Writing Science Reports

Activities to try

1. 1

   Report studio: compose the six sections with built-in checks

   Why it works: A scientific report is not a diary of what happened; each section has a distinct job, and together they present evidence and reasoning precisely enough for others to scrutinise.

   1. Write a complete report with the conventional sections — aim, testable hypothesis, method, results, conclusion, evaluation — for an investigation you have actually run or been given full data for.
   2. Draft the method as a numbered, unambiguous procedure that states what was kept constant (controlled variables), not as a past-tense story of what you did.
   3. Build results tables and graphs with headed columns, SI units and correct significant figures throughout.
   4. Write a conclusion that quotes specific values, a gradient, or a trend from your own data and states whether it supports the hypothesis — do not merely restate the hypothesis.
   5. Write an evaluation that genuinely analyses reliability: identify anomalies, distinguish systematic from random error, and propose specific improvements.
2. 2

   The reproducibility test: hand your method to someone else

   Why it works: A report must be a set of instructions precise enough for someone else to repeat and check you. Watching a reader fail to reproduce your result because of a fuzzy sentence shows why science demands reproducible methods.

   1. Give your written method — and ONLY the written text, not your verbal explanation — to a partner (or a simulated replicator) who tries to carry out the experiment following exactly what is written.
   2. Observe where the replicator stalls, guesses, or does something different because an instruction was vague (e.g. 'heat it for a while', 'add some water').
   3. Note every point where their result diverged from yours and check whether it can be traced to an ambiguous sentence (some differences may instead come from random variation or different equipment).
   4. Rewrite each ambiguous step so a stranger would perform it identically, then have them try again.
3. 3

   Review desk: critique a flawed report against criteria

   Why it works: Peer review chiefly scrutinises method, evidence, and reasoning — whether the conclusions are actually justified — rather than spelling or formatting. Learning to spot overreach and vagueness in others' work sharpens it in your own.

   1. Read a sample report containing deliberate flaws (a vague method, an overreaching conclusion, an unsupported claim, a missing control, missing units).
   2. Mark each weakness and explain against explicit criteria why it fails — e.g. 'this conclusion claims more than the data shows', 'this method cannot be reproduced because…'.
   3. Compare a gold-standard report and a flawed one section by section, articulating what makes each section strong or weak.
   4. Suggest the specific revision each flaw requires.