13 Biocore FINAL POSTER Review Rubric
Title
| 4 = excellent | Title is concise; gives reader idea of experimental system; states organism/system studied, independent variable, and direction of results. |
Show additional rubric tiers
| 3 = very good | Title is concise & conveys answer to study question, but has problem similar to the following: is missing model system or independent variable. |
| 2 = good | Title could be more concise but still conveys answer to study question. OR Title is concise & conveys answer to study question but has problem similar to the following: missing model system & independent variable |
| 1 = adequate | Has two or more problems comparable to the following: Title is not concise, answer to study question is difficult to determine by title, most key information is missing. |
| 0 = inadequate | Answer to study question cannot be determined by title. |
Introduction
| 4 = excellent | Clearly, concisely, & logically presents all key components often in diagram or conceptual model: relevant & correctly cited background information, study question biological rationale (including main biological assumptions about how system works as well as knowledge gap), hypothesis. (There may be a few minor issues with organization/clarity.) |
Show additional rubric tiers
| 3 = very good | Concisely & clearly covers all but one key component (w/ exception of rationale) OR clearly covers all key components but could be more concise and/or clear. e.g., has done a reasonably nice job with the Intro but fails to state hypothesis concisely OR has done a nice job with Intro but has also included some irrelevant background information. |
| 2 = good | Covers all but 2 key components OR clearly covers all but 1 key component but could be done more logically, clearly, and/or concisely. e.g., biological rationale not fully developed but still supports hypothesis. Remaining components are done reasonably well, though there is still room for improvement; includes info that is extraneous & detracts from the main ideas; multiple examples of wordy text. |
| 1 = adequate | Covers all but 3 key components & could be more concise and/or clear OR clearly covers all but 2 key components but could be done much more logically, clearly, and/or concisely (excessive text, overly wordy). Weak/missing components make it difficult to follow the rest of the poster. e.g., background information not focused on study question & minimal biological rationale presented such that hypothesis isn’t entirely logical. |
| 0 = inadequate | 4-5 key components are very weak or missing; those stated are unclear and/or not stated concisely. Introduction provides little to no relevant information. Often results in a hypothesis that “comes out of nowhere.” |
Methods & Materials
| 4 = excellent | Concisely & clearly describes procedures used to generate data presented, giving readers enough information to evaluate claims but not necessarily to repeat experiment. Uses brief text and/or annotated diagram(s) and/or charts with detailed legends to convey experimental design, tools, sequence of events, data transformation and statistical tests used. |
Show additional rubric tiers
| 3 = very good | Concisely & clearly describes procedures used to generate data so that reader could evaluate most claims made. Minor problems with organization OR some irrelevant/ superfluous info. |
| 2 = good | Methods presented such that a reader could evaluate most claims made only after learning a few more key details OR methods are conveyed with a lot of text & would be better explained with more figures/charts. |
| 1 = adequate | Methods presented such that a reader would have difficulty evaluating claims unless they learned several more key details OR methods are conveyed with too much text & almost no figures/charts. |
| 0 = inadequate | So little information is presented that reader could not possibly evaluate claims. |
Results
| 4 = excellent | With a few minor exceptions, uses prominent figures/ graphs/tables that highlight the data and very concise text and/or bullets to describe general trends and emphases. Only relevant data are shown, including the controls. Utilizes images and statistical tests appropriately. Tables & figures have informative legends & titles. |
Show additional rubric tiers
| 3 = very good | Uses very concise text to refer to figures/graphs/tables that highlight the data, but has made 1-2 minor omissions or has other relatively small problems. e.g., relevant data are summarized well and without biological interpretation, but tables & figures have very brief legends that leave out some key details. |
| 2 = good | Uses somewhat concise text to refer to figures/graphs/tables that highlight the data, but has 2-3 problems comparable to the following: most relevant data are present but are mixed in with some unnecessary information, key data are shown in figures but are not explicitly noted, tables & figures have very brief legends that leave out key details, conclusions about hypothesis are briefly made; overuse of text paragraphs. |
| 1 = adequate | Has 3-5 problems comparable to the following: excessive narrative text with minimal, uninformative tables/figures /tables; some relevant data are present but are mixed in with much unnecessary information; key data are not immediately apparent in figures and are not explicitly noted in text, tables & figures lack legends and/or titles, conclusions about hypothesis are emphasized; overuse of text. |
| 0 = inadequate | Major problems that leave reader uninformed; narrative text is lacking entirely, tables & figures contain unclear and/or irrelevant information. e.g., raw data are in a table w/ poor legend and no title. |
Discussion
| 4 = excellent | With a few minor exceptions, clearly & concisely presents an analysis that: supports or rejects hypothesis*, discusses biological meaning and relevance of results & compares with relevant findings in literature, evaluates experimental design, evaluates reliability of data, states implications of results, suggests next investigation steps and unexpected observations. Poster ends with final conclusion that addresses study goal/question. *If you believe some data were invalid and/or biological assumptions were not met, discuss how this impacts your confidence in the data and ability to make conclusions regarding your hypotheses. |
Show additional rubric tiers
| 3 = very good | Concisely & clearly covers all but one key component OR clearly covers all key components but could be more concise and/or clear. e.g., has done a reasonably nice job with the Discussion but fails to clearly tie biological rationale from the Intro into the conclusions made OR has done a nice job with the Discussion but has also included an extensive laundry list of experimental problems without discussing their impact on the conclusions. |
