Introduction.

In the introduction, indicate that the document that follows is

a feasibility report (or whatever it is called). Instead of calling the report by
name (which might not mean anything to most readers), you can indicate its
purpose. Also, provide an overview of the contents of the report.

For some feasibility reports, you'll also be able to discuss the situation and
the requirements in the introductions. If there is little to say about them, you
can merge them with the introduction, or make the introduction two
paragraphs long.

Technical Background. Some feasibility reports may require some technical

discussion in order to make the rest of the report meaningful to readers. The
dilemma with this kind of information is whether to put it in a section of its
own or to fit it into the comparison sections where it is relevant. For example,
a discussion of power and speed of laptop computers is going to necessitate
some discussion of RAM, megahertz, and processors. Should you put that in a
section that compares the laptops according to power and speed? Should you
keep the comparison neat and clean, limited strictly to the comparison and
the conclusion? Maybe all the technical background can be pitched in its own
section—either toward the front of the report or in an appendix.

Improving Your Lab Report

Improving your Title
A good title efficiently tells the reader what the report is about. It may include such
information as the subject of the experiment (what it is about), the key research
variables, the kind of research methodology used, and the overall findings of the
experiment. To make your titles better, follow these guidelines:

• If your title is too long (takes up more than a line), reduce it by taking out
non-essential words and phrases.
• If your title doesn't have enough information, make a list of the key words
related to the experiment (scientific concept of the experiment, important
variables, procedure, overall finding) and use the list to come up with ideas
for further information.
• If your title is a complete sentence (with a subject and a predicate), rewrite
it so that it is not a full statement but a phrase describing the experiment.

Improving your Abstract

A good Abstract is a miniature version of the lab report in one concise paragraph
and labeled Abstract.

If you are not sure what should be included in each summary sentence, use the
following list as a guide:

• Introduction: main objective(s) of lab; hypothesis

• Methods: a quick description of the procedure
 • Results: statement of the overall findings
• Discussion: judgment about hypothesis; explanation for judgment
• Conclusion: what you learned about the scientific concept

If your Abstract is too long, look carefully at each summary sentence and take out
any information that is not essential to that section of the report.

Improving your Introduction

• successfully establishes the scientific concept of the lab

To establish the scientific concept for the lab you need to do two things:

1. state what the lab is about, that is, what scientific concept (theory, principle,
procedure, etc.) you are supposed to be learning about by doing the lab. You should
do this briefly, in a sentence or two. If you are having trouble writing the opening
sentence of the report, you can try something like: "This laboratory experiment
focuses on X…"; "This lab is designed to help students learn about, observe, or
investigate, X…." Or begin with a definition of the scientific concept: "X is a theory
that…."

2. give the necessary background for the scientific concept by telling what you know
about it (the main references you can use are the lab manual, the textbook, lecture
notes, and other sources recommended by the lab manual or lab instructor; in more
advanced labs you may also be expected to cite the findings of previous scientific
studies related to the lab). In relatively simple labs you can do this in a paragraph
following the initial statement of the scientific concept of the lab. But in more
complex labs, the background may require more paragraphs.

• effectively presents the objectives and purpose of the lab

In a paragraph, or more if you need it, write out the objectives of the lab in
paragraph form and then describe the purpose of the lab: what it is that
accomplishing the objectives will help you learn about the scientific concept of the
lab.

1. The objective(s) are what it is you are supposed to accomplish in the

experimental procedure itself. The objective(s), therefore, is usually presented in
terms of a specific verb that describes what you are supposed to be doing in the lab,
such as to measure, to analyze, to determine, to test etc. Often, the objective(s) for
the lab is given in the lab manual. If you are having trouble phrasing the sentence
about objectives, try something like: "The main objectives of this lab were to…"; "In
this lab we were to…."

2. The purpose of the lab is different in significant ways from its objective(s).
Purpose provides the wider view; it answers the why question, why you are doing
the lab in the first place. Instead of focusing just on the specific actions of the
experimental procedure, purpose looks at the experimental procedure within the
context of what you are supposed to be learning.

If you are having trouble starting the sentence about the purpose of the lab, try
saying something like this: "The objectives of this lab enabled me to learn about X
by…"; "Performing these objectives helped me to understand X by…." To improve
this part of the introduction, go back to what you have written about the scientific
concept and look for a link between it and the activities you are expected to perform
in the lab: what specifically about the scientific concept were these activities
designed to teach you?

