Cu In Brass Lab Report
TA Grading Rubric for THER 357 – Spec. Determ. of Cu in Brass
Student Version
A score sheet will be used to grade each formal lab report. Use the questions for each section as a guideline when evaluating a student’s work for the various sections of the lab report.
Title: Must include: Student’s name, Partner’s Name, TA’s Name, Date, Name of Experiment, Course and Section Number.
Purpose:
Did the student copy the purpose from the experiment (poor) or write something in his/her own words (satisfactory)? Were two or more purposes given (good)? Did the student show comprehension of how this technique is used industrially (very good)?
Procedure:
Are all of the materials and chemicals listed (satisfactory)? Are there separate lists for chemicals …show more content…
and materials (good)? Are concentrations listed (good)? Are chemical names AND formulas listed (very good)?
Can you follow the procedure (satisfactory)? Is it complete (good)? Is it easy to follow (good) or is it all just one big paragraph (poor)? Has it been copied from the lab manual (satisfactory)? Has it been shortened, but all of the critical components have been kept (very good)? Was a flowchart created (good – very good)? Was information about safety and various hazards listed (good – very good)?
If safety information is not listed, the highest score for this section is good.
Data/Calculations:
Is the data from lab presented in paragraph form (satisfactory) or in tables (good)? Is it easy to check the data and follow the different pieces (very good)? Are the results of the calculations presented in a table (very good) or in paragraph form (good), or just at the end of the calculations (poor)? Are the calculations presented clearly with units (very good) or do you struggle to follow them (poor)? Are units and sig figs used consistently (very good), sometimes (satisfactory) or not at all (poor)? Were only the formulas shown (satisfactory) or was there a sample calculation for each different type of calculation (good)?
Are the graphs properly titled (very good) or just labeled (satisfactory)? Are the units on the axes appropriately selected so that the linearity of the curve can be easily seen (very good)? Are the units listed (good) or missing (poor)? Is the line truly a best-fit line (good) or does it connect the dots (poor)? Is the absorbance of the unknown plotted on the graph (very good) or omitted (poor)?
Discussion:
Does the student discuss the purpose of the lab and how the data supports it (satisfactory)? Is the background information concerning spectrophotometric determinations and Beer’s Law included (good)? Does he/she simply restate the results (poor)? Are observations of the reactions, solutions, absorbances, etc. included (good)? Are unexpected observations or results mentioned and explained/discussed (very good)? Is the %Cu in the brass sample stated (satisfactory)? Is a discussion of this low/high value given (good)? Are industry standards for the %Cu in brass stated (very good)? Is the linearity of the curve discussed correctly (post-lab question) – good? Are the standard solutions below the valid range of the spectrophotometer – very good? To get a score of very good for this section, there has to also be a discussion of industrial waste streams and why EPA is lowering the allowed levels of copper in waste water.
Error of Measurement:
How many errors are mentioned – only a few (poor), some (satisfactory) or a long list (very good)?
Is the consequence of the error discussed (very good)? Does he/she understand the difference between precision and accuracy (very good)? Does he/she understand that the computer is being used as a recording and graphing device (good) and the quality of the results is dependent on their technique (very good)?
Post-lab questions
The post-lab questions listed at the end of the experiment are to be addressed and discussed in the discussion or error section. They are NOT to be answered, as is normally done, as a list of questions. Even if all of the answers are correct, do not give a score higher than satisfactory for that section if this is how they answered the questions.
Conclusion:
Is the purpose of the experiment addressed (good) and briefly answered (very good)? Are any aberrations mentioned (very good)? Are the results of the analysis stated (good)? Is it clear why this technique is so important industrially (good)? Are the new techniques addressed (good)? Is only the %Cu listed (satisfactory)? Was improvement in technique addressed too (good)?
References:
Did the student cite only the lab manual (satisfactory)? Were other references cited (good to very good)?
Aesthetics:
Report is spaced properly (very good) and section headers are on same page as section (very good)? Are tables broken over two pages (satisfactory)? Are the sections separated from each other (good) or jammed together (satisfactory)?
