Scribd
Upload
19 views

Lab Report DP

This document outlines the key components of a research report, including the research design, data analysis, conclusions, and evaluation. It provides level descriptors for assessing students' lab reports on a scale of 0 to 6 in each of these sections. The level descriptors focus on how well students establish their research question, methodology, data analysis, conclusions, and ability to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their investigation.

Uploaded by

fanenab986
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
19 views

Lab Report DP

This document outlines the key components of a research report, including the research design, data analysis, conclusions, and evaluation. It provides level descriptors for assessing students' lab reports on a scale of 0 to 6 in each of these sections. The level descriptors focus on how well students establish their research question, methodology, data analysis, conclusions, and ability to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their investigation.

Uploaded by

fanenab986
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 8

Names

TITLE

1. RESEARCH DESIGN
1.1 Introduction (one page with references)
□ I have provided additional background (context, previous works/explorations, what you
expect and personal engagement) which is focused and deepens the understanding of the
investigated research question.
1.2 Variables
□ I have clearly stated and defined the variables (dependent/independent/controlled)
involved in my investigation.

1.3 Research question and hypothesis


□ My research question investigates the relationship between two correlated variables “How
does X affect Y?”.
□ I have provided a justification for the relationship between the dependent and
independent variables hypothesized using appropriate scientific context.
1.4 Methodology
□ My choice of investigation methodology is justified. I have explained why the methodology
chosen and any modification is appropriate to answer the research question.
□ I have explained and justified key steps of the methodology and I have ensured that my
report is clear on why specific conditions are used in the methodology and what the importance of
these conditions are.
□ Another student may potentially repeat the work by following the methodology that I have described.
□ I have assessed and reported any associated Health and Safety considerations including Ethical and
Environmental risks, which may not be immediately obvious.
□ My methodology allows for the collection of enough data (5 values with 3 trials each).
□ My presented methodology is an honest representation of the work undertaken in the lab, stating the
procedure I used and not the one that I should have used in retrospect.
2. DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
□ My qualitative and quantitative data are presented appropriately.
□ The origin of the presented data is clear.
□ I have presented my results with clearly labeled and appropriate tables, graphs,
figures, and schemes that enhance the reader’s understanding of my work and directly answer
my research question.
□ My data-analysis protocol is clearly shown. I have provided an example of my calculations.
□ I have taken into consideration the uncertainties in my measurements and the error propagation in
the various mathematical operations used.
□ I have correctly interpreted my processed data using in-text citations when appropriate to help the
reviewer follow my work and thinking process.
3. CONCLUSION
□ I presented the most relevant information, the associated uncertainties and stated a
conclusion that directly addresses the research question.
□ My conclusion is justified by the data and the data-analysis I have presented in the
report.
□ I have compared my conclusion to the established scientific context, such as journal articles, science
textbooks, encyclopedia articles or other peer-reviewed sources.
□ I have considered the extent of my agreement or disagreement with the established scientific
understanding, and I have explored the reasons that may have contributed to my conclusion.
4. EVALUATION
□ I have considered the weaknesses related to the control of variables, the choice of
equipment, the choice of methodology and any choices regarding the data-analysis processes
used. I have considered how these choices affected my conclusion and whether I would have
made different choices given the opportunity.
□ I have considered the limitations of my investigation. I took into consideration any
assumptions made in the data-analysis, the range of the collected data, and the boundaries of the
system investigated. I have considered the extent to which the obtained results are applicable.
□ Considering the above, I have proposed realistic changes that could lead to more accurate
results and/or extend the range and/or scope of the investigation.
Criteria

1. Research design

Marks Level descriptor


0 ● The report does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.

● The research question is stated without context.


1–2 ● Methodological considerations associated with collecting data relevant to the research
question are stated.
● The description of the methodology for collecting or selecting data lacks the detail to allow for
the investigation to be reproduced.

● The research question is outlined within a broad context.


3–4 ● Methodological considerations associated with collecting relevant and sufficient data to
answer the research question are described.
● The description of the methodology for collecting or selecting data allows for the investigation
to be reproduced with few ambiguities or omissions.

● The research question is described within a specific and appropriate context.


5–6 ● Methodological considerations associated with collecting relevant and sufficient data to
answer the research question are explained.
● The description of the methodology for collecting or selecting data allows for the investigation
to be reproduced.

2. Data analysis

Marks Level descriptor

0 ● The report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

● The recording and processing of the data is communicated but is neither clear nor precise.
1–2 ● The recording and processing of data shows limited evidence of the consideration of
uncertainties.
● Some processing of data relevant to addressing the research question is carried out but with
major omissions, inaccuracies or inconsistencies.

● The communication of the recording and processing of the data is either clear or precise.
3–4 ● The recording and processing of data shows evidence of a consideration of uncertainties but
with some significant omissions or inaccuracies.
● The processing of data relevant to addressing the research question is carried out but with
some significant omissions, inaccuracies or inconsistencies.

● The communication of the recording and processing of the data is both clear and precise.
5–6 ● The recording and processing of data shows evidence of an appropriate consideration of
uncertainties.
● The processing of data relevant to addressing the research question is carried out
appropriately and accurately.
3. Conclusion

Marks Level descriptor

0 ● The report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

1–2 ● A conclusion is stated that is relevant to the research question but is not supported by the
analysis presented.
● The conclusion makes superficial comparison to the accepted scientific context.

● A conclusion is described that is relevant to the research question but is not fully consistent
3–4 with the analysis presented.
● A conclusion is described that makes some relevant comparison to the accepted scientific
context.

● A conclusion is justified that is relevant to the research question and fully consistent with
5–6 the analysis presented.
● A conclusion is justified through relevant comparison to the accepted scientific context.

4. Evaluation

Marks Level descriptor


0 ● The report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

1–2 ● The report states generic methodological weaknesses or limitations.


● Realistic improvements to the investigation are stated.

● The report describes specific methodological weaknesses or limitations.


3–4 ● Realistic improvements to the investigation that are relevant to the identified weaknesses
or limitations, are described.

● The report explains the relative impact of specific methodological weaknesses or


5–6 limitations.
● Realistic improvements to the investigation, that are relevant to the identified weaknesses
or limitations, are explained.

Marks: / 24

Grade:

You might also like