The Structure of a Discussion for Chemistry or Physics
2
The structure of a discussion for chemistry is: This is an approximate guide to how to write a discussion. Individual criteria (general objectives such as KCU, IP and EC) are covered by multiple parts of your introduction, discussion and conclusion. 50% for the analysis of anomalies and trends Identify the patterns that exist in the data – i.e. graph it, describe the relationship shown, re-graph if needed/possible to verify the relationship (IP) Link back to the theory (KCU) Identify any anomalies in the data; comment on and justify the percentage difference from the mean, >10% is a problem. Compare the measured value to the expected value / trend line. (IP) Why the anomalies have occurred and why they have been removed from the analysis. o Trial results that are inconsistent with other trials o Data point on a graph appears inconsistent with the overall trend. (IP) 35% for the evaluation of the experiment, sources of error and reliability of the data Consider how reliable the data was ( how well does the trend lines represents the data) - percentage difference of data points from the trend line / accepted value, >10% is less reliable Identify the errors that occurred (measurement, systematic, random) in your experiment and what effect they had on the data (EC) 15% Identification of improvement or extension to the investigation Improvement - things that you could do to make your experiment better if it was to be repeated, generally these will be linked to the errors identified in the previous section Extensions - other phenomena that could be investigated by altering or reinventing your experiment o Explain why these things are worth doing (what relationships they will show) (EC)
description
Writing a Chemistry Discussion
Transcript of The Structure of a Discussion for Chemistry or Physics
The structure of a discussion for chemistry is:
This is an approximate guide to how to write a discussion. Individual criteria (general objectives such as KCU, IP and EC) are covered by multiple parts of your introduction, discussion and conclusion.
50% for the analysis of anomalies and trends Identify the patterns that exist in the data i.e. graph it, describe the relationship shown, re-graph if needed/possible to verify the relationship (IP) Link back to the theory (KCU) Identify any anomalies in the data; comment on and justify the percentage difference from the mean, >10% is a problem. Compare the measured value to the expected value / trend line. (IP) Why the anomalies have occurred and why they have been removed from the analysis. Trial results that are inconsistent with other trials Data point on a graph appears inconsistent with the overall trend. (IP) 35% for the evaluation of the experiment, sources of error and reliability of the data Consider how reliable the data was ( how well does the trend lines represents the data) - percentage difference of data points from the trend line / accepted value, >10% is less reliable Identify the errors that occurred (measurement, systematic, random) in your experiment and what effect they had on the data (EC)15% Identification of improvement or extension to the investigation Improvement - things that you could do to make your experiment better if it was to be repeated, generally these will be linked to the errors identified in the previous section Extensions - other phenomena that could be investigated by altering or reinventing your experiment Explain why these things are worth doing (what relationships they will show) (EC)Conclusion Only two sentences should be needed The first sentence is best structured as following When it was found that D" Like an aim - When it was found that .. By the equation The second sentence should outline whether or not the data supported the hypothesis If not, then in order to further verify the relationship found... (EC)
There is also a general KCU mark for the EEI as a whole, which may include parts of your journal. Also there is a general EC mark for communication which includes grammar, spelling, and neat, well- constructed, relevant tables and graphs.
