EEB162 Lab Report Guidelines and grading

 

Note: Although you work in groups during lab, your reports must be completed individually and present original work.  Feel free to discuss the subject matter with each other, but your answers must be individual and original. Any suspected cases of plagiarism will be sent to the Dean for investigation. Please refer to the lab syllabus on Academic Dishonesty for more information.

 

Formatting & Structure(2 points overall)

2 pages MAX (not including references, tables and figures)

single, 1.5, or double-spaced

12 pt standard font (e.g. Times New Roman)

Standard 1” side margins

1-inch margins; 12-pt font (1 point for all above)

Write clearly, simply, and consistently in the first person/active voice and past tense (1 point)

 

Structure each section like a mini-essay with a logical flow of ideas, topic and concluding sentences. Link ideas across sections, especially between your introduction and discussion.  The ability to clearly and effectively communicate ideas is critical to success in all fields. Therefore, spelling, grammar, punctuation, sentence and paragraph structure and vocabulary all play an important role. If I can’t understand what you’re saying, I can’t evaluate whether you understand the material and your grade will reflect this.

 

Title (0.5 point)

Should be succinct and pique the reader’s interest. From the title I should be able to tell what the report is about.  Not “Week 2 lab report”. Look at published papers to get ideas. What do you find works best to convey the general idea of the paper in a short sentence?

 

Authors(0.5 point)

The person writing the report should be the first author; the rest of your group should be listed as co-authors. If you want you can put the authors in order of their level of contribution. Was there a leader in your group? If so, give them second author (unless the leader was you because you’re 1st.

 

Introduction(4 points total)

Briefly describe the broader context for what we were doing in lab. Start general then be more specific. What is the overall significance? What is the general background for the study? What is the current theory? (1 point) Why might it be important/interesting to know about this subject? (1 point) Find information outside the lab manual and be sure to cite it correctly. (1 point) What is the specific hypothesis you tested andwhat is your expected outcome? (1 point) You can have more than one hypothesis. Expect to have to spend some time searching for information (look up papers and read the textbook) so you will understand the big picture of what we are doing in the lab .For example, why were we comparing transpiration rates of plants under different conditions? What hypotheses and predictions did we test? Please do not answer questions or discuss methods/results here though.

 

Methods(1 point)

As described in lab manual. Be brief.Include pertinent methods info that was different from or not included in the lab manual (1 point), and refer to the lab manual for everything else.  For example, how did you calculate stomatal density? What objective did you use? How did you obtain the plant material for analysis? This section should be the shortest.

 

Results(3 points total)

Clearly and concisely summarize your results (1 point). Present relevant quantitative data (e.g. stomatal size, density, leaf length) and qualitative observations where appropriate, but do not interpret your results here (that is for the discussion).  You can use figures, diagrams and tables to help present your findings (often a good idea!), but results must still be presented in prose.  And it should go without saying, if you take images from another source, please properly cite and reference them in your report.

Pointing out the most relevantresults illustrated in tables and figures with captions (1 point).Refer to tables and figures at the appropriate place in the text (1 point). Tables and figures can be added to the end of the paper and are not included in the page limit. Captions for tables should be placed above the table and captions for figures go below it. Captions should be brief but allow the table or figure to be understood without reference to the text in the paper.

 

Discussion(8 points total)

This part takes some serious thinking. Start by asking yourself “What did I find out from doing this experiment?”. Then think about what you have learned from lecture, the textbook, websites, and reading published studies. Spend some time doing some more searching to fill out your understanding. Use this knowledge to formulate an explanation of the results of your experiment. Use your sources of information along with your data to support your explanation. Discuss your interpretations of results and answer questions from the lab manual and any additional questions assigned.  If you laid out hypotheses and predictions in your intro, were these supported? Why or why not?  Were there any deviations from or problems with the methods that could have contributed to these results? Based on your results and your knowledge, what is your main conclusion? Focus on the most important/ interesting/relevant finding.  Throughout the rest of the discussion you should developan argument to support your conclusion. Use the results we found and the results found in other studies to justify your argument. However, you should also write about alternative explanations. What are the implications of your conclusion? In other words, what do our results teach us about plant physiology? Did you find the results that you predicted in your introduction? Explain why or why not but don’t just blame and say we made mistakes. There may be a more interesting biological explanation.Are our results different or similar to what other scientists have found in similar studies? Be sure to cite these studies properly.In addition, include at least one suggestion for future studies. For example, how could we design a better study to investigate whether stomatal size scales with leaf size?  What about studying the effects of low light on seedling growth without confounding effects of temperature?  Please go further than simple methods changes and suggest something that will help us better address an important question in plant physiology!By the time I finish reading the discussion I should be able to tell how well you understand the subject of the study. (Conclusion 1 point, Implications 1 point, Predictions supported and why or why not 1 point, Results similar or different to other studies+ explanation 1 point, Properly cited 1 point, Further research 1 point, Good understanding (1 point), and at least two citations (1 points).Citing and referencing ANY information that is not widely known and/or is taken from another source (website, text, lectures) is required. Youmust cite in the text at leasttwo  references from peer reviewed journals (the lab manual, books and websites can be used but do not count as peer reviewed references). This week’s reading is OK. Web of Science is a good search engine (http://apps.isiknowledge.com).

 

References (1 points total)

This section must be in the format of the journal Plant Physiology:

Cite all references in text by last names and year of publication. Grouped text citations should be arranged from the earliest to most recent year, alphabetized by name within the same year. For entries in “Literature Cited,” alphabetize by first author’s last name and follow the styles below exactly for capitalization, punctuation, and order of elements.

Journal articles: Author AB,Author BB (1977) Title of article. Plant Physiol59: 45–59

Book articles: Author AB,AuthorBB,Author CC (1974) Title of article. In A Smith, B Jones, eds, Title of Book, Ed 2 Vol 3. Publisher, City, pp 14–19

Theses: Author BC (1974) Title of thesis. PhD thesis. University, City

Online: Author A (year of publication) Title. Source Title, http://www.utopia.com/talent/lpb/muddex/essay

Patent: Author B,Author BC, inventors. January 1, 1997. Endogenous nonstarch polysaccharide hydrolyzing enzymes.European Patent Application No. XXX

No Authors or Editors: Title of Booklet, Pamphlet, etc. (1975) Publisher (or Company), City

If you are citing an article that only exists as an early online version, including the PubMed ID (PMID) number will allow reviewers to link directly to the article. At the bottom of the PubMed record for the article, you will find the PMID number which you should include in the reference as follows:

Author AB,Author BB (2006) Title of article. PMID: 16723506

Write out in full all one-word journal titles. Use the BIOSIS List of Serials for abbreviations of multiple-word journal titles; write out in full the names of journals not listed there. Unpublished data (submitted articles and articles in preparation) and personal communications are not acceptable as literature citations, so they must be referred to parenthetically in the text. Please include initials and last names of all authors. Articles that are “in press” may be so designated in “Literature Cited.” Note: An article may be referred to as “in press” only if it has been accepted for publication; cite the journal in which the article will appear. For personal communications, it is the corresponding author’s responsibility to ensure that those cited are aware of the citation and have approved the content of the personal communication.