• states hypothesis and provides logical reasoning for it

A good statement of the hypothesis summarizes in a sentence or two what outcomes

you anticipate for the experimental procedure. Typically the outcomes will be
presented in terms of the relationship between dependent and independent
variables. If you are having trouble starting the paragraph on the hypothesis, try a
sentence opener like this: "The hypothesis for this lab was…"; "My hypothesis
was…"; "We predicted that…"; I hypothesized that…."

Providing logical reasoning for the hypothesis means explaining the reasoning that
you used to make your hypothesis. Usually this reasoning is based on what you
know about the scientific concept of the lab and how that knowledge led you to the
hypothesis. In science, you reason from what you know to what you don't know. In
a couple of sentences (more for complex labs) describe the logic that you used to
reason from what you know about the scientific concept to your educated guess of
the outcomes of the experimental procedure. If you need to make the logic of your
hypothesis clearer, use words that indicate an explanation: because, since, due to
the fact that, as a result, therefore, consequently, etc.

Often you can present the hypothesis and the supporting reasoning in one
paragraph. In more complex labs, especially those with multiple procedures and
therefore multiple hypotheses, you may need more paragraphs, perhaps one for
each hypothesis.

Improving your Methods

A good Methods section describes what you did in the lab in a way that is easy to
understand and detailed enough to be repeated. To make your Methods better,
follow these guidelines:

• If your Methods is not easy to follow, you may ask someone to read it. Ask
him or her to identify places in the procedure that are not clear and then
revise those places for greater clarity. It may be more helpful to include
words that help the reader follow the process of the experiment: step 1, step
2, step 3; first, then, finally; first, second, third; after, next, later, following;
etc.
• If your Methods is difficult to follow because it is long and complicated, then
consider dividing it into separate parts, each with a subheading. You can
divide it into the typical parts of an experimental procedure (such as Lab
Set-Up, Lab Procedure, and Analysis of Data) or, if there were multiple
experiments, a part for each experimental procedure.
• If you need to add more detail to your Methods, go back to the lab manual
and to the notes you or a lab partner took during the procedure and use
them to help you remember what you did in the lab.

Improving your Results

 • opens with effective statement of overall findings

Results sections typically begin with a brief overview of the findings. This is where
you sum up your findings. Such a statement is typically a sentence or two. This
summary will act as the opening sentence for the Results. If you had trouble getting
the first sentence started, here are some possibilities: "The results of the lab show
that …"; "The data from the experiments demonstrate that…"; "The independent
variable X increased as Y and Z were…."

• presents visuals clearly and accurately

One of the main problems with visuals is lack of clarity. You may have chosen a form
of visual that does not represent the data clearly. To see if there is a form of visual
that represents the data more clearly, go to the LabWrite Graphing Resources for
help.

Another problem with visuals can be ascribed to lack of accuracy. Visuals are
accurate when they correctly represent the data from the experiment. If there is a
problem with accuracy, you should check three points at which accuracy could be
jeopardized: (1) you may have recorded the raw data from the procedure
incorrectly; (2) you may have entered the raw data onto the spread sheet
incorrectly; and (3) you may have made careless errors in the format of the visuals,
particularly in labeling the x- and y-axes and in designating the units along those
axes.

• presents verbal findings clearly and with sufficient support

The presentation of findings in words should be ordered according the order of the
visuals, each visual being described in words. Each description should include a
sentence or so summarizing the visual and then any details from the visual pertinent
to the data from that visual. To make the verbal part of your Results better, follow
this general outline:

• Summary of overall findings of lab

• Paragraph related to visual 1
o Sentence of overall finding from visual 1
o Sentence(s) with key details from the visual 1
• Paragraph related to visual 2
o Sentence of overall finding from visual 2
o Sentence(s) with key details from the visual 2
• Paragraph related to visual 3
o Sentence of overall finding from visual 3
o Sentence(s) with key details from the visual 3

Etc.

• successfully integrates verbal and visual representations

The verbal representation of each visual should refer explicitly to the visual (Table 1,
Figure 2, etc.). You should create the sense that the visual and the word
representations of data are working together. The primary way of doing that is to
cite the visuals in your verbal findings. If you had trouble integrating the verbal and
the visuals, be sure you have, at a minimum, a reference to the visual in the first
sentence of each paragraph when you describe the overall finding of the visual.

