Bacteriology 102:
Guidelines for Preparing Formal Laboratory Reports

Page 2 – Grading the Reports.

YOU ARE HERE:
John L's Bacteriology Pages >
Bact.102 Website–Fall 2006 >
Report Guidelines >
Grading Reports
Page Last
Modified:
5/6/10

Note that this is another one of the truly archived pages for the old Bacteriology 102 course website, and this particular grading scheme is not applicable presently.


In the grading of the reports, an evaluation sheet (a list of items based on the Report Guidelines) is filled out for each report much like the following example. As appropriate, the various elements are checked off, circled, or otherwise commented upon. The evaluation is stapled to the report with additional comments made in the report itself.

BACTERIOLOGY 102 REPORT EVALUATION SPRING, 2002

INTRODUCTION (10 points):        

  • General introduction.  OK    INC    Not OK
  • Exploitable characteristics indicated (at least the
    items in the column at right)?  YES    INC    NO
  • Exploitable characteristics indicated in Discussion
    if not in Introduction?  YES    NO    NotAppl.
  • 10.2: Extracellular enzymes needed on
    isolation medium.
  • 11.1: Photoheterotrophy set up for.
  • 11.2: Heat-shocking & aerobic incubation
  • 11.3: No N compounds in medium.

MATERIALS & METHODS (4 points):        

  • Refers to manual as per guidelines; therefore not extensive.  YES    NO
  • Has info about source material?  YES    NO
  • Accounts for additional procedures we did for which we obtained results?  YES    NO    NotAppl.

RESULTS (12 points):        

  • Tables:
    • Text includes reference to tables?
    • Results of isolates put into tables?
    • Results of enrichments and isolates kept separate?
    • Table(s) consolidated OK (not too many)?
    • Colony characteristics indicated?
  • Re 11.1 or 11.3:
    • Observations of enrichments included?
    • Results of last test with pure isolates included?
  • Re 11.2:
    • CFUs/ml of suspension included?
    • Something about colony variety included?
  • General:
    • Any results missing?
    • Other comments:

DISCUSSION (12 points):        

  • Generally OK?
  • Last test (in 11.1 or 11.3) analyzed correctly?
  • Other comments:

Referencing (4 points):        

  • Quotes quoted properly?
  • Hard facts specifically referenced OK?
  • Formatting of references OK/consistent?
  • Other comments:

Overall Organization (8 points):        

  • Proper form used for genus & species names (p. 149)?
  • Appropriate singular/plural usage (p. 149)?
  • "Extra" figures, tables, etc. properly referred to?
  • Other comments:

Additional Comments Not Written in Report:



Score:

 UPDATE:  THE EVALUATION SHEET USED FOR SPRING SEMESTER, 2006 IS ON A PDF FILE HERE.


Return to the
Main Guidelines Page.

Page last modified on
5/6/10 at 11:45 AM, CDT.
John Lindquist, Dept. of Bacteriology,
University of Wisconsin – Madison