I think we must continue the requirement that students write formal lab
reports. One of my wise college professors was fond of saying, "If you
don't communicate what you have done, then you haven't done anything." And
he also said, "Poor communication is not much better than no communication."
Many of my students, if not most, do not communicate well in writing. When
they do write, it is quite colloquial; almost as bad as the text messages
they send each other. I think their speech is also affected by this, or
vice-versa. They simply are not used to explaining technical or complicated
things verbally nor in writing. I liked the comment John Denker made about
trying to explain something to colleagues verbally before starting to write
it. That makes a lot of sense. In a classroom/lab setting students could
start by explaining things verbally to each other, or to me. When students
ask me to help them analyze their data, my first question is, "What are you
trying to do?" That surprises them because I wrote the lab "handout," so I
ought to know what they are trying to do. However, when I persist, and they
realize they can't tell me what they are trying to do, I can then say, "Well
if you don't know what you are trying to do, then how can you possibly do
it? Are you waiting for the miracle of divine inspiration?" (The clever
student might respond, "Yes, that's why I asked you to help me.")
What I'm getting at in this first portion is the idea that students need to
be able to write a good introduction in which they describe the purpose of
the experiment and what they hoped to accomplish by it. If they can't do
that, then how can they analyze the data, and how can they reach any
meaningful conclusions? Indeed, it sure would be nice if they could write a
good introduction before they take any data. That's why I ask them to begin
their lab notebook page with a short description of the experiment (no more
than a paragraph). Alas, I think most of them leave space in the notebook
and write the goals for the experiment in their lab notebooks after they
have written the report.
Many journals continue to begin a paper with an abstract. It might not be
labeled as such, but a brief introductory paragraph preceding the main body
of the paper is still quite common. I think it is important for students to
begin the report with an abstract because this is a very strong test of
whether they can distill the experiment into jut a few sentences to tell the
reader the main thrust of the experiment (so the reader can decide whether
to continue reading). Students often complain it is very difficult to write
an abstract that receives a "good" comment when I grade it. I agree, and
this is why I write my abstracts last, and I recommend they do the same.
Following the abstract is a more detailed introduction to explain the
purpose of the experiment and any background information the reader needs.
Students also have difficulty with this. They want to launch right into a
detailed experimental-procedure section. Indeed, the experimental-procedure
section is easiest for them to write, because they can generally describe
what they did, even if they don't fully understand why. Thus, even when my
students have separate introduction and experimental-procedure sections
(which I require) they frequently hopelessly intermingle the two sections.
I keep having them do it because I think it is important to separate the
idea of what the person tried to accomplish from the procedure the person
used to accomplish it.
Notice my use of past tense in the previous sentence. I have great
difficulty getting students to write in past tense. They most frequently
try to write in future tense... "In this experiment we will measure the
coefficient of friction for a piece of particle-board sliding on another
piece of particle-board." This is usually results in a cynical remark from
me such as "Wouldn't it be a good idea to do the experiment before you hand
in the report?" If I am in a less cynical mood I write, "You already did
the experiment, why are you writing in future tense?" It is sad that some
students ask me what I mean by past tense and future tense. That tells you
how poor their writing experience was in high school.
Also, when they write the experimental-procedure section, many want to begin
with a list of everything they used during data acquisition. Some even
include that they used a pen to record the data in their notebooks. I view
lists as immature, but I also view lists as a way to avoid writing complete
sentences, and also as a way to avoid thinking about what is really
important to describe versus what is obvious and unnecessary to describe. I
want students to think about the concise wording that is required to
communicate the message. Shorter is better (assuming shorter is still
complete).
Another problem is the tendency for students to tell the reader what to do
rather than telling the reader what the students did. I wish I had the
proverbial nickel for every time I have written, "Don't tell me what to
do... tell me what you did."
After the experimental-procedure section I expect results and conclusions
either as separate sections or as a combined section. I do not want to see
raw data anywhere in the report. Practicing scientists generally do not
publish tables of raw data. I do require that students submit photocopies
of the appropriate lab-notebook pages with their reports. That way I have
their raw data (so I can check their calculations), and I also can see their
lab-notebook skills (which are graded and constitute about 5% of the overall
report grade).
It should not surprise you that students who write poor introductions also
have poor conclusions. It's pretty difficult to express clear results if
you have a murky understanding of why you did the experiment. Students also
struggle with proper presentation of the results. Should it be a table?
Should it be a graph? If table; what columns should be in the table? If
graph; what kind of graph? Some students include some tables and graphs,
but don't mention them in the results/conclusion text. When that happens, I
circle the table and write, "Why did you include this table? You never
mentioned it in your report." They usually respond that they thought I
wanted a table. I respond that the only thing I want is a clear
communication of what the experiment was supposed to accomplish, then
clearly stated evidence of how well the goal was accomplished and/or what
knowledge was gained from the experiment.
As you might imagine, many of my students dislike writing lab reports, and
they dislike me for being such a picky editor (which is what I call myself).
I think it is one of the most important things I do. Indeed, quite a few
student have written to me, or come back to visit, and have thanked me for
teaching them to write good reports.
Please note that I readily agree my proscribed format (abstract,
introduction, experimental procedure, results/conclusions) is not the only
way to do it. Use any format you want. Just make sure students get plenty
of practice communicating what they did, why they did it, and how well it
succeeded. Also make them do this in a fairly formal manner... complete
sentences, proper verb tense, adjectives modifying the correct noun, etc.
Require nicely formatted tables with pertinent columns and properly labeled
columns including units. Graphs should be well drawn (preferably with
appropriate software) and axes must be labeled complete with units. Any
included tables, graphs, or figures need to be explained in the report text.
We don't just throw in a table or two, or a graph or two, because every
scientific report ought to have graphs and tables. If you aren't going to
say something about a table, graph, or figure in the text, then don't
include it.
Summary... keep them writing... keep it formal... take the time to grade it
as if you are a picky editor.
Michael D. Edmiston, Ph.D.
Professor of Chemistry and Physics
Bluffton University
Bluffton, OH 45817
(419)-358-3270
edmiston@bluffton.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
[mailto:phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of
trappe@physics.utexas.edu
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 2:14 PM
To: 'Forum for Physics Educators'
Subject: [Phys-l] format for lab reports
I know it has been discussed before, but I would appreciate a few
opinions/insights on lab report formats.
I recall, from my own indoctrination, the standard format found in the
lab textbook of the 60's. Generally, it included: objective, method,
data sheet, results, analysis and interpretation, etc. Sometimes it
included apparatus and a discussion as to how it worked.
Beyond its historical significance, it rarely fits the research or
research paper reality, so I am curious how we continue to justify it.
As an experimental physicist, I did NOT use such a report format for
anything. Is it still in use by engineering companies, as our
continued use in intro labs would suggest?
If its an extinct dinosaur, what has replaced it for lab evaluation?
Or, is that why we still see it? Thanks, Karl
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l