Rubric For Assessing Analytical Thinking Processes

EXPERIMENTAL INQUIRY
EXPERIMENTAL INQUIRY involves testing hypotheses that have been generated to explain a phenomenon (an observable event, model, fact, or object). It includes four components that can be assessed:
a. Gives a speculative explanation for a phenomenon using related facts, concepts, or principles.
b. Makes a logical hypothesis based on the explanation of the phenomenon.
c. Designs and/or sets up, carries out, and observes an experiment with variables that are appropriate for testing the hypothesis.
d. Critically evaluates the experimental results, accepts or rejects the hypothesis, and verifies or revises the original explanation of the phenomenon to improve knowledge of it.
4 a. I gave a thorough and knowledgeable explanation of the phenomenon using all related and important facts, concepts, or principles.
b. I made an insightful hypothesis that showed deep understanding of all necessary facts, concepts, or principles used to explain the phenomenon. My hypothesis is very helpful to understanding the phenomenon.
c. I designed and/or set up, carried out, and observed an experiment that efficiently tested the hypothesis. The experiment had exactly one manipulated variable, while all other possible variables were controlled. Through my careful observations of any and all responding variables in the experiment I obtained complete and precise data. I checked the validity of my data by repeating the experiment.
d. I provided a thorough and precise explanation of the experimental results which caused me to either accept or reject my hypothesis. I presented insights into the nature of the phenomenon. I thoroughly verified or revised the original explanation of the phenomenon to completely account for the experimental findings. I used all important relevant facts, concepts, or principles in my evaluation.
(special option) In the event that my experiment failed due to an unforseen variable(s) I provided a thorough and promising revision of the experimental design.
3 a. I gave a thoughtful explanation of the phenomenon using most of the related and important facts, concepts, or principles.
b. I made a sensible hypothesis that followed reasonably from all necessary facts, concepts, or principles used to explain the phenomenon. My hypothesis is useful to understanding the phenomenon.
c. I designed and/or set up, carried out, and observed an experiment that tested the hypothesis. The experiment had one manipulated variable, while most other possible variables were controlled. Through my observations of responding variables in the experiment I obtained complete data.
d. I provided a correct explanation of the experimental results which led me to either accept or reject my hypothesis. I verified or revised the original explanation of the phenomenon to account for the experimental findings. I used most of the important relevant facts, concepts, or principles in my evaluation.
(special option) In the event that my experiment failed due to an unforseen variable(s) I provided a promising revision of the experimental design.
2 a. I gave an inexact explanation of the phenomenon using only some of the related and important facts, concepts, or principles.
b. I made a hypothesis that reflects a misunderstanding of some aspects of the facts, concepts, or principles used to explain the phenomenon. My hypothesis is only partly useful to understanding the phenomenon.
c. I designed and/or set up, carried out, and observed an experiment that partially tested the hypothesis. The experiment had a manipulated variable, but other variables also affected the results. I observed only some of the responding variables and obtained incomplete data.
d. I provided only a general explanation of the experimental results. I accepted or rejected my hypothesis. I only partially accounted for the experimental findings. I used only some of the important relevant facts, concepts, or principles in my evaluation.
(special option) In the event that my experiment failed due to an unforseen variable(s) I provided an explanation of what went wrong with the experimental design and what I might be able to do to fix it.
1 a. I gave an incomplete explanation of the phenomenon, leaving out key facts, concepts, or principles.
b. I made an unreasonable hypothesis that reflects misunderstanding of many aspects of the facts, concepts, or principles used to explain the phenomenon. My hypothesis is not useful to understanding the phenomenon.
c. I designed and/or set up, carried out, and observed an experiment that tested questions unimportant to my hypothesis. The experiment had several undefined variables. The experiment produced no useful data.
d. I provided an incorrect explanation of the results of the experiment. I did not address the hypothesis or account for the experimental findings. I used no facts, concepts, or principles in my evaluation.
(special option) In the event that my experiment failed due to an unforseen variable(s) I provided an explanation of what went wrong with the experiment.