Improving your Discussion

• opens with effective statement of support of hypothesis

The Discussion should start with a sentence or two in which you make a judgment
as to whether your original hypothesis (from the Introduction) was supported,
supported with qualifications, or not supported by the findings. To improve the
opening of your Introduction, make sure your judgment is stated clearly, so that the
reader can understand it. There are, generally speaking, three possible conclusions
you could draw:

• the data support the hypothesis;

• the data do not support the hypothesis; or
• the data generally support the hypothesis but with qualifiers (tell what they
are).

If you had trouble composing this sentence, try being straightforward about it, for
example, "The hypothesis that X solution would increase in viscosity when solutions
Y and Z were added was supported by the data."

• backs up statement with reference to appropriate findings

After stating the judgment about the hypothesis, you should provide specific
evidence from the data in the Results to back up the judgment. The first key to
improving this part of the Discussion is finding specific evidence reported in the
Results that you can use to back up your judgment about your hypothesis. The
second key is to describe the evidence in such a way that the reader can clearly see
that there is sufficient evidence that supports your judgment about the hypothesis.
Be specific. Point out specific evidence from the Results and show how that evidence
contributed to your judgment about the hypothesis.

• provides sufficient and logical explanation for statement of

hypothesis

You should return to the scientific concept of the lab (described in the Introduction)
and use that concept as a basis for explaining your judgment of the hypothesis. Your
understanding of the scientific concept may have changed by doing the lab.

Problems with the sufficiency of the explanation refer to the reader's judgment that
you didn't include enough details in your explanation, that there wasn't enough of an
explanation to satisfy the reader that you fully understood why the relationship
between the results and hypothesis was what it was. You need to provide greater
depth in your explanation. Do some brainstorming. Look again at the explanation
you placed at the end of the Introduction. Jot down more details about the
explanation and use those jottings to help you expand that part of the Discussion.

Problems with the logic of the explanation refer to the reader's judgment that your
explanation of the support or lack of support of the hypothesis did not adhere to
sound scientific reasoning. Look at the reasoning you used in the explanation. It
should follow one of four basic arguments:

1. If the results fully support your hypothesis and your reasoning was basically
sound, then elaborate on your reasoning by showing how the science behind the
experiment provides an explanation for the results.

2. If the results fully support your hypothesis but your reasoning was not completely
sound, then explain why the initial reasoning was not correct and provide the better
reasoning.

3. If the results generally support the hypothesis but with qualifications, then
describe those qualifications and use your reasoning as a basis for discussing why
the qualifications are necessary.

4. If the results do not support your hypothesis, then explain why not; consider (1)
problems with your understanding of the lab's scientific concept; (2) problems with
your reasoning, and/or (3) problems with the laboratory procedure itself (if there
are problems of reliability with the lab data or if you made any changes in the lab
procedure, discuss these in detail, showing specifically how they could have affected
the results and how the errors could have been eliminated).

You can also improve the logic of your explanation by using words that make your
argument clear, such as because, since, due to the fact that, as a
result, therefore, consequently, etc.

• sufficiently addresses other issues pertinent to lab

A low rating in this area means that the instructor thinks that there are other
interesting issues you could have discussed about your findings. Other issues that
may be appropriate to address are (1) any problems that occurred or sources of
error in your lab procedure that may account for any unexpected results; (2) how
your findings compare to the findings of other students in the lab and an explanation
for any differences (check with the lab instructor first to make sure this is
permissible); (3) suggestions for improving the lab.

Improving your Conclusion

• convincingly describes what has been learned in the lab

A good Conclusion takes you back to the larger purpose of the lab as stated in the
Introduction: to learn something about the scientific concept, the primary reason for
doing the lab. The Conclusion is your opportunity to show your lab instructor what
you learned by doing lab and writing the lab report.

You can improve your Conclusion first by making a clearer statement of what you
learned. Go back to the purpose of the lab as you presented it in your Introduction.
You are supposed to learn something about the scientific concept or theory or
principle or important scientific procedure that the lab is about. If you are not sure if
you have stated what you have learned directly enough, read your first paragraph to
see if your reader would have any doubt about what you have learned. If there is
any doubt, you may begin the paragraph by saying something like, "In this lab, I
learned that ...."
Simply saying you learned something is not necessarily going to convince the reader
that you actually did learn it. Demonstrate that you did indeed learn what you
claimed to have learned by adding more details to provide an elaboration on the
basic statement. Read over the Results and Discussion and jot down some notes for
further details on what you have learned. Look carefully at the statement of what
you have learned and underline any words or phrases that you could "unpack,"
explain in more detail. Use this brainstorming as a way of helping you to find details
that make your Conclusion more convincing.

