Hierarchical Checklist for Evaluating Lab Reports

Lab reports are expected to conform to established guidelines for scientific paper format and general writing, as outlined below. Lab reports will be evaluated using the hierarchical checklists below, proceeding through each section from highest to lowest priority. If a section is considered unsatisfactory, the evaluation will be stopped at that point and the report will be returned with comments for those sections examined.

Also review the "Checklist for the Final Draft of Your Research Report" in Pechenik's A Short Guide to Writing about Biology, 4/E (pp. 230-232).

Format Guidelines for a Scientific Paper (Largely adapted from Pechenik, 2001)

General Writing Guidelines
(Largely adapted from Lindeman, 1995)

Priority 1. The Results section is well-prepared. (Pechenik, 2001, pp. 171-207)

  • Data is clearly presented in properly prepared tables and figures.
  • The text of this section highlights important features of the data, referring to tables and figures for support.

 

Priority A. The writing is clearly organized and relevant. (Lindeman, 1995, p. 123)

  • There is a perceivable order within each section.
  • No important details have been omitted; no irrelevant information is included.
  • Each paragraph clearly indicates where your ideas are moving and develops and completes the idea introduced.

Priority 2. The Discussion section is well-prepared. (Pechenik, 2001, pp. 207-216)

The results are interpreted in the context of the original questions (see below):

  • For each question, expected results (based on null hypothesis) are stated and explained.
  • The observed results are compared to the expected results.
  • If different, likely explanations are presented.

Priority 3. The Introduction section is well-prepared. (Pechenik, 2001, pp. 216-223)

  • The objectives of the study -- the questions investigated -- are clearly stated (at the end of the Introduction section).
  • The objective statement is preceded by the background information needed to understand the significance of the research questions.

Priority B. Sentence structure, language, and grammar are appropriate. (Lindeman, 1995, p. 123)

  • Sentences have appropriate rhythm and patterns.
  • Suitable language is used, free of cliches and jargon.
  • Conventions of grammar and spelling are followed.

Priority 4. Other elements are well-prepared.

  • Title (Pechenik, 2001, pp. 223-225)
  • Abstract (Pechenik, 2001, pp. 225-226)
  • Materials and Methods section (Pechenik, 2001, pp. 165-171)
    • Refer to previously published procedures, including lab manual.
    • Note any significant changes to protocol.
  • Sources are cited using proper format (author, year) and listed in Literature Cited Section (Pechenik, 2001, pp. 70-79)
  • Acknowledgments section (Pechenik, 2001, pp. 226)

Literature Cited:

Lindemann, E.1995. A Rhetoric for Writing Teachers, 3rd ed. Oxford University Press, NY.

Pechenik, J. 2001. A Short Guide to Writing about Biology, 4th ed. Addison-Wesley-Longman, NY.

Return to the Bio 220 Home Page

William R. Morgan; wmorgan@acs.wooster.edu