The Rhetorical Analyze of Lab Reports
Andrew Jin
Professor Davidow
Abstract: A lab report is an important form of technical writing. It consists of 8 key elements title, abstract, introduction, materials and method, results, discussion, conclusion, and reference. A lab report informs the reader on a scientific experiment and supports their claim with factual evidence.
A lab report is written to describe and interpret an experiment. Lab reports must be effective at persuading the audience that your statement and results are credible. In order for a lab report to be persuasive there are six question you need to address. According to the book Technical Communication 14th edition by Mike Markel the six questions are, “Why is the topic important? What have others already learned about the subject? What remains to be learned? Why are you using this methodology as oppose to others? Why did you draw this inference as opposed to others? What should be done next?” (Markel, 2016). These six question helps build credibility in order for the audience to trust your findings. A lab report is structured in eight parts, they are: title, abstract, introduction, materials and method, results, discussion, conclusion, and reference. These components help separate different pieces of information to help guide readers. Authors sometimes stress out certain parts in their lab reports while others not as much because of their opinion. The two lab reports that I would be comparing and contrasting are “Synthesis of syntactic steel foam using mechanical pressure infiltration” by Gerhard M. Castro and Steven Nutt, and “Teaching an Electrical Circuits Course Using a Virtual Lab” by Zahidur Rahman. Both lab reports will be critic based on each component written and how effective it is at persuading.
Title
The title of a lab report should be informative to help abbreviate the topic. According to Markel he states “The title should be informative enough to enable readers to decide whether the report is interests them and should have keywords commonly used by them” (Markel, 2016). To elaborate a title should be simple and readable by the audience in order to persuade them that it is worth reading. Castro and Nutt lab report title is “Synthesis of syntactic steel foam using mechanical pressure infiltration” compared to Rahman’s title “Teaching an Electrical Circuits Course Using a Virtual Lab”. Both lab reports have informative titles as it tells the topic that they will be discussing. However in Castro and Nutt lab title it may be confusing for some readers as they don’t use simple words. The word syntactic isn’t commonly known to readers and may drive readers away. Castro and Nutt most likely chose this title because their lab report involves a complicated process that requires these terms.
Abstract
The abstract summarizes the entire report, each section is briefly explained in two or one sentences. Markel states in Technical Communication, “It should contain enough information so that your reader can quickly decide whether to locate and read the report” (Markel, 2016). This means an abstract should have just enough information to assist your reader in locating certain parts of the report. In the abstract of Castro and Nutt report it states, ”This study demonstrates a feasible synthesis method to consistently produce lab-scale foam samples with uniform distributions of microspheres and negligible unintended porosity using a simple liquid state method of infiltration” (Castro & Nutt, 2011). Rahman’s abstract states, “We explain our efforts to train our students to think as engineers, first by making them more visible and accountable in the classroom, and second, by offering them hands-on practice through the use of Multisim, a free and open source simulation software“ (Rahman, 2014). Both abstract show a small example of their introductions. Castro and Nutt explain their labs study and its importance to the method of infiltration while Rahman tells how he would train student to become engineers by opening a simulation software. Both authors formatted their abstract this way in order to help simplify a small piece of their lab. As a result, it helps persuade the audience’s interest in reading the report.
Introduction
The introduction of a lab report explains why the topic is important and includea background information. According to Technical Communication it states, “Providing enough details to help readers understand how your study contribute to new information and the purpose” (Markel, 2016). This means the introduction by helping readers understand the topic it helps relate to the purpose. The introduction in Castro and Nutt lab states, “Challenges, attempts have been made to produce steel foams from molten steel via the Gasar process, which is based on the nucleation of gas during solidification of a supersaturated steel melt”( Castro & Nutt, 2011). In comparison to Rahman’s introduction it states, “ I was surprised to find that professors primarily lectured and demonstrated solutions to problems on the blackboard, and did not provide many opportunities for the hands-on experimenting and independent problem-solving that I had experienced in Bangladesh” (Rahman, 2014). Rahman introduction helps introduce the problem which is United States professors just give lectures and write on the blackboard instead of students getting involved. Castro and Nutt introduction explain how the challenge of creating steel foams can be overcomed with a method involving solidification. Both reports show a brief description of what their topic is about and the experiment.
Materials and Method
The materials and method in a lab report describe the objects needed and process in order to perform the experiment. According to Markel he states, “Materials and method usually start with a list of objects devices, tools, or diagrams and method also includes conditions like temperature” (Markel, 2016). To elaborate materials and method are what is needed to perform and how it is going to be performed under certain conditions. In Castro and Nutt materials and method section it states “materials selected to produce the syntactic steel foams were steel and hollow alumina microspheres (Washington Mills Company). Medium carbon steel with a target composition of 0.5% C and 1.4% Si”(Castro & Nutt, 2011). In addition to the material given they also provide a diagram of the infiltration procedure (see figure 1a). However in Rahman’s lab he doesn’t give a material section but a methodology which is the same as method. The section states, “1. Using only hand calculations and hand-drawn circuit designs; and 2. Performing hand calculations, and then using Multisim to design, build, test, verify, and troubleshoot their solutions”(Rahman, 2014). In Rahman methodology it gives two separate groups to perform an experiment in order to compare later. Most likely Rahman didn’t include a material section because his experiment focused more on the method and materials varied. Whereas, Castro and Nutt gives the materials and provide an infiltration diagram. Rahman didn’t include a material section because his lab focused more on the method used rather than the materials. In addition Castro and Nutt provided a diagram for the reader because the procedure may be too complex to describe in words.
