Comparing Lab Report One and Lab Report Two

Lab reports are typically written in a formulaic manner which is summarized by the textbook Technical Communication by Mike Markel as the eight basic elements of a lab report. These elements are the title, abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, conclusion, and references (Markel, 2017). Two lab reports will be compared to each other and analyzed with these elements in mind. There will be an emphasis on how well the lab reports follow the format given in the textbook as well as analyzing why the authors chose to either follow the format or go against it.

Comparing Titles

The first lab report that will be examined is titled, “communities in parks for climate control and recreation—A case study in Shanghai, China” (Li, Z., et al, 2018, p.1), it will be referred to as lab report one and by its author Li. This title is long, descriptive, and includes a lot of keywords that reflect the main idea of the lab report making it a very effective title. It specifies where the case study is performed which is a specific detail that also adds to its effectiveness. The second lab report that will be analyzed is titled, “TECHNO-ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL OPTIMIZATION OF HEAT SUPPLY SYSTEMS IN URBAN AREAS” (Shesho, I., et al, 2018. p.1), this will be referred to as lab report two and via its author Shesho. This lab report also has a long descriptive title although it was less descriptive than lab report one because lab report one specifies the urban area whereas lab report two just says urban area. It’s important to note here as well that lab report two’s title is fully capitalized. This was probably designed this way to make the title stand out.  

Comparing Abstracts

The abstract in lab report one was clearly labeled, “Abstract” (Li, Z., et al, 2018, p.1). Lab report one has an informative abstract format because it includes the major findings of the study in the abstract and mirrors the format of the paper. These aspects of the format allow the information in the lab report to be quickly accessible to the reader which is why Li presumably chose to do it this way. 

Lab report two does not have the abstract labeled, however, it is in a different format, and it is assumed that it is abstract. The abstract seems to follow what the textbook called a descriptive abstract format, which is less popular because it doesn’t include the major findings of the study, which makes it harder for the reader to find the information they need quickly to determine if it is what they are looking for (Shesho, I., et al, 2018. p.1). Below the abstract, it has keywords listed underneath it, which was interesting because according to the textbook, keywords are typically included in the titles and aren’t listed in that format (Markel, 2017). “Keywords: energy efficiency, heating, building, sustainability, air pollution” (Shesho, I., et al, 2018. p.1). If they need to list the keywords, then the title most likely doesn’t include enough of them. This could have been chosen by Shesho to make the title more concise and include more keywords separately to make up for the fact that the abstract and title weren’t informative enough. Although this could be the case, another probably more likely scenario is that this lab report is of a different format that expects there to be a keyword section. Lab reports are almost always formulaic in the sense that regardless of if it is a necessary component or not, the lab report will follow the typical format which here the typical format for this lab report includes a keyword section below the abstract.

Comparing Introductions

Li’s introduction is clearly labeled, “Introduction” (Li, Z., et al, 2018, p.2), and starts off with why their study is relevant. This format follows that of the textbook and is effective at explaining the relevance of their study and what makes their study stand out from similar ones performed in their field. Lab report one also includes their ethics statement here which is interesting because in the textbook the ethics statement is in the methods section (Shesho, I., et al, 2018. p.1). This was probably formatted this way to establish credibility for the author earlier in the paper.

Shesho’s introduction is clearly labeled, “Introduction” (Shesho, I., et al, 2018. p.1). They also include a persuasive start by using eye-catching statistical data to convey the importance of the study in question, “Every year, over 40% of the total energy consumed in Europe…” (Shesho, I., et al, 2018. p.1). They state the purpose of their study and why it’s relevant to their field which are important aspects of introductions according to Markel (Markel, 2017). Unlike Li’s lab report, lab report two does not include a clearly labeled ethics statement anywhere in the lab report.

Comparing Materials and Methods

Li includes a clearly labeled materials and methods section, “Materials and methods” (Li, Z., et al, 2018, p.1). The textbook references that the difference between a regular research paper and a lab report is that lab reports almost always contain a physical study. Li includes a study in the material and methods section which is why it is a lab report and not a research paper. This section explains why the study site was chosen and clarifies the reasons why they performed the study the way they did. Li also includes a data analysis section that explains how they analyzed the data they collected. They also include a general summary of the fieldwork of the study and explain to the reader the information they need to know. The textbook explains that you should expect your readers to be unfamiliar with the topic which is why Li including an explanation of what the reader needs to know to understand this section is a good thing (Markel, 2017).

