This page is deigned to help you with the layout of your lab report.
Title
Research Question: [Phrased in a similar format to “What is the effect of the IV upon the DV?”]
Background information:
[Scientific theory is used to describe and explain how the chosen IV affects changes in the organism/biological material being dealt with.]
[Explain why the chosen DV is a good measure of change in the organism/biological material]
[Citations are used effectively to support the background. Textbooks should be the first port of call when looking for a citation.]
Hypothesis:
[The hypothesis should be based on the theory identified in the background]
[A graph should be sketched to illustrate the hypothesis]
[Where possible the hypothesis should be quantified, e.g. It is expected that the optimum pH for the activity of catalase to be 6.2]
[If comparing means / testing for significant difference then it is helpful to state the null hypothesis)
Variables:
Apparatus:
[List all equipment used]
[Include all items, quantities, concentrations, volumes, masses etc., for measuring equipment uncertainties]
Method:
[The method should be a numbered/bulleted list]
[The method must describe how to manipulate the IV, including specific details of range or increments.]
[The method for recording results, including units and uncertainty of tools should be described.]
[Each control and uncontrolled variable identified in the variables table should be addressed.]
[A diagram or photo of the experimental setup helps to make a complex equipment setup clear]
[Annotate/label diagrams and photos to give them value and explain their relevance. Annotations maybe done in the main text as an alternative to including annotations in the diagram.]
[Make sure the method is clear, specific and easily replicated. This is best done by getting a person not familiar with your work to read through the method and then explain it back to you.]
[If the chosen method is based on or adapted from a published protocol then the original protocol must be cited.]
Safety and Ethical considerations:
[Comment on possible hazards, environmental, ethical and social impacts of the work, and say how they will dealt with to minimise the impact]
Raw Data:
[Clear table(s) with:
- Title – this should refer to the headers
- Descriptive headers, e.g. not just temp, but temp of the mixture of amylase and starch
- Units and uncertainties]
[When quoting units use the same units as for the uncertainties, this is good practise.]
[Use seconds rather than minutes:seconds if the variable is time. It is clearer and later avoids human errors in data processing.]
[If stated in the method that measurements are to be taken, even if only to monitor a control variable, it still needs to be included in the raw data.]
Qualitative data:
[This is important as it demonstrates critical thinking]
[Comment on:
- Variation within the organism/biological material being are dealt with
- Colour, texture, shape, size, heat changes
- Anything notice that might affect results, but can’t put a number on]
Processed data:
[Avoid reiterating raw data]
[If there is a single table with processed and raw data then indicate which is raw data and which is processed]
[Are calculations needed to make calculations to determine the DV? For example:
- Rate of reaction = volume, distance etc. / time
- % Change = (end – start) / start x 100
- Anything else that is appropriate?]
[If calculations are made to determine the DV then remove the uncertainty from the header. Uncertainty is now variable and cannot be expressed as an absolute value.]
[The significant figures in the calculated DV should match the significant figures in the raw data. For example if the uncertainty of raw data is ±0.01g then the % change should be 0.00 if the maximum value is greater than 1 and less than 10 and 00.0 if the maximum value is greater than 10, but less than 100.]
[Work out the mean and standard deviation of the calculated DV for each value of the IV. If no calculation is made to determine the DV then simply the mean and standard deviation of the raw data.]
[The mean and standard deviations should be quoted in the same units and uncertainties, if present, as the data they are calculated from.]
[If comparing means, i.e. the data is in the 2 IV values x 10 repeats format additionally a t-test should be completed to reinforce the conclusion]
[A clear table with title, headers, units and uncertainties if appropriate]
[Show calculations and sample workings. This is most easily done by screen shots of MS Excel formula.]
Presentation of Processed Data
[For almost all labs an appropriate graph can be added here]
[Graph(s) should be of processed data, not raw data]
[Graph should resemble the one used in the hypothesis]
Graph axis labels and units should directly reflect the headers used in the processed data table]
[Numbers displayed on the axes should be to same number of decimal places as the data they are based on]
[Graph titles should be descriptive and refer to the axes labels]
[Graphs should occupy a minimum of ½ a page, the larger it is the easier it is to read]
[The default choice of graph should be a scatter plot. If comparing means, i.e. the data is in the 2 IV values x 10 repeats, or using categoric data then bar charts maybe chosen instead)
[If standard deviation is available error bars based upon it should be added]
[The source of the error bars should be explicitly declared. It is recommended that this is included directly under the title, but in a smaller font.]
[If the data is in the 5 IV values x 5 repeats format then a best-fit curve should be added by hand, if a clear trend is observable]
[Best-fit curves, or straight line if appropriate, do not have to touch the plotted values, but should aim, if possible, to at least go through the error bars.]
Conclusion:
[If looking for trend/correlation, i.e. the data is in the 5 IV values x 5 repeats format]
[Comment on the processed data:
- Is there a pattern to the data described by the best-fit curve? Positive/negative correlation, straight line, bell shaped curve, u-shaped, s-shaped, does it plateau?
- Quote values in the description
[Comment on error bars:
- How large are the error bars? The smaller they are the stronger the correlation is.
- Are there any anomalies in the raw data that explain abnormal large error bars?
- Do the size of the error bars make a valid conclusion difficult to reach?
[If comparing means, i.e. the data is in the 2 IV values x 10 repeats format]
[Comment on the processed data:
- Is one bar on the chart/mean value is higher than the other? Quote values and names of the IV values.]
[Comment on error bars:
- Is there an overlap of error bars? The larger the overlap the less likely the means are to be significantly different from each other.
- Does the t-test confirm the observations made in the previous point?
- Are the error bars similarly sized? If different does this indicate possible errors or simply natural variation?
- Are there any anomalies in the raw data that explain abnormal large error bars?
- Do the size of the error bars make a valid conclusion difficult to reach? This maybe already answered if the t-test is available]
[For all]
[Comments on the raw data should be in reference to anomalies or unusual trends, in the main when talking about data the focus should be processed data and mean values.]
[Comment on the qualitative data:
- What impact might the qualitative data of had upon the findings?
- Does it make the measurements likely to be skewed, i.e. all too large or too small?
- Does the qualitative data indicate a possible reason for the natural variation seen in the data?
- Does the qualitative data make it more difficult to come to a valid conclusion?]
[Refer back to scientific theory and the citation(s):
- What do the results indicate in terms of the IV and DV?
- How does the DV link to, and help answer, the research question?
- Does the data support accepted theory?
- Are the results consistent with published data?
- Discuss the data in relation to scientific theory.]
[Justify what is judged to be the level of support (use the correct language) for the hypothesis by referring to points/arguments made previously in the conclusion]
[Refer back to the research question, better restate it and discuss how well it has been possible to answer it]
[Suggest next steps and extensions based upon the conclusion:
- If the level of support is strong look to extend the investigation, possibly look at different independent variables
- If the level of support is weak look to repeat the investigation, possibly modify the method, change the way the dependent variable is measured or collect more data, carry out more repeats]
Evaluation:
You may wish to consider equipment error
[Identify sources of error as random or systematic where appropriate]
[Suggest specific, measurable improvements for each and every weakness/source of error, if no improvements are necessary state that instead]
[If improvements refer to a change of equipment the correct name, size and where possible the uncertainty should included in the description of the improvement]
Bibliography:
[Cite all references using a standard convention, e.g. MLA]