Paper Authors

Abstract

NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract

Figure 1: Criteria for Peer Review of UO Lab Reports Although three different types of reports are written for each laboratory experiment, several of the most important criteria are common to all. The major difference among the reports relates to the amount of detail that should be presented. For example, the formal report should have a section detailing the theory and experimental setup. On the other hand, the memo report should concentrate almost exclusively on the important findings, results and conclusions.

As you evaluate one another’s reports, comment specifically on the following topics. Make comments directly on the draft, and summarize your comments on a separate page. This page should be turned in along with the original, marked up draft by the writer of the paper. In addition, the writer should briefly describe how the reviewer’s comments were incorporated into the final draft. Introduction Each type of report should contain an introduction. In the memo report this may just be a few sentences of the opening paragraph. In the formal report, this will likely be an entire section that includes an extensive discussion of the underlying theory. In all cases, the introduction should contain the objectives of the experiment and, hence, this report. • What is the paper is about? • What are the objectives (purpose)? • Are the objectives identified in the opening paragraph? • Comment on the clarity and conciseness of this section.

Results and Discussion This section requires that graphical information (tables, graphs, charts) be combined with text. The results should be presented in an easy to understand manner (e.g., tables and graphs), and they should be described in the text so that a reader can readily understand what the data represent. In all cases measured values should be clearly differentiated from calculated values. Units should always be included.

When discussing the results, the writer should direct the reader to interesting trends that the data show. The writer should not assume that the reader can look at a graph and instantly interpret the results. The emphasis should be on what the results mean. If appropriate, comparison with literature values or theoretical values can be made. When making a comparison, be realistic – the writer’s credibility suffers when stating that data matches theory when it really does not. • What data was collected? • What does the data mean and what general trend does it shows? • Are visual aids (tables and graphs) clear, easy to read, and properly labeled? • Is each visual aid adequately discussed in the text? • Comment on the clarity and conciseness of this section. Conclusions and Recommendations This section should follow logically from the discussion of results. No new ideas should be introduced here without being introduced during the discussion of the results. The conclusions should relate to the objectives of the experiment and the purpose of the report. Recommendations may indicate additional work that could be done to test hypotheses that were developed through analyzing the data or may indicate ways in which the experiment can be improved. • What are the conclusions and do they directly address the objectives? • Are all the objectives addressed? • Do all the ideas in this section flow logically from the discussion of results? • Comment on the clarity and conciseness of this section.

Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exhibition Copyright © 2004, American Society for Engineering Education

• Citation

• Format
  • APA
  • APA - LaTeX bibitem
  • MLA
  • MLA - LaTeX bibitem
  • Bibtex
  • EndNote - RIS

Miller, D., & Williams, J. (2004, June), Incorporating Peer Review Into The Che Laboratory Paper presented at 2004 Annual Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah. 10.18260/1-2--13191