This rubric provides scoring criteria for evaluating mini posters on scientific investigations. It is divided into sections for the title, abstract, research question, background, variables, hypothesis, procedure, materials, data presentation, discussion, and citations. For each section, the rubric describes the components of an advanced score of 5, a proficient score of 3, and needs improvement score of 1. An advanced poster clearly and accurately provides all relevant information in the proper format, while a poster scoring needs improvement is incomplete, inaccurate, or not presented appropriately.

1. AP Mini-Poster Rubric
(modified from a rubric used byColorado SpringsSchool District’s and OlatheEastHigh School’s science departments)
Score Advanced (5) Proficient (3) Needs Improvement (1)
Title Title indicates the nature of the
investigation.
Title is somewhat indicative of the
nature of the investigation.
Title is vague.
Abstract Adequately summarizes the main features
and results of the work described more
completely in the poster.
Provides a summary of work
described in the poster, but is
missing some of the main features
and/or results of the investigation.
The summary is unclear,
incomplete, and/or illogical.
Research
Question(s)
Question is narrowly focused and suggests
how an answer might be investigated. It is
answerable.
Question is answerable but not
narrowly focused.
Question is too broad and not
practically investigated.
Background/
Literature
Review
The background clearly provides the
context, or what is known, for the research
question(s).
The background is provided, but
there is little “tie in” to the nature of
the investigation.
The background is poorly
stated and provides little
context for the investigation.
Identification
of Variables
(if applicable)
Correctly identifies specific, measurable
independent and dependent variables.
Identifies variable being tested (IV)
& variable being measured (DV).
Variables and
constantssignificantly
incomplete &/or inaccurate.
Hypothesis Hypothesis is testable and clearly stated in
“If… then…” format. Specifically predicts
relationship between dependent and
independent variables.
Hypothesis is clearly stated. It
predicts the influence of one
variable on another.
Hypothesis is poorly stated
and doesn’t directly mention
the variables.
Procedure Accurately tests the hypothesis Attempts to test hypothesis Does not address hypothesis.
Procedure is in past tense/passive voice,
vertical list format, accurate, complete,
easy-to-follow, and reproducible by another
person. Includes diagrams to clarify
procedures.
Step-by-step procedure, generally
complete. Minor errors/omissions
make it difficult to follow or not
always repeatable. Not in past
tense/passive voice.
Procedure difficult to follow.
Major omissions or errors.
Includes all appropriate safety concerns. Includes critical safety concerns. Safety concerns trivial or
inadequately addressed.
Materials Complete, detailed list of materials (size,
conc., quantity) presented in vertical list
format.
Most materials are listed and
appropriate.
Materials quite incomplete or
inappropriate for experiment.
Data
Collection and
Presentation
Data table contains accurate,precise raw
data & summary datareported in correct SI
units withdescriptive title.
Data table with accurate data,most
units labeled or implied.Minor
errors. Title absent ortrivial.
Data table inaccurate,
confusing,and/or incomplete.
Missing units.
Data summarized in wellorganized,easy-to-
read graph&/or figures. Descriptive
title,appropriate labeling, keys, etc.
Data displayed in well
organizedeasy to read graph &/or
figures.
Descriptive title, minor errors inuse
of units and labeling.
Graph/figures presented in
aconfusing and/or sloppy
fashion.
Data summarized in a clear,concise, logical
manner.Patterns identified & described,but
no conclusions drawn.
Reasonable, but somewhatunclear
summary of data.Patterns in data not
clearlyidentified.
Summary is unclear and
illogical.Patterns in data not
identified.
Discussion/
Conclusion
Scientifically valid, logicalconclusion, well
supported by thedata collected. Clearly
addresses problem and stated hypothesis.
Scientifically valid,
logicalconclusion, supported by
datacollected. Attempts to
addressproblem and stated
hypothesis.
Conclusion is incomplete
orillogical. Does not address
theproblem and hypothesis.
Sources of error identified andexplained.
Appropriaterecommendations made to
eliminate errors.
Sources of error identified. Weak/trivial attempt to
identifysources of error.
Student generates specificquestions for
future study.
Student makes attempt togenerate
questions for futurestudy.
Student makes incomplete or
inappropriate attempt to
extend orapply knowledge.
Literature
Cited
Cited [reputable] work/literature is listed in
correct bibliographic form (CSE- Council
of Science Editors).
Cited work is incomplete OR not in
correct bibliographic form.
Cited work in incomplete
AND not in correct
bibliographic form.