From being a student conducting a chemistry experiment to a researcher testing his theory, Lab reports are essential. There is a way to communicate their findings in a structured way. Even though not all reports look the same, most have the eight basic elements. I intend to compare and contrast the elements from two different lab reports.
The first element would be title; it can be a differentiating factor for someone passing over your lab report. Lab report A’s title is “Graphite based semi-conductive 3d printing filament” (Mann,2019, Page 17), and Lab report B’s title is “Low back pain (LBP) incidence, Ergonomics risk and workers characteristics in Relation to LBP in Electronics Assembly Manufacturing” (Chaiklieng & Suggaravetsiri,2020, Page 183). There is a significant size difference between the titles; lab report B’s title has more information and is specific. Being more informative will help to save time for the reader.
The next element I’ll be looking at is the abstract. A well-written abstract summarizing the entire report. Both reports summarize their experiment in their abstract. The abstract in lab report A mostly touches on its introduction and conclusion. By stating, “With 3D printable materials becoming more relevant in materials construction, the development of a 3D printable transistor would be an invaluable invention.” (Mann,2019, Page 17), which establishes the importance of the report. And Lab report B, the author goes explicitly over each element. For example, Chaiklieng & Suggaravetsiri (2020) state methods before summarizing their steps (Page 183). Also, bolding each separate part allows the reader to find the information they are looking for. Another difference is that they also included some of the research data they have gathered throughout the experiment, such as “Work experience less than three years (RR = 1.41; 95% CI: 1.031.90) and chronic diseases (RR = 1.41; 95% CI: 1.091.82) were significantly correlated with LBP incidence.” ( Chaiklieng & Suggaravetsiri,2020, Page 183).
A good introduction in a lab report can describe their hypothesis and why this is significant. Also, to inform the reader of any specialized knowledge to understand the information. Both of these reports satisfy these conditions. Mann (2019) does a great job explaining the use of semi-conductive 3d printing filament to create parts in space (Page 17). And stating, “If astronauts could create any parts or devices they need in space, the need to
bring extra parts would disappear” (Mann,2019, Page 17), showing the importance that the experiment has. Also, he explains the unique subatomic structure silicon and graphite has so that the reader can understand why graphite can be a suitable semiconductive material. Lab B also supplied background information, such as “Recent research among workers in one electronics industry in Thailand, showed a high prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) including lower back pain. The highest severity of pain was reported in the following three anatomical areas, i.e. lower back, upper back, and shoulder.” (Chaiklieng & Suggaravetsiri,2020, Page 183).
Since these two reports are very different, their methods to conduct the experiment also vary. Just like the title, the length of lab report B is significantly longer than A. Adding additional elements such as data collection, participants, and data analysis. At the same time, lab report B had elements such as experimental design and measurements/calculations. This is different because of the type of experiment we are looking at. Lab report B focuses more on data acquired by face-to-face interviews using a questionnaire (Chaiklieng & Suggaravetsiri,2020, Page 184). While lab reports A created filament using graphite and PLA, then tested it for conductivity. Also, with the nature of the experiment, lab report A supplied multiple figures to illustrate the subatomic structure of a silicon atom and the diagram of the filament extruder. This is to give the reader a visual of the experiment. The structure of methods can drastically change due to the subject of the experiment.
As Mike Markel states in Technical communications (2017), “Think of the results section as an opportunity to present the evidence, you will use to support the claims you will make in your discussion.”(page 520). They both present many different forms of evidence to support their hypothesis. Lab Report B broke down their section into sections. The first section used was “personal factors and work stress of cohort group” ( Chaiklieng & Suggaravetsiri,2020, Page 185). This shows the unique characteristics of the demographic such as “Most (88.3%) of the 196 electronic workers were female with a mean age of 26.5 ± 5.0 years, and 54.1% were single.” ( Chaiklieng & Suggaravetsiri,2020, Page 185). Then came the Ergonomic risk, which primality focuses on the environment the subjects were in. Separating their results into different categories helps the reader not get confused with the abundance of information. Unlike lab report B, lab report A keeps everything in the same body. This is because the info relies on one another. Another difference is that Mann documented all of the formulas he used, which allows the reader to perform all of the calculations themself. After every data table, Mann explained the data, just like in the methods section. This is because there is such information that cannot be in a table format, such as “Although the 2:3 ratio produced conductive filament it did not create it in a consistent manner. It also caused the extruder to clog with graphite.” (Mann,2019, Page 18). Mann included figures to act as a visual aid like in the methods.
Following after results would be a discussion, where to explain the significance of the experiment results. Each lab report was able to discuss their results to satisfy the requirements. Lab report A said that “The results show that semi-conductive graphite filaments are possible.” (Mann,2019, Page 20), which does verify his idea. After that, he mentions his issues with the experiment, like “the filament can only be made in short bursts. Usually the extruder ends up clogging, which stops the filament from being made.” (Mann,2019, Page 20). Authors need to be ethical with their findings. The main difference was that in lab report B, use the first part of the discussion to focus on the data from the results section and compare it to another lab report. For example, they compare the highest incidence of LBP of electronic workers to office workers in Thailand (Chaiklieng & Suggaravetsiri,2020, Page 186). This shows the reader that similar studies are being conducted.
The following section would be the conclusion; it is a way for the author to summarize the report’s main points. Lab report A mentions that the results section shows the difficulties of using graphite to make semi-conductive filament (Mann,2019, Page 20). And then goes on to say that it is possible to create consistent results. By saying this, he is showing the reader that his hypothesis has merits. Lab report B’s conclusion was focused on different factors. In the first part, they stated that “This paper provided a baseline measurement of lighting intensity, work stress, and ergonomics risk before investigating a prospective cohort for the incidence of LBP.” ( Chaiklieng & Suggaravetsiri,2020, Page 186). And in the introduction, this was one of the things they wanted to document. By doing this, they successfully achieve one of the goals they set for themselves in the introduction. Another goal that was mentioned was that “The results provided an indication of health hazards from unacceptable posture risk and contrast of lighting between the high intensity” (Chaiklieng & Suggaravetsiri,2020, Page 186). This statement gives the resolution to the title, which is are an essential aspect of a conclusion.
The last two parts of a standard lab report are acknowledgments and references. An acknowledgments element is to acknowledge any assistance from any colleagues while writing in the paper. While lab report B does not have an acknowledgment section, lab report A does. In the area, Mann acknowledges his advisor and editor. On another note, both reports do have a References section. This is usually due to both authors citing multiple materials in their reports.
As we can see, even though both lab reports don’t look the same, it was pretty easy to locate the information that you wanted. This is one of the reasons why a lab report format is essential to the scientific community. Even though both of these reports followed very closely to this format, there were times when they deviated. The reason for the deviation is the nature of the experiment. Such as, in lab report B, adding subcategories to the Results assist in organizing the data they have collected.
References
Chaiklieng, S., & Suggaravetsiri, P. (2020). Low Back Pain (LBP) incidence, ergonomics risk and workers’ characteristics in relations to LBP in electronics assembly manufacturing. Indian Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine, 24(3), 183–187.
Mann, M. (2019). Graphite Based Semi-Conductive 3D Printing Filament. Columbia Undergraduate Science Journal, 13, 17–20.
Markel, M. H., & Selber, S. A. (2018). Technical communication. Macmillan Education/Bedford/St. Martin’s.
This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
