Sorry, kids, your summaries need a lot of work.
I figured I'd give you an example or two of good summaries. These follow the three stipulations for a good review of the experiment:
1) Restate your objective.
2) Discuss your results.
3) Make a suggestion for doing the lab better next time.
So, for Experiment 7 (the reactions lab):
This experiment used twelve different combinations of substances to demonstrate single-displacement and double-displacement reactions. Eight of the twelve reactions were double-displacement reactions, most of which produced a precipitate; one produced bubbles of gas. One reaction produced no product and was therefore reversible. The other four single-displacement reactions combined hydrogen, copper and zinc as both ions and metals. From the results zinc was determined to be the most reactive of the three, followed by hydrogen and then copper. Performing the reactions allowed us to verify that were were predicting which products would be precipitates or gases correctly with our observations. In the future larger amounts of the reactants could be used, so that the chemical changes could be more easily observed.
Now, I know that I write in a different style than you do. I'm not looking for absolute mimicry in form, style and tense. That would be annoying for all of us. Note though that I am not saying anything about how "fun" or "cool" or "neatobegeato" the experiment was. I know how cool they are, because I picked them out for you.
For Experiment 5 (the molecular modeling lab):
In this experiment five different molecular modeling techniques illustrated different techniques for illustrating how atoms bond together and in what shapes. We used ball-and-stick models and MolyMod kits to build two-dimensional and three-dimensional representations of molecules, and to illustrate changes in bonding during simple chemical reactions. Soap bubbles and films demonstrated how systems under stress can find arrangements to minimize those stresses, as atoms in molecules do. All of these shapes were used as templates to build Stuart space-filling models of more complex molecules using the arrangements of atoms we had already seen, around oxygen and carbon atoms. The Stuart models provided no built-in guidance as the MolyMod kits did for arranging the atoms, so our models of hexane and dimethyl ether were too linear. We did not make the common connections between different types of models until writing up this report. If we had to do this lab again, I would bring better drawing tools than a dull pencil and scratch paper, and I would take more time drawing the shapes so they made more sense later.
This is the kind of analysis I'm looking for - more discussion of results and what was learned, a short statement for improving the lab, and less filler. Try this on your Summary for Experiment 6 and let's see what happens.
I figured I'd give you an example or two of good summaries. These follow the three stipulations for a good review of the experiment:
1) Restate your objective.
2) Discuss your results.
3) Make a suggestion for doing the lab better next time.
So, for Experiment 7 (the reactions lab):
This experiment used twelve different combinations of substances to demonstrate single-displacement and double-displacement reactions. Eight of the twelve reactions were double-displacement reactions, most of which produced a precipitate; one produced bubbles of gas. One reaction produced no product and was therefore reversible. The other four single-displacement reactions combined hydrogen, copper and zinc as both ions and metals. From the results zinc was determined to be the most reactive of the three, followed by hydrogen and then copper. Performing the reactions allowed us to verify that were were predicting which products would be precipitates or gases correctly with our observations. In the future larger amounts of the reactants could be used, so that the chemical changes could be more easily observed.
Now, I know that I write in a different style than you do. I'm not looking for absolute mimicry in form, style and tense. That would be annoying for all of us. Note though that I am not saying anything about how "fun" or "cool" or "neatobegeato" the experiment was. I know how cool they are, because I picked them out for you.
For Experiment 5 (the molecular modeling lab):
In this experiment five different molecular modeling techniques illustrated different techniques for illustrating how atoms bond together and in what shapes. We used ball-and-stick models and MolyMod kits to build two-dimensional and three-dimensional representations of molecules, and to illustrate changes in bonding during simple chemical reactions. Soap bubbles and films demonstrated how systems under stress can find arrangements to minimize those stresses, as atoms in molecules do. All of these shapes were used as templates to build Stuart space-filling models of more complex molecules using the arrangements of atoms we had already seen, around oxygen and carbon atoms. The Stuart models provided no built-in guidance as the MolyMod kits did for arranging the atoms, so our models of hexane and dimethyl ether were too linear. We did not make the common connections between different types of models until writing up this report. If we had to do this lab again, I would bring better drawing tools than a dull pencil and scratch paper, and I would take more time drawing the shapes so they made more sense later.
This is the kind of analysis I'm looking for - more discussion of results and what was learned, a short statement for improving the lab, and less filler. Try this on your Summary for Experiment 6 and let's see what happens.
