|
Conclusion and Evaluation
|
LEVEL |
Concluding |
Evaluating Procedure(s) |
Improving the investigation |
|
Complete
2 |
States a
conclusion, with justification, based on a
reasonable interpretation of the data. |
Evaluates
weaknesses and limitations. |
Suggests realistic
improvements in
respect of
identified weaknesses and limitations. |
|
Partial
1 |
States a conclusion
based on a reasonable interpretation of the data. |
Identifies some
weaknesses and
limitations, but
the evaluation is weak or missing. |
Suggests only
superficial improvements. |
|
Not at all
0 |
States no
conclusion or the conclusion is based on an
unreasonable interpretation of the data. |
Identifies
irrelevant weaknesses and limitations. |
Suggests
unrealistic improvements. |
Conclusion and Evaluation Aspect 1:
Concluding
 |
The conclusion starts with one (or more) paragraphs
in which you draw conclusions from your results, and
whether or not your conclusions support your
hypothesis. Your conclusion should be clearly
related to the research question and the purpose of
the experiment. You must also provide a brief
explanation as to how you came to this conclusion
from your results. In other words, sum up the
evidence and explain observations, trends or
patterns revealed by the data.
|
|
|
When measuring an already known and accepted value,
you should draw a conclusion as to your confidence
in the result by comparing the experimental value
with the textbook or literature value. The
literature consulted should be fully referenced. |
Conclusion and Evaluation Aspect 2:
Evaluating
Procedure(s)
|
|
The design and method of the investigation must be
commented upon as well as the quality of the data.
You should consider how large the errors or
uncertainties are in your results. How confident
are you in the results? Are they fairly conclusive,
or are other interpretations/results possible? |
|
|
Identify and discuss significant errors and
limitations that could have affected the outcome of
your experiment. See the pages on
statistics
and
graphing for help
in determining significance. Were there important
variables that were not controlled? Were there
flaws in the procedure you chose which could affect
the results? Are measurements and observations
reliable? Was there a lack of replication? |
|
|
Your emphasis in this section should be on
systematic errors, not the random errors that always
occur in reading instruments and taking
measurements. You must identify the source of error
and if possible, tie it to how it likely affected
your results. |
|
|
Acceptable Example: |
“Because the simple calorimeter we used was made from a
tin can, some heat was lost to the surroundings—metals
conduct heat well. Therefore, the value we obtained for
the heat gained by the water in the calorimeter was
lower than it should have been.”
|
|
Unacceptable Examples:
|
"The
test tubes weren’t clean.”
“Human error.”
|
|
You must not only list the weaknesses but must also
appreciate how significant the weaknesses are.
Comments about the precision and accuracy of the
measurements are relevant here. When evaluating the
procedure used, the you should specifically look at
the processes, use of equipment and management of
time. |
|
|
For more information about error analysis,
click here. |
Conclusion and Evaluation Aspect 3:
Improving the Investigation
|
|
Suggestions for improvements should be based on the
weaknesses and limitations identified in aspect 2.
|
|
|
Modifications to the experimental techniques and the
data range can be addressed here. The modifications
proposed should be realistic and clearly specified.
|
|
|
Suggestions should focus on specific pieces of
equipment or techniques you used. It is not
sufficient to state generally that more precise
equipment should be used. |
|
|
Vague comments such as “We should have worked more
carefully” are not acceptable. |
|
