Physics 205A Lab 9, fall semester 2017
Cuesta College, San Luis Obispo, CA
Students have a weekly laboratory, where are gradually introduced to best practices in collecting data, graphing and analysis, and writing a report with a descriptive abstract, procedure, and evidence-based conclusion. Over the course of a semester this is done via a backwards-scaffolding method, where the first reports including all of these sections are written individually and independently by students approximately two-thirds into the semester.
Selected instances of comments from the instructor are given below for each section.
1. Descriptive abstract- Written in present-, future-, or mixed-tense, instead of past-tense?
- No mention that mathematical model was validated experimentally?
- Passive voice used instead of active voice and first-person pronouns ("we" or "I")?
- Inclusion of results, conclusions, and/or opinions?
- Redundant/irrelevant statements?
2. Procedure- Unclear how someone who has not done this experiment would have a general idea what was done?
- Diagram, but no labels?
3. Data table, calculations and/or results- Data table and/or graph not included with report?
- No error bars on graph?
- Error bars are default ±1 value, instead of based on actual "least count" column in data table?
- Error bars are selected to be "standard error," when this is not statistically relevant to the data population for this experiment?
- Results of validating trendline equation with experimental data incomplete or missing?
4. Evidence-based conclusion statement- Subjective claims not supported by data or specific numbers ("good," "faulty," "a better fit")?
- Statements do not explicitly include specific numbers and data, such that they cannot be read/cited without having to refer back to the data table/graph?
- Speculation ("we could have got better data if...," "most likely this error came from...")?
