comparing multiple lab reports, highlighting strengths and weaknesses based under certain guidelines.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Yosef Zidell 1
Prof. Rodwell
Writing for Engineers
September 23, 2019
Analyzing the Differences and Similarities in Psychology based Lab Reports
For this assignment, I chose three lab reports in order to analyze. Each report was based on an experiment related to psychology. The reports I analyzed were Mental Performance In Noise: The Role of Introversion, Task Performance And Response To Frustration In Children With Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and Performance Of Heavy Marijuana- Smoking Adolescents on a Laboratory Measure on Motivation. the first report regarded Introverts and Extraverts, the second regarded children with ADHD, and the third about Marijuana users, with each report testing the task completion ability of its subjects. For the remainder of this paper, I will refer to these reports as Lab A, Lab B, and Lab C, respectfully. Each Lab report was structured under certain guidelines, which I evaluated using the information in Chapter 18 in “Technical Communications” by Mike Markel. During this evaluation, I analyzed both the structure of the lab reports and the content chosen for each section. In each report, there were clear distinctions in what was prioritized and what wasn’t. Some reports had weaknesses that were clearly highlighted by the others’ strengths in the same area, and vice versa, which was an extremely useful tool in the analyzation process. In order to effectively go through my overall analysis, I will evaluate each element of the Lab report in the order which it appears: Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion. During the analyzation of each of these sections, I will emphasis both the shortcomings and the strong points of each section in each report.
The title of a proper lab report needs to be informative and use generic language for a broad audience. Each of the three lab reports had titles which fulfilled this task. The language used in the titles should be kept very generic and allow the reader to know what the report would be about. Lab B fell short in this regard, as the title suggests the study was focused on Introversion specifically, when the report showed no such implication (both introverts and extraverts were equally important). Regarding the Abstract section, each report was meant to summarize the report, state what was discovered and concluded, and mention the motivation behind the study. Every report properly summarized their respective studies without going into excessive detail, yet only Lab C seemed to give any emphasis on the motivation factor involved in the study, opening the Abstract stating that “little research exists” regarding the topic (Scott D. Lane, 2005). Lab A was the only report to include statistics in its Abstract, going into detail regarding the results of the experiment data (G. Belojovic, 2001), which didn’t seem necessary for the purpose of the section. The Introduction section is where the three reports really begin to show their differences in layout and content selection. The introduction of a proper lab report is supposed to establish the significance and relevance of the work conducted in the experiment. This includes introducing a convincing hypothesis and stating previous studies to either logically support or argue against. Lab A set up its introduction by stating vague background information regarding mental performance in loud areas, and then introduced the intro-extroversion aspect, suggesting other studies that correlated the two before ending the section. Besides not even clearly stating a hypothesis, Lab A’s Introduction wasn’t impressive in the slightest, as the content seemed more scattered than being building blocks for each other. For instance, Lab A begins by vaguely mentioning the factors which influence mental processing, and then quickly transitions into the lack of findings regarding that concept (G. Belojovic, 2001). It would have been more effective to elaborate more on the influential factors, as well as their significance, and then mention the lack in findings in order to convince the audience of the Lab’s importance. On the contrary, Lab B and Lab C both stated a clear hypothesis, showcased strong flow in their structure, and gave the section a real identity. For instance, Lab C first introduced the detriment of marijuana on cognitive function, and then addressed the importance of applying that knowledge to teenagers and young adults, unlike Lab A which did not mention the importance of its respective correlation (Scott D. Lane, 2005). Similarly, Lab B started by explaining the effects of ADHD and why its important to analyze its effects outside the classroom, which brings validity to the significance of the study conducted (Melinda Scime, 2006). All three lab reports mentioned other studies in their introduction section, Lab A and Lab B using the studies as support while Lab C used the studies to prove there was a lacking in the topic at hand. A huge shortcoming in Lab C’s introduction section was its failure to explain crucial terms, specifically the “work vs non-work” options associated with the experiment. This concept of “work vs. non-work” was the very foundation for the experiment, as it was the means by which the subjects collected incentives and thus showcasing their motivation levels (Scott D. Lane, 2005). To mention this concept in the introduction as well as giving clear significance to it, yet not elaborating at all, left more confusion than curiosity. To its credit, Lab C was the only report to mention the methods used here, and it even chose to dedicate a part of the section to discuss the process the researchers went through in order to determine which methods to use, which made for an excellent transition into the Methods section.
