Discussion This is where you discuss and give meaning to the results. You shou...
✅ Перевірена відповідь на це питання доступна нижче. Наші рішення, перевірені спільнотою, допомагають краще зрозуміти матеріал.
Discussion
This is where you discuss and give meaning to the results. You should also detail any experimental errors and make any other relevant comments about the experiment. Include possible improvements. Ensure you are not re-stating the method.
Discussion points to consider: (Note: The points below are not intended as questions! They are here to give guidance on what to include in your discussion. Do not simply list answers - incorporate them into a full discussion.)
- Relate results back to the aim and introduction of the experiment – what was trying to be done, did the results support the aim of the experiment?
- Discuss the yield. Are there alternative reaction pathways which could improve the expected yields? What are they?
- Discuss the chemistry behind the colour changes, and relate this to the actual transformations of copper throughout the experiment.
- What factors may have affected the final result? What are some sources of error that may have been encountered, and how would they have impacted on the results?
- If you actually wanted to achieve copper at the end (for example, if you had an ore that you were extracting), would this be a suitable method? Why/why not?
Discussion marking rubric:
| 0 | 1 | 2 |
Relates results to aims. | Interpretation of results not related back to original experimental aims. | Results partially related back to original experimental aims. | Key results interpreted in relation to experimental aims. |
Discussion and interpretation of results. | No interpretation or comparison of results is made. No discussion points are addressed. | Some interpretation or comparison of results is made. Some discussion points are addressed. | Key findings are summarised. Results are interpreted. Results are compared to expected/predicted values. All discussion points are addressed. |
Actual data used to validate statements. | No experimental data used to justify scientific statements/claims. Multiple scientific errors are present. | Some experimental data used to justify scientific statements/claims. Some scientific errors are present. | Experimental data used to justify all scientific statements/claims. The science is correct. |
Factors affecting results discussed. | No errors were raised or were only non-scientific/experimental errors raised. | Only some errors raised or several non-scientific/experimental errors were raised. The impact of the errors was not discussed. | Multiple errors/factors are raised and are scientific/experimental in nature (i.e. NOT human error). The impact of the errors was discussed. |
Writing Style | Many grammatical/spelling/scientific writing errors were noted, and/or discussion was over 330 words in length. | Some grammatical/spelling/scientific writing errors were noted. | The discussion was free of grammatical and spelling errors, was written in the past tense, used full sentences and a passive voice, and was within 300 words. |
Word limit: 300 words (+/- 10 %)
For guidance on writing a meaningful discussion, please refer to the following resources:
- SoC: Undergraduate Student Handbook
- RLO: Writing a Science Lab Report
- RLO: Writing for Assignments
Хочете миттєвий доступ до всіх перевірених відповідей на learning.monash.edu?
Отримайте необмежений доступ до відповідей на екзаменаційні питання - встановіть розширення Crowdly зараз!