Evaluation

In this section, you will:

Answer the research question
Place the conclusion in its scientific context
Discuss its level of confidence
Use evidence (cite examples from your data) to justify your conclusion
Discuss the reliability of your conclusions by evaluating the strengths of the investigation
Discuss the limitations of your conclusions by evaluating the weaknesses of the investigation
Offer suggestions for improving or extending the investigation

An overview of the suggested structure of this section is shown in Table 1.
Details of what should be addressed in each subsection is presented after the table.

The EVALUATION section has two subsections:

Conclusion
Evaluation

Table 1 Suggested Structure of Evaluation Section with Rubric Criteria addressed in each part.

Report Organization and Content	Rubric Criteria Addressed
Section 1: EVALUATION
Subtitle: Conclusion	Conclusion Conclusion is complete and valid. Key results and processed data are used to support the conclusion. Conclusion is discussed and explained in a scientific context. Accuracy and reliability of the conclusions are discussed with reference to the processed data.
The research question is answered. The conclusion is placed in its scientific context. The conclusion is compared to any predictions made. Evidence (examples are cited from your data) is used to justify your conclusion . The level of confidence in the conclusion is discussed and justified.
Subtitle: Evaluation	Evaluation Identifies and evaluates key strengths of the investigation. Identifies and evaluates key limitations and weaknesses. States realistic improvements and extensions.
The reliability of your conclusions are discussed by evaluating the strengths of the investigation. The limitations of your conclusions are discussed by evaluating the weaknesses of the investigation. Suggestions for improving or continuing the investigation are given.

Here are examples of Evaluation sections.

Detailed description of what should be included in the
Evaluation Section

Subsection 1: Conclusion

a) State and explain a conclusion that is supported by your data:

This section should not just be a restatement of the data results, but rather:
- an explanation of the results,
- what they show, and
- how strongly they show it.
Your conclusion should directly answer your research question
Do not use the word “prove” or that you were “right.” Instead, discuss what the data “suggests” or how it "supports" or “refutes” the prediction. Nothing is ever proven in science. Your results only support your conclusions.

b) Discuss the meaning of the conclusion in its scientific context:

You should then compare your research question (or prediction/hypothesis if relevant (FOLLOW UP IN CHECKLIST) with your actual results. If they were the same, then you have supported current theory. But how strongly do the results support current theory?
Were there any weaknesses or errors in the procedures or results which reduce your confidence in the results?
If your results differ from the prediction, how were they different, and why do you think they were different?
Is this difference due to errors or weaknesses in the method or results or is it due to the fact that a different theory applies to your situation?

Subsection 2: Evaluation

a) Evaluate the design and conduct of the investigation

It is suggested that you comment on both the strengths and weaknesses of the investigation. This must include an evaluation of the design and/or resulting data of the investigation, as well as an evaluation of the procedure.

There might also be a statement identifying whether or not the method itself, as well as possible method inadequacies/issues, enable you to make a valid conclusion. This needs to be supported with evidence. For instance, you might discuss issues with collecting data that meant the conclusion was based only on a small collection of data and therefore was not valid when comparing it to different situations or environments.

You should discuss 2-3 of the major strengths of the design and conduct of your investigation. You should:

include at least one strength in the design of the investigation and explain its effect on the strength of the conclusions

include at least one weaknesses or limitations in the procedure and its effect on the strength of the conclusions

discuss the strengths in order of importance or effect on the results, if possible

provide evidence to support the strengths you discuss. This could be your own observations or data.

You should discuss 2-3 of the major weaknesses and limitations of the design and conduct of your investigation. You should:

include at least one weakness or limitation in the design of the investigation and its effect on the strength of the conclusions

include at least one weaknesses or limitation in the procedure and its effect on the strength of the conclusions

discuss the weaknesses in order of importance or effect on the results, if possible

provide evidence to support your weakness or limitation. This could be your own observations or data.

Here are some ideas on what to think about when identifying the major strengths and weaknesses.

Check each step of the procedure to determine if it was particularly precise or imprecise, and think about HOW the data could have been affected.

A data point that doesn't fit with the rest (scientists call these “outliers.”). Why might this had happened?

Any strengths or weaknesses in the control of important variables.

Any strengths or weaknesses in the range, timing, or frequency of measurement.

Any strengths or weaknesses in the precision and accuracy of instruments or measurements.

How any of the following might have affected the data/results:

initial conditions of the specimens or materials

human handling of the specimens or materials (including how the process of measuring might have influenced the investigation)

Two “weaknesses” to avoid including are “Not enough time” (If you needed more time, you should have continued outside of class.) and “Human error” (Science is always done by humans, so “human error” is meaningless. Be specific; explain what exact “error” the humans committed.)

One method is to look at each control variable and to see how well it was controlled. This might give you some discussion points for strengths or weaknesses.

One way to start to look at this might be to start with the following question:

What error/weakness affected my data? Then move to the next question….

Do I have evidence to suggest this. If so provide it. Then….

How might I improve my experiment so this does not happen?

b) Improvement and Extension of the investigation

For each weakness mentioned above, you should suggest a realistic, specific and relevant change to the method to improve the reliability of the results. Simply saying, I need to measure more carefully is not enough. Next time, I need to use a 3 decimal point scale to better track the changes in mass, is better.

The improvements need a balanced review – how effective will these changes be? The arguments must be presented as a balanced discussion of the pros and cons of the suggested improvements for each weakness.

Finally, you should include one or two suggestions on areas for further research that would continue from and build on this investigation.

Back to Home