The Methods and Results sections of a Lab report are meant to be more informative than the other sections of the report. In the Methods section, the goal is to give enough detail about the experiment in order to allow others to replicate it. Each report gave a nicely detailed account of how their respective experiments were conducted and how the process looked like. Lab A, for example, was by far the most condensed of the three reports yet gave an accurate structure to this section. it started with how the subjects were labeled introverts or extraverts, how concentration levels were determined, and what materials were used to evaluate the subjects. Both Lab B and Lab C gave considerable amount of detail regarding the subjects used, such as gender, age, ethnicity, etc. Lab A needed to improve in this area and gives very little hope for a future research group to conduct a similar study based on the lack of information regarding the subjects. Another noticeable lacking in Lab A was its vagueness in explaining what the experiment was, dedicating a few lines while Lab B and Lab C used at least an entire paragraph. Because these were psycho-analytic studies, the findings in these experiments were heavily reliant on scales, surveys, and tests. Each report provided ample detail regarding what medium was used to test their subjects and what was used to analyze the data, such as ANOVA, CPRS, and ANCOVA. One concern was found in Lab B regarding the data collection, as it included a survey from the children about how they felt after the task and allowed for very vague and unclear answers. This point didn’t seem to be a beneficial addition to the experiment and the researchers seemed to be attempting to push its significance too much. Regarding the Results section of the report, each report relayed the important data found, relative to the hypothesis. Although each report presented their data, only Lab C gave a chart which visualized the crucial trends in the findings. It is important to note that the results section should be strictly about the data found in the experiment and not the researcher’s interpretation. Lab B disregarded this, as it interpreted its data multiple times, stating that “children with ADHD were just as likely as children without ADHD to report appropriate ways of identifying frustration”. Statements like these should be saved for the discussion section.
A common trend in the reports was to combine the Discussion and Conclusion into one section. Only Lab A split them into different sections, which is possibly the only positive that lab report had over the other two. During the discussion, the lab reports are meant to interpret the results and provide explanations for important findings, and each report varied in that approach. Lab A started off by generalizing the data, and then used other studies to support the validity of its findings. It mentions the importance of its findings, suggesting its effect in the workplace, but fails to expound more on that thought. For instance, it states that because of the results and its interpretation, “introversion may be regarded as a risk factor for work in noisy environments” (G. Belojovic, 2001). It could have continued this thought by suggesting precisely how it’s a risk factor, such as its effect on employee efficiency and focus, perhaps even bringing in statistics to show its effect in the workplace. However, despite the potential to expound, Lab A disappointingly delivers it as an extra thought rather than a critical point. Lab C delivers the interpretation of its data, and then spends a significant amount of time debunking the study’s own validity due to the neglect of certain factors , such as levels of marijuana use, using money as a reinforcer, etc. (Scott D. Lane, 2005). Although it was the only report to give importance to the study’s shortcomings, Lab C was very unbalanced as it didn’t dwell on the implications of its findings. Instead of describing how the findings are affecting real world situations, and how we could alter our current standards (like Lab B), it chose to not venture past the direct data implications which was quite disappointing. Lab B interprets the data effectively as well and, opposite of Lab C, spends an impressive amount time emphasizing the importance of the findings, giving bold follow-up statements such as teacher’s flawed grading criteria (Melinda Scime, 2006). Lab B also offers proper explanations for its findings, suggesting emotional competence to be an overlooked factor in task completion among ADHD children (Melinda Scime, 2006). This type of explanation is what is expected in this section, and unfortunately Lab A and Lab C seemed to disregard this. Excluding Lab, A, the conclusions of each report were hard to analyze due to the combination of sections. The conclusion section of a lab report is meant to summarize the entire report, yet each of the three reports showed trouble doing this as they all failed to restate the driving force behind the experiment. Lab A was the only one to mention anything prior to the findings, yet it still lacked a proper summary. Nonetheless, a proper conclusion is meant to convince the reader that the work done was important, and each report dedicated the time to do that.
Analyzing these reports meant understanding that each report was meant to follow a specific list of guidelines. Using the Lab Report section in “Technical Communications” by Mike Markel gave a solid foundation for this analysis. Looking at the overall evaluation, each report had clear vulnerabilities and strong points. Lab A lacked clear motivation, proper subject description, and emphasis on data importance but was strong in its structure (meaning although it lacked certain points, the overall structure was well organized in that the sections didn’t overlap in purpose). Lab B lacked a little in its structure, but was very strong in its hypothesis and motivation, Methods description, other study comparisons, and data importance. Lab C lacked terminology description in the proper places, as well as broader implications to its findings, but was nonetheless very strong in its motivation and convincing the reader that report was important from start to finish.
References
G. Belojovic, V. S. (2001). Mental Performance In Noise: The Role of Introversion. Journal of Enviremental Psychology.
Melinda Scime, J. M. (2006). Task Performance And Response To Frustration In Children With Attention Defecit Hyperactivity Disorder. Wiley Periodicals Inc,.
Scott D. Lane, D. R. (2005). Performance of heavy marijuana-smoking adolecents on a laboratory measure of motivation. Elsevier.
