Mohammed Islam
2/19/19
Lab Report Analysis
Writing for Engineers

 

The lab reports Acceleration Due to Gravity (Lab 1) and Factors Controlling Sunflower Growth (Lab 2) are both fairly insightful. Lab 1 tested acceleration due to gravity by dropping a ball at different heights and recording the time it took to fall. Lab 2 experimented with sunflowers exposed to different amounts of light and recorded their growth respectively. They both conducted experiments in a logical manner and followed an appropriate structure for a report. They both have introductions, materials and methods, results and conclusions. However, both do not have an abstract- only lab 2 does. There are many similarities found in both labs as well as differences.

To begin with, Lab 2 is a simpler lab compared to Lab 1. This is clear due to the topics, level of difficulty, and the experiment itself. The topic of Lab 2 was Sunflower growth compared to the topic acceleration of gravity from Lab 1. Lab 1 requires more mathematical understanding to complete while Lab 2 was more observational.

The title of the lab reports both were vague and not descriptive. The titles can both be improved if the method of experimentation is mentioned in the title. For example, the title Factors Controlling Sunflower Growth can be improved to Varying Growths of Sunflowers Controlled by Light. This is a better title because “factors” is not specific, but “light” is. It is best to have descriptive titles because it makes it easier for scientists to know what the lab is about and the dynamics of the experiment.

Lab 2 contained an abstract section while Lab 1 did not have one. The abstract in Lab 2 contained a brief description of the lab. This was informing on what the experiment was about and the dynamics of the experiment. Lab 2 also included the results of the experiment in the abstract. This way someone can open the lab and know the results to see if they are further interested in the lab. By not having an abstract in Lab 1, it makes the lab less professional and makes it harder for other scientists to quickly understand the lab and its results.

Both Lab 1and Lab 2 have an introduction section. The introductions for both are very informative on the topic and help you better understand the science behind the experiments. In Lab 2 the introduction was made up subheadings such as purpose and background. The purpose in Lab 2 was clearly stated in a complete sentence. Following the purpose was the background section. This section gave the reader a better understanding of Sunflowers and their growth. On the other hand, Lab 1 had just one section under the introduction. It was about gravity and mathematical equations that pertained to the experiment. Lab 1 lacked a clear purpose or goal for the lab. I believe Lab 2 had a different structure for the introduction to separate the purpose and background. If it was all in one chunk of writing, the reader may fall into confusion; therefore, the author of Lab 2 separated them using subheadings.

The materials and methods section is the next section in both lab reports. In Lab 2, the exact materials and methods are not stated, but we are given a reference to a Biology Lab Book with pages. In addition, the author of Lab 2 also states the changes he has made in his experiment from the lab manual. This may seem confusing and without access to the referenced book, replicating this lab would be extremely difficult. Lab 1, however, had a very detailed and replicable section. It was labeled “Experimental Methods”. In this section the materials and procedures were described specifically. In addition, the author also stated possible error and how to reduce that error. This is a very good addition by the author because it enhances this labs replicability. The last part of the section had a graph which was not in the right place. The graph showed the relationship between time and height of the ball dropping. This was data collected during the experiment and should be placed in results.

The result section of the labs is where data collected from the experiments should be placed. In Lab 2, there are three tables that were properly labeled and easy to read. The author of the lab included one table of data from his experiment followed by a table of the average heights recorded by his class. The third visual was a chart containing elements from both tables in one to help compare and contrast the author’s data and the class’s data. Following the table was the conclusion that was drawn based on the data shown. Lab 1 combined the results and discussion sections into one compact section. Here, the author of Lab 1 describes his findings from the lab and data. He also compares his findings to the official accepted value of gravity. Here he discusses how his finding in the lab was g = 9.93 +/- 0.08 m/s^2 which is extremely close to the accepted value of g = 9.8m/s^2.

Lab 2 had a separate section for discussion. This is where the author of Lab 2 interprets the data from the results section. I prefer this method because it separates the data/observation and conclusions drawn from the experiment. The results section should be more objective given that it includes numbers and data. The discussion section is more subjective because people don’t always interpret findings the same way. Lab 2 also discusses possible room for error in the experiment conducted and how one may avoid these errors when trying to conduct the experiment. Lab 1 also has a similar part in its discussion where the author justified why his findings may have been a bit off. This gives the reader a better understanding of the lab and shows that the author understands where his mistakes were. He also explains how these errors do not affect the credibility of the lab report. This rather increases credibility of the lab because it shows that the author has a good understanding of the lab.

Lab1 and Lab 2 both include concise conclusions of the experiment. Lab 2 expressed its findings in the lab and showed how his conclusion matches his hypothesis. Lab 1, which did not have a hypothesis, also stated its conclusions drawn from the experiment. Lab 1 also mentions how his results are satisfactory. For example, in Lab 1 under the results and discussion section it states, “Given that the point of contact of the ball with the metal pad which is used to stop the timer is somewhat above the floor, our slightly higher value for g is not surprising.” This helps persuade the reader that the work done in this lab is professional and valuable. This helps make a quality conclusion because it wraps up the lab with results, conclusions based on the results, and shows confidence in the lab.

Because Lab1 and Lab 2 are fairly simple labs, they do not create new knowledge in this field of science. These labs were done to gain a better understanding of this certain field of science. For example, Lab 1 was conducted with the knowledge that the magnitude of Earths gravity is 9.8 m/s^2. They did the experiment in efforts to prove that with the example of a ball falling from different heights. Lab 2 also was done with the knowledge that different amounts of light affect the height. The lab was conducted to show that their findings are accurate and matched previous scientific statements.

Replicability is an important factor in a lab report. A lab report is replicable if the experiment can be done over by following the lab. Lab 2 lacks replicability because the materials and methods section does not include the actual procedure and materials needed. Lab 1 on the other hand is replicable because it has a very detailed materials and methods section which included all the steps and materials needed to perform the experiment.

Both Lab 1 and Lab 2 are written professionally and do not use jargon. They successfully spoke in a professional manner along with the proper formality. This adds to both authors credibility in the report. If jargon was to be used throughout the report, it would present itself as unprofessional and may question the authors skills and credibility as a researcher.

Visual elements are also a significant portion of both Lab 1 and Lab 2. Lab 1 used four visual elements in its report. These visuals were vital in the understanding of the lab because most of the results were in a form of a visual. Lab 2 also contained a visual that represented the relationship between height and time of the ball as it dropped from a specific height. Without the visual it would be difficult to understand the results and conclusions of the lab report. The visuals can serve as proof of the experiment and without them, the lab report will not be persuasive.

Lab 1 and Lab 2 both cite other references in their lab reports. These citations can be used to help the reader better understand the material in the words of an expert in that field. Lab 2 includes references in the background, materials, and discussion section. Lab 2 also includes a works cited page in the end of the report where he lists all of the outside sources he used in his report. Lab 1 only used one citation and included it in his reference section.

In conclusion, Lab 1 and Lab 2 were both insightful reports. They were completed in an organized fashion with labeled headings. Lab 1 and Lab 2 are both written in the third person view. They both also maintained a passive voice throughout the lab report. This helps emphasize on the experiment itself rather than the researcher. Both labs appeared persuasive as they followed most of the conventions of a lab report according to the textbook a side from a few exceptions. The labs were done differently because they are different topics and different level of difficulty. Each lab is uniquely structured because they have unique purposes.