If you think you need to do more to convince your reader that you have learned
what you say you have learned, provide more details in the Conclusion. For
example, compare what you know now with what you knew before doing the lab.
Describe specific parts of the procedure or data that contributed to your learning.
Discuss how you may be able to apply what you have learned in the lab to other
situations in the future.

Improving the Presentation of your Report

• citations and references adhere to proper format

Different fields tend to have different styles of documentation, that is, the way you
cite a source and the way you represent the source in the References. For example,
biologists use the documentation style of the Council of Biological Editors, and
chemists use the style of the American Chemical Society. If you don't know what
style you are expected to use in your reports (it's often given in the lab manual),
check with your lab instructor. For further help you can check LabWrite Resources,
"Citations and References."

• format of tables and figures is correct

Tables and figures should be done to professional standards, such as proper

headings and captions and numbering. For help, go to LabWrite Resource: "Revising
your Visuals: Tables, Graphs, and Drawings."

• report is written in scientific style: clear and to the point

Style in this case refers to your choice of words and sentence structure. The style of
science writing strives to be clear and to the point. You should avoid using grand
thesaurus words and long, artfully convoluted sentences.

As to choice of words, science writing uses words that its audience (other scientists
in the field) will readily understand. To outsiders, the scientific vocabulary of this
language looks like a lot of jargon. But the point is that scientific words that are
obscure to outsiders are usually not obscure to the insiders that comprise the
scientific audience. Your writing should sound like scientific writing. This means that
you should go ahead and use proper scientific terminology, but you should also
choose plain, everyday words for non-scientific terminology.

Your sentences should be clear and readable for your educated audience. Avoid
excessively long and meandering sentences. But don't use a lot of very short
sentences, either. Vary your sentence length. If you have difficulties with making
your sentences readable, read over them aloud, noting the sentences that seem to
be too long or are hard to read. Rewrite those sentences so that they flow more
easily.

Also, avoid using quotations. Scientists very rarely quote from source materials;
they do so only when a particular wording is important to the point they are trying
to make. Using direct quotations is appropriate to English papers, but not to lab
reports.

• grammar and spelling are correct

Grammar errors. It's important that you understand that the source of grammar
problems is not, for most of us, a matter of not knowing the rules of grammar. So
don't worry about that. The source of most grammatical errors is simply not seeing
them in your own writing. We usually read our own writing for the meaning that the
words convey and not for the words themselves.

Correcting grammar problems, then, is usually a matter of learning to read our

writing differently. Read your lab report at least twice specifically looking for errors
in grammar. You should focus on the words and sentences themselves. You don't
need any special knowledge for detecting and correcting most grammar problems. If
you do read for error, you will probably be able to spot problems and correct them
without having to look anything up in a handbook.

If you feel like you do need special help with grammar, go to the "On-line Writing
Handbook" on the LabWrite Resources Page.

Spelling errors. First, run the spell-checker on your computer. That should take
care of almost all of your spelling problems. Sometimes, however, there are words
that the spell-checker does not catch because they are words that are actually
spelled correctly but are used for the wrong meaning, like using "to" for "too" and
"that" for "than." You should be able to spot these misuses of words by reading over
the report looking for error, as described under "grammar errors" immediately
above.

Overall Aims of the Report: The student...

• has successfully learned what the lab is designed to teach

This is, of course, the purpose for doing the lab, to learn something about the
science of the course you are taking. Reading your lab report gives your teacher a
good idea of how well you have achieved this all important aim. It's your job in the
lab report to represent as fairly as you can what you have learned.

What you have learned is indicated in the report, especially the Introduction and the
Conclusion. You can improve the Introduction by (1) expressing more clearly the
scientific concept you are supposed to be learning about and (2) showing that you
have a good understanding of the scientific concept (see treatment of Introduction
above). In addition, check your designation of the purpose of the lab in the
Introduction. Be sure that it explicitly and clearly makes the connection between the
objectives of the procedure and the scientific concept.

