EXAMPLE LAB REPORT INTRODUCTIONAIM: 1 out of 2The 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 1Background 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 METHODSENTENCE STRUCTURE AND TENSE: 0.5 out of 1Although 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 2Firstly, 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 1The 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 markAlthough 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 markThe 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 markSome 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 markThere 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 markThere 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

REFERENCESCORRECT FORMATTING: 0 out of 2 marksIn 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 markThere 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