mpnobivucyxtz wrote:hey, we just did our first invitational and we wanted to confirm some things about grading.
1. Important information about data collection given: we got 0 points despite writing, verbatim "since the data was collected by a manually operated stopwatch read by eye, human reaction time may have artificially inflated the time recorded". Why is this wrong? Are we misinterpreting what this part of the rubric means?
2. We got points off for using line breaks on our graph, is this universally accepted as incorrect?
3. We had a diagram but only got 1 point. How in depth do diagrams have to be? Should they be labeled?
4. How do we write Standard of Comparison? This is what we had "Our SOC is the trial with a paper square with an area of 16cm^2 because it was our lowest IV level and would presumably experience the least air resistance. Thus, by comparing our other IV levels with this control, we would ensure that our change in DV was due strictly to changes in our IV, and not inherent properties of falling paper."
I get the wording is weird but I was essentially trying to say that since the falling paper with least area is closest to real free fall, using it as our control would give us a basis on how paper regularly falls, which would give context to our other trials and ensure there was no flaw in our experiment due to properties of specifically paper falling (like, for example, if somehow paper's motion differed from what is expected regularly from falling objects). Should I just have described it better?
1. Personally, I think that information would better be described as an experimental error. They aren't really looking for things that affect the experiment, just things that you noticed.
2. It depends what you were testing. Did you have a trial for 0 IV and 0 DV? If not, then you should have started the graph at the first DV.
3. It depends a lot on the diagram itself. It could have been irrelevant or you could have had a diagram on a different part of the procedure.
4. I'd say that that SOC should be a little better described, but mostly it seems logical.