EXAMPLE LAB REPORT

INTRODUCTION
AIM: 1 out of 2
The aim was correctly stated, however, it was not in the students own words and appeared to be
copied directly from the practical manual without any thought. Thus, student is only awarded 1
mark out of two.
BACKGROUND INFO + CITING: 0 out of 1
Background information was given, however, it was not succinct enough - some parts of the
background information is not highly relevant (e.g. the difference in lung lobes is not important in
regards to their aims, and so irrelevant to the introduction). The accuracy of the information is
questionable as there are no in-text references. Furthermore, the images must be labelled
correctly according to UWS Harvard style.
Total marks for introduction: 1 out of 3
MATERIALS AND METHOD
SENTENCE STRUCTURE AND TENSE: 0.5 out of 1
Although written in full sentences, the materials and method was not written in third person
passive voice, instead there was constant shifts between first and second person, making it
confusing to follow and detracting from the academic quality of the report. Furthermore, a very
informal tone was used (my buddy).
DETAILED PROCESS: 0.5 out of 2
Firstly, in the materials section, irrelevant information was included. For example, there was no
need to mention the colours and the different bags used, which detracted from the academic style
of writing. The method included, although presented in a logical order, was not in the students own
words and appears to be directly copied from the prac manual without proper sourcing to the UWS
practical manual. In addition, they did not mention any any alterations to the experiment, showing
that much detail has been excluded.
Total marks for materials and methods: 1 out of 3
RESULTS
DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS WITH REFERENCE TO TABLES/FIGURES: 0.5 out of 1
The attempt at describing the data held by the tables/graphs was evident, however, sometimes
there were unclear and not specific enough (e.g. not much difference between male, female).
Again, there was irrelevant information I was a bit puffed from running to the prac class, which
detracts from the papers academic value.
There were also attempts to discuss the results and interpret data (e.g. shows that all students are
in usual health range). This does not belong in the results section.
CORRECT LABELLING OF FIGURES/TABLES: 0 out of 1 mark
Although figures and tables were included there was no proper labelling of the figures. No titles
were used for each figure, and no proper legend was included. According to the guidelines, the

also Figures and Tables need to be named and numbered consecutively, which they have failed
to do.
CORRECT CHOICE & LABELLING OF AXIS OF GRAPHS/DATASETS: 0.5 out of 1 mark
The choice of graphs and tables used to convey their data was appropriate. However, although
there were some labels in the graphs and evidently, an attempt to label the axis of their graphs, it
was not satisfactory. The use of abbreviations, particularly those in the legend of the last figure
used was not explained (e.g. m/NA, f/A and RBR, HBR) and in the table containing the class
results for the test, no units were stated and no average was calculated, making the data difficult to
easily interpret.
Total marks for results: 1 out of 3

DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS AGAINST LITERATURE VALUE: 1 out of 1 mark
Some attempts at comparing the values obtained from the results from the textbook values, and
making deductions to show that the data obtained correlates with those in published sources. Also
some attempts at explaining the results through well-known physiological concepts (e.g. factors
influencing breaking point).

REFERENCE TO OWN DATA: 0.5 out of 1 mark

There were attempts to draw connections to the students experimental results and interpret the
data, however the this can be clearer with more explicit/direct references to the figure in which the
data can be found. For example, vague statements such as - as shown in diagram increased
slightly rather than as seen in figure ___ were used.

APPROPRIATE REFERENCING: 0.5 out of 1 mark

There were some in-text citing of content from academic papers and textbook which were
appropriate sources in terms of relevance to their data and scientific credibility. However, it was not
done properly through the UWS Harvard style of reference.
Total marks for discussion: 2 out of 3
REFERENCES
CORRECT FORMATTING: 0 out of 2 marks
In text references and referencing in reference section very inconsistent and was not done using
UWS Harvard style. Firstly, in the reference section, there was no need to categorise the different
sources into books, websites and others. The references were not listed in alphabetical order,
and the websites did not contain the appropriate information e.g. date viewed, title of article, etc.
More care also must be taken with writing text names to make sure they are spelt correctly (e.g.
phsliology).

AMOUNT AND VARIETY OF SOURCES: 1 out of 1 mark

There were more than 5 sources consulted, and so the amount of references was sufficient. There
was an appropriate variety of sources that were consulted, including textbooks, websites, and
academic papers.
Total marks for references: 1 out of 3

TOTAL MARKS FOR REPORT: 6/15