presented in the Tables and Figures). All interpretations
flow logically from the data and analyses presented. Alternative interpretations are insightfully discussed. Implications
or extensions of the results of the investigation logically lead from the material presented and elicit clear and
interesting directions for future research. The prose flows effortlessly and indicates a high level of organization
and effort by the authors. | 5 |
Similar to above, however, some interpretations are choppy, illogical, and/or disconnected, and/or the hypothesis(es)
is(are) insufficiently addressed using the evidence from the data collected. In addition, new observations/ interpretations
may be presented that should have been made in the Results section. Some explanations of some Tables and/or
Figures are unclear or inadequate, and/or there are minor omissions or misconceptions in explaining their numerical
results or statistical analyses. Future directions may be unclear and/or uninteresting. Lastly, some sentences are
not clear, contain typos, grammatical errors, or are poorly organized. | 4-3 |
The authors omitted or otherwise failed to explain major portions of their results which may include Tables, Figures,
or statistical analyses, and/or many sentences are not clear, contain typos, grammatical errors, or are poorly organized. | 2-1 |
The authors did not satisfy any of the requirements of the assignment. | 0 |
Rubric for Written Report: Literature Cited and Data Appendix. | points |
If previously published material is cited somewhere in the paper, then the format for citations is followed exactly. The required data Appendix contains a
copy of the set of original handwritten stomata data sheets that is well documented (including clear labels for
measurement units), and all words and numerical entries are unambiguously legible. In addition, clearly labeled
original printouts of all statistical analyses are included as well. | 5 |
Similar to above, however, if there is a Literature Cited section then some of the previously published material is
inadequately cited. Or, the required data Appendix contains data that are weakly documented, with some illegible
words, symbols, or numbers, and/or the printouts of statistical analyses are incomplete or weakly documented. | 4-3 |
The Literature Cited section and/or data Appendix are incomplete and/or incomprehensible. | 2-1 |
The authors did not satisfy any of the requirements of the assignment. | 0 |
___________________________________________________________________________
Computer Data File Management. | points |
All three required computer files exactly follow the
Guidelines for Data Management. | 20 |
Similar to above, however, a minor oversight or two occurs in one of the files. | 19-18 |
Numerous minor oversights occur in multiple files. | 17-15 |
A major oversight, such as missing or uninterpretable data or analyses, occurs in one of the three files, with minor oversights in the others. | 14-10 |
Multiple major oversights occur one or more files. | 9-1 |
The authors did not satisfy any of the requirements of the assignment, or their disk and its backup were lost. | 0 |
___________________________________________________________________________
Research Symposium Participation. | points |
The student asked numerous questions that were insightful, novel, thought provoking, constructive,
supportive, elicited important information, and contributed substantively toward building a community of learners. Also, the student was respectful
and attentive at all times. | 10 |
The student asked at least one question that was insightful, novel, and thought provoking, and at least several others that were constructive,
supportive, and elicited important information. Also, the student was respectful and attentive at all times. | 9-8 |
The student asked at least one question that was constructive, supportive, and elicited important information. Also, the student was
respectful and attentive at all times. | 7-6 |
The student was respectful and attentive at all times. | 5 |
Questions were asked, but were of a trivial nature and/or with obvious or uninteresting answers. Also, the student may not have been
entirely respectful and attentive at all times (talking, reading his/her own notes, etc.). | 4-1 |
The student did not satisfy any aspect of participation. | 0 |
___________________________________________________________________________
Critical Reviews of the Lab. |
points |
In an 1-2 page clear and concise essay, the author conveys reflective and constructive criticism
of the lab activity with insightful and thought-provoking points that are substantiated by details of both content and context (i.e., by referring to...).
The prose flows effortlessly and indicates a high level of organization and effort by the author. |
20 |
Similar to above, too few and/or too narrow a set of comments are offered, there may be redundancy,
and/or some comments are trivial or unconstructive. In addition, some sentences are not clear, contain typos, grammatical errors, or
are not well organized. | 19-10 |
Similar to above, however, most comments are trivial, belabored, and unconstructive, or at the opposite
extreme overflowing with ingratiating deference. In addition, many sentences are not clear, contain typos, grammatical errors, or are poorly
organized. | 9-1 |
The author did not satisfy any of the requirements of the assignment. |
0 |