Physics 163 - Quarter 1 Projects

Interactive Physics

Scoring Rubric

Interactive Physics Overview

Due Dates

The Project Corner

The Refrigerator


Your Interactive Physics project will be scored using the following scoring rubric.

Outcomes with Criteria

Below
St'ds

Meets
St'ds

Exceeds
St'ds

TOTAL

1. Purpose

Used brainstorming skills to generate a real-world scenario to model; succinctly described the scenario; proposed a what-if question and identified a relevant variable to modify; purpose was focused and ambitious.

0 - 1

Failed to identify and describe either a scenario or a what-if question.

2 - 3

Identified and described a scenario and a what-if question; variables may not be clearly stated; purpose statement may lack focus or ambition.

4

Effectively identified and described a scenario; realistic what-if Q was clearly stated and variables to be modified were clearly identified; purpose was focused and ambitious

_____

2. Physics Understanding

Physics of the scenario is exhaustively described in the Theory; included verbal descriptions, diagrams, graphs, and other visuals which have discussed in class or found in the book or other literature; application of physics to the scenario revealed a high level of understanding.

0 - 2

Physics understanding is very limited as demonstrated by the lack of depth, several errors, failure to depict information in visual manner or merely the absence of a Theory section

 

3 - 4

Made a clear effort to use both words and visuals to describe the physics of the scenario; understanding level is still developing as evidenced by errors and a lack of depth and analysis in the Theory section

5 - 6

Used a wealth of physics to describe the scenario; introduced free-body diagrams, p-t and v-t graphs, energy bar charts, equations, and calc'ns; understanding of physics is well developed and evident in the Theory section

_____

3. Development of Model

Used software to accomplish stated purpose; developed a working model of the scenario which utilized reasonable input values to obtain realistic results; used model to effectively explore the what-if question.

0 - 2

Failed to construct a working physical model which was relevant to the purpose

 

3 - 4

Physical model works and is relevant to purpose; certain input values and/or results are not realistic; model may not be capable of exploring the stated what-if Q

5 - 6

Physical model works and is relevant to the stated purpose; model uses reasonable input values and yields realistic results; was able to use model to explore the what-if Q

_____

4. Experimentation

Effectively explored the what if? question which was proposed; carefully monitored the effect which one variable had upon another variable; used an organized lab notebook to document the findings; software files were saved with meaningful names as a further means of documentation; accurately interpreted results to draw meaningful conclusions

0 - 2

Failed to explore the what-if question or provided little to no documented evidence that the what-if question was explored or failed to discuss the meaning of the data and result

3 - 4

What-if Q was clearly explored, results were clearly documented, and an effort was made to draw conclusions from the results; quality of the exploration and the discussion of results is hindered by a improper conclusions and/or poor organization of data

5 - 6

What-if Q was sensibly explored and the results were clearly monitored and documented; interpreted results and drew meaningful conclusions; conclusions were clearly stated in the discussion of results section of report; no major errors/omissions in Data and Discussion sections of report

_____

5. Communication

Report is well-organized and includes all the appropriate sections; input values and clearly listed and a row-column format; results are clearly described and intelligently discussed; findings of the investigation are stated and supported with logic and reference to collected data.

0 - 2

Report fails to include all the appropriate sections; includes several errors or omissions; may lack clarity, documented data, discussion of results, clear statement of findings, and/or support for the stated findings

3 - 4

Lab report is mostly complete yet lacking in the quality of discussion and the support of the findings; may lack organization; may failed to have documented input values and/or results in a row/column format

5 - 6

Lab report is well-organized and complete; input values and results documented; discussion of results is intelligent and findings are stated and supported with logic and data; no more than one significant error or omission

_____

Comments:

TOTAL
_____

 


Return to:

Interactive Physics Overview

The Project Corner

The Refrigerator

Physics 163 Home Page

GBS Physics Home Page

The Physics Classroom

 

The GBS Physics staff invite you to send electronic mail:

| Tom Henderson | Howard Jenewein | John Lewis | Neil Schmidgall | Dave Smith | Suzanne Webb | Brian Wegley |

 



Questions and comments can be sent e-mail to Tom Henderson.


This page last updated on 10/3/97.