Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Instructions

Explain the experiment and your reasons for conducting it. A brief description of the
methodology employed in the experiment and justifications for your choice of
methodology must be included when writing an introduction to your lab report.

Identify the objectives of the experiment. Briefly identify your hypothesis and your
predictions. Describe the purpose of the experiment. This section is particularly
important because the objectives set the framework for the conclusion of the lab report
where the objectives are analyzed and discussed.

Identify the importance of the experiment. Discuss any new knowledge the experiment
found or any questions it prompted for future research. Explain if the lab work refutes an
existing theory or supported an emerging concept.

Offer background information pertaining to your experiment. Include a review of
pertinent literature on the subject and well-known, documented research relevant to
your topic.

Explanations of the Example Links
Results: This author does a good job of answering the questions that should be addressed in a
discussion. For example, in the very first sentence he stated what he expected to find and also
whether or not the results he obtained supported or failed to support his hypothesis. This is a good,
strong way to start a discussion section. It starts off with the facts of the experiment and then later
on, the author can move on to his opinions. (return to Sample 1)
Absorbance: A good discussion includes good ideas and also exact and detailed support of these
ideas. In addition to starting off well, the author also goes on to explain the specific results of the
experiment that support his hypothesis. This is what defines the strength of his discussion section.
(return to Sample 1)
Explanation: After his explanation he presents the unexpected results and discusses possible reasons
for this data. The author's explanation of possible reasons for unexpected results is good because it
shows that he thought about the problems. He does not blame himself for the unexpected. Instead,
he considers the methods used, presents a possible explanation, and then justifies his ideas. (return
to Sample 1)
Catalyze: This author does a good job outlining his discussion; however, he is lacking the specifics to
make a good discussion. The first two sentences are better placed in the introduction. However, he
does state his expectations and whether or not his results supported these expectations. He could
have made this part better by stating this more authoritatively, for example: "It was expected," and
not, "It would be expected that." (return to Sample 2)

Unexpected results: The biggest problem this author had was explaining the unexpected results. He
blamed himself, saying he read the equipment wrong and passed off the unexpected results as
human error. (return to Sample 2)
Enzymes: This author does not develop his argument enough. One example of this is the affects
harsh environmental factors have on enzymes. He could have stated how the acidity caused the
enzymes to denature, thus creating less efficiency. (return to Sample 2)