Fig. 1a. Infiltration process: (a) melting, (b) adding the microspheres, (c) initiation of the infiltration, and (d) infiltration finished.
Results and Discussion
The result portion of a lab report presents data to support your claim. The discussion explains your findings and evaluates them. According to Technical Communication it states “The results would be raw data including tables and graphs. The discussion helps interpret your result and supports or is against your hypothesis” (Markel, 2016). This means the result portion of a lab report would show data recorded from the experiment performed. In addition the discussion further explain the data and relate it to the problem in your experiment. In both Castro & Nutt and Rahman lab report they give some form of data in their results (see figure 1b for Castro and Nutt and 1c for Rahman). In the discussion section both talk about the results. According to Castro and Nutt lab they state, “Although it would be possible to produce larger samples, one challenge inherent in this method is that the steel foam samples are limited to simple geometries” (Castro & Nutt, 2011). This shows how Castro and Nutt interpret their data and conclude there are other methods that could have been used to increase foam production. In comparison to Rahman discussion he states, “Although this experiment was conducted with a small sample of 17 students, the results suggest that students do indeed benefit from the use of Multisim”(Rahman, 2014). Rahman experiment suggest his claim that multisim was partially correct as his sample size may have not been sufficient enough to fully support his claim. One difference between the two labs in this section was Rahman’s data may have had more errors since it relied on a lot of factors in order to get a specific outcome.
Figure 1b below
Figure 1c below.
| Table 1: Project score hand calculations or Multisim | Group 1 Median Score | Group 2 Median Score |
| Multisim | 91.5 | 91.5 |
| Hand Calculation Only | 88.5 | 89.0 |
| Percentage Increase | 3.4% | 2.8% |
Conclusion
A conclusion summarizes the main points presented in the lab report. In addition no new information should be presented because it may confuse the reader. It is also the last opportunity in persuading your reader. According to Castro and Nutt lab in their conclusion it states, “The most critical parameters in the manufacturing of the steel syntactic foams were the melt temperature, the preheat temperature of the microspheres prior to infiltration” (Castro & Nutt, 2011). This conclusion express the main point that steel syntactic foams manufacturing process in relation to the temperature. In comparison to Rahman conclusion it states, “ based on the results of my Spring 2013 experiment, I believe that Multisim offers a next-best solution to the problem of providing students access to realistic environments in which they can test their solutions” (Rahman, 2014). This conclusion presents Rahman main point which was multisim being beneficial to students rather than problem solving. Both conclusion were able to state out their main points clearly. Furthermore, both were able to make an attempt to make an inference based on their experiments.
Reference
The reference of a lab report list all of citation used most will appear in the introduction, method and materials. It is important to have citation because you’ll be giving credit to the people who also contributed to the topic. Furthermore, it makes you a bit more credible as you didn’t try to steal and claim all the work and plagiarize. Both Castro & Nutt and Rahman include a reference page that list sources they cited. In addition they number and alphabetized the sources as well.
The eight elements of a lab report include: title, abstract, introduction, materials and method, result, discussion, conclusion, and reference. These components each poses an important portion of the lab report to help guide readers throughout the lab. The two labs discussed were “Synthesis of syntactic steel foam using mechanical pressure infiltration” by Gerhard M. Castro and Steven Nutt, and “Teaching an Electrical Circuits Course Using a Virtual Lab” by Zahidur Rahman. After comparing and contrasting both reports in my opinion “Teaching an Electrical Circuits Course Using a Virtual Lab” by Zahidur Rahman was the better lab report. The reasons Rahman’s report did a better job than Castro and Nutt was because it was much more simple and persuasive. For example Castro and Nutt’s lab report used very complicated terms which confuses me as a reader. In addition Castro and Nutt didn’t explain those terms and assumed their audience already knew it.Castro and Nutt’s lab could have improved their work by adding a glossary to explain some of the complicated terminology used.Throughout Rahman lab it was very understandable to me as an average reader to which it was also more interesting. Even though Rahman’s lab lacked a bit in certain components, overall his lab did a better job at persuading me than the other lab report did. As a result, a lab report must be effective at persuading their audience.
Work Cite
Castro, Gerhard & Nutt, Steve. (2011, December 16). “Synthesis of syntactic steel foam using mechanical pressure infiltration” https://www-sciencedirect-com.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/science/article/pii/S0921509311014651
Markel, Mike. (2016, January 12). Technical Communication 14th edition MLA.
Rahman, Zahidur. (2014). “Teaching an Electrical Circuits Course Using a Virtual Lab”.
