Guidelines for Writing the Abstract
Your science fair abstract must be typed, and must fit on one page. Do not put your abstract in a cover, folder, or binder. The final draft is due on Jan. 29. It should be a summary of the project you have done. It must include the question or problem you investigated, your hypothesis, the procedures you followed, the data and observations you recorded, and your conclusion. A rough draft of this abstract is due on Jan. 22. The rough draft may be hand written (neatly), but it should not be written in your journal.
The report is about your project and should be about what you have done, not about what you've read in a book. It should be written in the PAST TENSE. Organize your report like this:
Title: The title of your project should be at the top of the page.
First Paragraph: Briefly describe the problem or question you chose to investigate and your hypothesis. You can also include why you chose this topic.
Second Paragraph: Describe in detail how you did your experiment. Your explanation should be so good that someone else could repeat your experiment just by reading your report. This may require more than one paragraph. This should NOT be a list of steps.
Third Paragraph: Summarize the data and observations you collected. Don’t forget to include the units for any measurements. Note that this part won’t be complete when you write the rough draft since you will still be experimenting. Don’t include every observation or measurement, and don’t put in a data table. You need to summarize your results.
Fourth Paragraph: Write about your conclusions. What did you learn by doing this project? Was your hypothesis correct? Why or why not? Consider the possible sources of error and tell whether your experiment was accurate. Be sure to justify your conclusions with the data that you collected. Explain how you could improve this experiment.
Final Draft due Jan. 29
Important: Print two copies. Hand in one on Jan. 29 for a grade, post the second copy on your display board for the judges to read.
Examples
The Eyes Have It
I wanted to investigate whether or not it took less time for a subject to remember a sequence of six colors when visualized as opposed to hearing them. Two approaches were used. One was having the subjects listen to a sequence of six colors and the second was having the subjects visualize a sequence of the same six colors. I predicted that it would take less time to remember the sequencing of six colors when visualized by a person than when heard by a person. This hypothesis is supported by educational studies that show that approximately 83% of human learning occurs visually, while only 11% through hearing.
Fifteen subjects were asked to participate in the study. All agreed. Consent forms were signed. Each session consisted of two persons, the investigator and the study subject. Testing was done in the hallway of the investigator’s home. The subjects sat on a folding chair. With the subject’s eyes closed, the investigator took 10 seconds to recite 6 colors to the subject. Using a stopwatch, the investigator waited 10 seconds and then asked the subject to repeat the colors in the sequence given. Using a stopwatch, the investigator time how long it took the subject to repeat the sequence. The investigator waited 15 seconds. Then the investigator showed the subjects a color chart for 10 seconds with the same sequence of colors previously spoken to them. Using a stopwatch the investigator timed how long it took the subject to repeat the colors.
The data showed that the study population took an average of 13 seconds to remember the six colors recited to them, with only a 53% accuracy rate in the sequencing. The same study population took an average of 8 seconds to remember the six colors shown to them, with a 93% accuracy rate in the sequencing. Analysis of the data demonstrated that the subjects were able to remember and sequence the six colors five seconds faster with greater accuracy when visualizing versus hearing the colors.
The results of this study proved my hypothesis. The study population learned faster and more accurately by visualizing rather than by hearing information. This conclusion may be an effect of the study design. The study subjects may have remembered the colors faster after seeing them because they had already heard the colors once before. Perhaps the time between hearing and seeing the colors should have been longer. To better support this hypothesis, a larger number of subjects should be studied. Also, the subject sample should be divided into two groups, one group hearing the colors first, and then visualizing the colors, and the second group visualizing the colors and then hearing them. Analysis of this data might enhance the probability of the hypothesis. Accuracy was kept by using the same equipment and environment for each subject and by testing subjects of the same age and gender. I have learned that research can be time consuming, challenging, and fun.
Got Metal?
Will a Metal Baseball Bat Hit a Ball Farther Than a Wood Bat?
On June 22, 2006, a New Jersey Assembly bill called for a ban on non-wood bats from youth and high school baseball games. Medical experts and some youth coaches feel that using wooden bats could reduce the speed of batted balls, resulting in fewer injuries. However , if the bill is passed, visiting teams from out of state would not be covered by the law. In other words, as a future college prospect, I will be competing against other college prospects who might not have a metal bat ban in their states. Will they have higher batting averages than me because they are allowed to use high-performance metal bats? I decided to conduct my own personal experiment to see which type of bat, wood or aluminum, hits a baseball the farthest. I hypothesized that a metal bat will outperform a wood bat because it is made using the latest technology and produces more kinetic energy, allowing a ball to travel farther.
The first phase of my testing consisted of bunting the ball from home plate. My dad, who is used to pitching batting practice, threw the ball from the pitcher's mound. I let the ball hit the bat without moving the bat forward. After ten pitches, I measured the distance in feet from home plate. Both the wood and the aluminum bats were tested a total of three round ten pitches each. During the second phase of testing, I measured out distances from a starting point in the outfield and placed cones at 150 ft, 175 ft, 200 ft, 225 ft, 250 ft, and 275 ft. I then tossed a ball up and hit it in the air towards the cones. The ball was measured from where it landed in reference to the cones. Ten balls were hit with each bat for a total of three rounds.
For the bunting phase of testing, I found that on average the metal bat hit the ball the farthest in each of the three rounds of testing. The wood bat averaged an overall distance of 32 feet and the metal bat averaged 37 feet. During the toss and hit phase, I found that the metal bat significantly outperformed the wood bat in all three testing rounds. Overall, the wood bat hit the ball at an average of 227 feet while the metal bat hit the ball at an average of 251 feet.
In conclusion, when bunting the ball there was not a significant difference in the overall average distances (5 ft difference) between both bats. However, when the ball was tossed and then hit, the metal bat succeeded in hitting the ball farther than the wood bat. he metal bat outdistanced the wood bat by an overall average distance of 24 feet. My hypothesis was proven correct. As a hitter, 24 feet can be the difference between a homerun and a caught fly ball. My choice of a baseball bat would be metal. A possible follow up to this experiment would be to test different metal bats to see if any certain brand out hits the others.
Building a Working Catapult
In Social Studies we learned about how siege weapons like catapults were used to attack castles. For my project I decided to try and build a working catapult. My design goal was to build a torsion powered mangonel that could accurately throw a projectile at least 30 feet. I expected my mangonel to reach this distance easily, with a spread in impact location of less than 3 feet.
I built a sturdy wooden frame and lever arm out of 2 x 4 lumber. A plastic tupperware container was used as the bowl to hold the projectile. The lever arm was pulled back using a chain of rubber bands. During my initial tests the rubber bands kept breaking so they were replaced with bungee cord. This second design worked well but the catapult shifted and pivoted when fired, which negatively affected the accuracy. This problem was solved by using pegs and tie downs to immobilize the base. The final design was tested by firing a nerf ball 30 times.
The average distance for the projectiles was 35 feet. The location of the first impact was marked. The distance from this initial impact was measured for each of the remaining launches so that the accuracy could be assessed. The average spread in impact was 6.5 ft.
The torsion powered mangonel I built was able to consistently launch a projectile more than 30 feet, but it was not able to do it accurately. There was a very large spread in impact - 6.5 ft. My research indicates that historically mangonels were not considered precision weapons. The design could be improved with a stronger lever arm, and with a method to measure how far back the arm is pulled.