| 2 = good | Covers all but 2 key components OR clearly covers all but 1 key component but could be done much more logically, clearly, and/or concisely. e.g., clearly states that hypothesis is supported and develops a good argument that refers to biological rationale, but fails to logically and objectively evaluate the data reliability or propose next investigative steps. Remaining components are done reasonably well, though there is still room for improvement. |
| 1 = adequate | Covers all buy 3 key components & could be more concise and/or clear OR clearly covers all but 2 key components but could be done much more logically, clearly, and/or concisely. e.g., fails to conclude anything about the hypothesis and so conclusions about study question are vague and incompletely tied to rationale, literature is minimally cited, presents unranked laundry list of problems instead of logical evaluation of data, suggests flashy new experiments that would not clearly address study question. |
| 0 = inadequate | 4 or more key components are missing or very weakly done. e.g., illogical conclusions made based on data, no ties to biological rationale are made, no literature cited, little to no evaluation of experimental design/data. |
Visuals & Organization
| 4 = excellent | With a few minor exceptions, the organization & visual look of the poster effectively conveyed the research project because: 1. content was relevant & accurate; 2. overall layout was pleasing to the eye but did not distract from the research; 3. font size, graphs, & figures were large enough to be easily read 4. font, graph, & figure *colors contrasted well against background & so were easy to see; 5. poster filled with just enough information to be informative without looking overcrowded and/or text heavy; 6. graphs and figures were clearly labeled and effectively displayed relevant data; 7. organization & formatting emphasized pertinent points; 8. lists, diagrams, or other visuals communicate points instead of wordy paragraphs |
Show additional rubric tiers
| 3 = very good | The organization & visuals used satisfied all but one of the key criteria. |
| 2 = good | The organization & visuals used satisfied all but 2-3 of the key criteria. Text used instead of relevant, informative visual on 1-2 occasions. |
| 1 = adequate | The organization & visuals used satisfied all but 4-5 of the key criteria. Text used instead of relevant, informative visual on multiple occasions. |
| 0 = inadequate | The organization & visuals used satisfied only 1-2 of the key criteria. Very few visuals presented. |
Literature Cited
| 4 = excellent | References within body of poster are cited appropriately; references in final citation list are formatted appropriately and listed alphabetically by author or numerically using Writing Manual guidelines. |
Show additional rubric tiers
| 3 = very good | References within body of poster & in final citation list are done appropriately, but there are 1-2 exceptions. e.g., citations are done well except that one or two references listed in text do not appear in the final list OR there are a few minor formatting errors in the final list. |
| 2 = good | References within body of poster & in final citation list are done appropriately for the most part, but there are consistent exceptions. e.g., citations used sparingly throughout the poster when background information is presented OR consistent formatting errors in text & list. |
| 1 = adequate | Very few references are cited in text of poster; final citation list is largely incomplete and/or is not formatted appropriately. |
| 0 = inadequate | Background information is presented but is consistently not cited; final citation list is missing. |
Overall grammar, organization, wording
| 4 = excellent | Excellent concise wording and text flow, appropriate word choice, few to no grammatical errors. |
Show additional rubric tiers
| 3 = very good | Wording was good with few to no problems, wording awkward in a few places, few grammatical errors. A few minor instances of text overuse. |
| 2 = good | Wording somewhat problematic but can still follow thought progression e.g. explanation of methods in the results section; wording awkward at times (clarity issues), some grammatical errors. A few minor instances of text overuse. |
| 1 = adequate | Problematic wording of some section resulting in loss of clarity; awkward wording at times; some grammatical errors. Some instances of text overuse. |
| 0 = inadequate | Poorly worded, interrupted flow of ideas leading to lack of clarity, cannot follow thought progression, many grammatical errors. Multiple examples of text overuse. |
Rubric Scores to Letter Grade Conversion Guide
| Letter Grade | Minimum Criteria |
| A | Earned a “4” in at least 3 of the main sections (Introduction, Methods & Materials, Results, Discussion, and Visuals & Organization) and “3” in the remaining sections; no less than a “3” in Title, Literature Cited, and Overall grammar, wording |
| AB | Did not meet minimum criteria for an “A”, but earned a “3” or better in Introduction, Methods & Materials, Results, Discussion, Visuals & Organization. Earned a “2” or better in Title, and Literature Cited, Overall grammar, wording |
| B | Did not meet minimum criteria for an “AB”, but earned a “3” or better in at least two of the main sections (Introduction, Methods & Materials, Results, & Discussion) and “2” in the remaining sections. Earned at least a “3” in Visuals & Organization. Earned a “2” or better in Title, Literature Cited, Overall grammar, wording. |
| BC | Did not meet minimum criteria for a “B”, but earned a “2” or better in at least two of the main sections (Introduction, Methods & Materials, Results, &Discussion) and “1” in remaining sections. Earned at least a “2” in Visuals & Organization, and Overall grammar, wording. Earned a “1” or better in Title, Literature Cited. |
| C | Did not meet minimum criteria for a “BC”, but earned a “1” or better in Introduction, Methods & Materials, Results, Discussion, Visuals & Organization, and Overall grammar, wording. Has no more than one zero in Title, and Literature Cited. |
| D | Did not meet minimum criteria for a “C”, but earned a “1” or better in at least 3 of these sections: Introduction, Methods & Materials, Results, Discussion, Visuals & Organization. Has no more than two zeros in Title, and Literature Cited, and Overall grammar, wording. |
| F | Did not meet minimum criteria for a “D.” |
Download Biocore rubrics in PDF format