Shesho also includes a methods section titled, “Methodology” (Shesho, I., et al, 2018. p.4), instead of Materials and Methods like the textbook. They also include an important explanation of the parameters, “It is important to emphasize that the input parameters of this model can be adopted for the whole area of the considered city/urban area, but more reliable results will be obtained if the considered urban area is divided into parts with identical urban settlement.” (Shesho, I., et al, 2018. p.4). This part includes why they chose the methods they did and explained how it could be applied and how it would be better to apply it. Shesho also included a title for the start of the physical study, “Case study: The city of Skopje” (Shesho, I., et al, 2018. p.6). Li doesn’t label the study the same way. The reason Shesho did this is that they probably wanted to be clear that this is a lab report and to help the reader find the study quickly.

Comparing Results and Discussion

Lab report one has a clearly labeled results section, “Results” (Li, Z., et al, 2018, p.10). In the discussion section, it had a clear way of referencing their results, “Based on the field investigation, vegetation densities in plant communities were identified and categorized (Table 1, Fig 3).” (Li, Z., et al, 2018, p.4). They have their data clearly referenced and have the blue font hyperlinked in the report. The way Li words this section is also very beneficial to the reader because by explaining their data as well as referencing it really helps to make sure the reader understands the data presented. This section also includes several subtitles to make the results much easier to digest. Li probably did this is to make their data easier to find and comprehend.

Shesho has the lab results section and the discussion section combined which does not follow the format of the textbook, “Results and discussion” (Shesho, I., et al, 2018. p.6). It also does not include a clearly labeled ethics section whereas lab report one does. This format was most likely chosen so that they could discuss the results they got when they listed the data so as you went through you got the information and the discussion for each piece of data in the same spot. This is an effective way of making sure the data is understood and it makes sense the author chose to do it this way. However, in lab report one, Li also explains the data as it is presented but they also have a discussion section wherein they interpret the data. The way Li’s lab report contained both methods was more effective at analyzing the data while also following the format of the textbook.

The discussion section of the lab report, once again, is clearly labeled and separate from the results, “Discussion” (Li, Z., et al, 2018, p.15). They also explain why although other studies have been conducted on this topic, their study is still relevant and why it adds new knowledge to their field and why it is important and how they accomplished that. They also talk about their hypothesis and why proving it made a good contribution to their field. Lab report one also included a subsection to their discussion titled, “Recommendation for plant communities with appropriate cooling and humidifying effects for recreation” (Li, Z., et al, 2018, p.18). This is an important section that gives the results more of a purpose and even gives the reader recommendations to apply this information in the real world. Having this titled and easily accessible is a great format and effective which makes sense why the author did this.

Comparing Conclusions

In lab report one the conclusion section is clearly labeled, “Conclusion” (Li, Z., et al, 2018, p.19). The conclusion here clearly states their hypothesis and how their results supported it. They avoided adding new information and summarized how the study results can be used. Lab report two also includes a clearly labeled conclusion, “Conclusion” (Shesho, I., et al, 2018. p.12) that is concise but still briefly reviews the purpose of the study as well as summarizes the important applications of the results they found. Both lab reports hit all the points conclusions should include as talked about by Markel, which shows that they both had effective conclusions (2017).

Comparing Acknowledgments, Appendix, and Reference sections

Li’s lab report included an acknowledgment section, but Shesho’s lab report did not. Li thanked the people that helped them conduct the report which is an important aspect to include in the lab report. They both didn’t contain an appendix section, but the textbook said that section is optional. They both did contain references, and both included all their references clearly, and both were numbered.

Conclusion

Lab report one followed the textbook’s lab report format better than lab report two and was more effective overall. It followed the textbook’s format in exact order and had every section clearly labeled the same as the textbook had said lab reports should have. Lab report two did not follow the textbook’s lab report format as well as lab report one but was still an effective lab report overall. There were issues Shesho’s report had with the abstract where it wasn’t very informative and made the information not as easily available as lab report one had. It also had an issue with its results and discussion section. They should have had two different sections instead of combining them to better follow the format of the textbook. Besides the minor issues lab report two had with its abstract and discussion, they did a decent job at following the format of the textbook and were successful in most of the sections. The main takeaway here is that these were two lab reports written by different people yet they both followed almost perfectly the formulaic style of a lab report. Having this type of consistency across the board for lab reports is essential and helps readers know where to find what they are looking for and if needed, replicate your results in the same formulaic manner.

References

Li, Z., Chen, D., Cai, S., & Che, S. (2018). The ecological services of plant communities in parks for climate control and recreation—a case study in Shanghai, China. PLOS ONE, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0196445

Markel, M. H., & Selber, S. A. (2021). Chapter 19. In Technical communication (pp. 517–524). essay, Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Shesho, I., Filkoski, R., & Tashevski, D. (2018). Techno-economic and environmental optimization of heat supply systems in urban areas. Thermal Science, 22(Suppl. 5), 1635–1647. https://doi.org/10.2298/tsci18s5635s