The other key part of the report you should review is the Conclusion. This is where
you make your strongest case for what you learned in doing the lab. You may be
able to improve the Conclusion by rewriting the statement of what you have learned,
revising it so that it is clearer to the reader. You could also enhance the rest of the
Conclusion by adding more details concerning what you have learned (see treatment
of Conclusion above). Remember, your job is to convince your reader that you have
achieved the overall learning goal of the lab, and this is the section of the report in
which you do that directly.

• demonstrates clear and thoughtful scientific inquiry

One of the objects of the lab and lab report is to give you the experience of
participating in scientific inquiry, the form of thinking that defines science. In other
words, you need to show through the lab report that you can think like a scientist.
There are key places in the report where you indicate your ability to do that.

The first is found at the end of the Introduction where you present your hypothesis,
which drives scientific inquiry. You can improve this part of the report by (1)
restating the hypothesis so that it more clearly and more specifically presents your
educated guess of the outcomes of the experimental procedure and (2) enhancing
the logic that you use to show how you have reasoned from what you know about
the scientific concept to your hypothesis. You may need to make the links in that
logical chain clearer to the reader, or you may need to entirely rethink your
reasoning (which could lead to a different hypothesis).

The other place in your report in which you exhibit your ability to think scientifically
is in the Discussion. That's where you come back to the hypothesis to see if it is
supported or not supported by the results of the procedure. First, are you making a
reasonable judgment about whether or not the hypothesis is supported by the
findings? Second, do you provide clear evidence from the Results that back up your
judgment? And third, do you give a sound explanation, based on your understanding
of the scientific concept of the lab, for your judgment? Perhaps you need to revise
your explanation so that it is more logical, provides a greater depth of discussion
(more details), and treats all the facts that are relevant.

Also in the Discussion you have the opportunity to compare your results to the
results of others, other students in the lab or (in more sophisticated labs) published
scientific studies. This is an important aspect of scientific inquiry. Look to see that
you make the necessary comparisons and that your explanations for the
comparisons are full and logical.

• accurately measures and analyzes data for lab findings

There are two ways of looking at this aim, depending on the kind of lab you are in.
In some labs, there is a "right answer," a specific unknown or standard
measurement you are expected to find. In these cases, the emphasis of the aim is
on "expected outcomes." That is, your laboratory procedure is expected to yield
certain results and, to a certain extent, the quality of your work depends on whether
or not you attain those results.

In other labs, there may be no established outcome for the procedure, or it may be
that doing the procedure in a scientifically sound way is more important than the
particular answer you get.
In both kinds of labs, the places where you need to focus your efforts on
improvement are Methods and Results. If you need to have the right answer, then
you should revisit your lab notebook to search out errors in recording data and
transcribing data to spreadsheet and in any calculations you have done. You must
rewrite your report accordingly.

But if your aim is to demonstrate that your procedures are sound and that they
legitimately lead to your results, then look at these sections of the report. Is your
procedure described clearly enough? Are your results presented in sufficient detail?
The point is to demonstrate that there is a clear relationship between procedure and
outcomes.

Revision Checklist for Feasibility and Recommendation

Reports

As you reread and revise your feasibility or recommendation report, watch out
for problems such as the following:

• Write a good introduction in which you indicate the situation and the audience
and provide an overview of the contents.

• State requirements—those factors that influence the decision or the choice of

options. (And remember to state how important requirements are in relation
to each other.)

• Indicate how the field of options was narrowed to the ones being compared.

• Organize the comparison of the options using the point-by-point approach.

Don't use the whole-to-whole approach.

• At the end of each comparative section, state the best choice in terms that
point of comparison.

• Include a summary table, if possible, in which you summarize all the key data
in table form. (For example, see the summary table in the laptop computer
recommendation.)
• Provide technical background, if necessary for understanding the comparative
discussion.

• Discuss the background on the problem or opportunity—what brought about

the need for the report.

• Include strong sections of definition, description, or both, as necessary, using

the guidelines on content, organization, and format in the chapters on
definition and description.

• Include a conclusions section where you restate all the key conclusions from
the comparison section.

• State secondary conclusions in the conclusions section—and based them on

requirements that you state in the requirements section of the report.

• State a final conclusion in the conclusions section—one that states which is

the best choice.

• Include a recommendation section where you make the recommendation.

Briefly mention the key factors influencing the recommendation.