Balanced Equations:
States (very good)? Balanced (good)? Formulas only (poor)?
Student Version
A score sheet will be used to grade each formal lab report. Use the questions for each section as a guideline when evaluating a student’s work for the various sections of the lab report.
Title: Must include: Student’s name, Partner’s Name, TA’s Name, Date, Name of Experiment, Course and Section Number.
Purpose:
Did the student copy the purpose from the experiment (poor) or write something in his/her own words (satisfactory)? Were two or more purposes given (good)? Did the student show comprehension of how this technique is used industrially (very good)?
Procedure:
Are all of the materials and chemicals listed (satisfactory)? Are there separate lists for chemicals …show more content…
and materials (good)? Are concentrations listed (good)? Are chemical names AND formulas listed (very good)?
Can you follow the procedure (satisfactory)? Is it complete (good)? Is it easy to follow (good) or is it all just one big paragraph (poor)? Has it been copied from the lab manual (satisfactory)? Has it been shortened, but all of the critical components have been kept (very good)? Was a flowchart created (good – very good)? Was information about safety and various hazards listed (good – very good)?
If safety information is not listed, the highest score for this section is good.
Data/Calculations:
Is the data from lab presented in paragraph form (satisfactory) or in tables (good)? Is it easy to check the data and follow the different pieces (very good)? Are the results of the calculations presented in a table (very good) or in paragraph form (good), or just at the end of the calculations (poor)? Are the calculations presented clearly with units (very good) or do you struggle to follow them (poor)? Are units and sig figs used consistently (very good), sometimes (satisfactory) or not at all (poor)? Were only the formulas shown (satisfactory) or was there a sample calculation for each different type of calculation (good)?
Are the graphs properly titled (very good) or just labeled (satisfactory)? Are the units on the axes appropriately selected so that the linearity of the curve can be easily seen (very good)? Are the units listed (good) or missing (poor)? Is the line truly a best-fit line (good) or does it connect the dots (poor)? Is the absorbance of the unknown plotted on the graph (very good) or omitted (poor)?
Discussion:
Does the student discuss the purpose of the lab and how the data supports it (satisfactory)? Is the background information concerning spectrophotometric determinations and Beer’s Law included (good)? Does he/she simply restate the results (poor)? Are observations of the reactions, solutions, absorbances, etc. included (good)? Are unexpected observations or results mentioned and explained/discussed (very good)? Is the %Cu in the brass sample stated (satisfactory)? Is a discussion of this low/high value given (good)? Are industry standards for the %Cu in brass stated (very good)? Is the linearity of the curve discussed correctly (post-lab question) – good? Are the standard solutions below the valid range of the spectrophotometer – very good? To get a score of very good for this section, there has to also be a discussion of industrial waste streams and why EPA is lowering the allowed levels of copper in waste water.
Error of Measurement:
How many errors are mentioned – only a few (poor), some (satisfactory) or a long list (very good)?
Is the consequence of the error discussed (very good)? Does he/she understand the difference between precision and accuracy (very good)? Does he/she understand that the computer is being used as a recording and graphing device (good) and the quality of the results is dependent on their technique (very good)?
Post-lab questions
The post-lab questions listed at the end of the experiment are to be addressed and discussed in the discussion or error section. They are NOT to be answered, as is normally done, as a list of questions. Even if all of the answers are correct, do not give a score higher than satisfactory for that section if this is how they answered the questions.
Conclusion:
Is the purpose of the experiment addressed (good) and briefly answered (very good)? Are any aberrations mentioned (very good)? Are the results of the analysis stated (good)? Is it clear why this technique is so important industrially (good)? Are the new techniques addressed (good)? Is only the %Cu listed (satisfactory)? Was improvement in technique addressed too (good)?
References:
Did the student cite only the lab manual (satisfactory)? Were other references cited (good to very good)?
Aesthetics:
Report is spaced properly (very good) and section headers are on same page as section (very good)? Are tables broken over two pages (satisfactory)? Are the sections separated from each other (good) or jammed together (satisfactory)?
Balanced Equations:
States (very good)? Balanced (good)? Formulas only (poor)?