Crowdly
Add to Chrome
Discussion Maximum of 300 words +/- 30 words. This is where you discuss and ...
✅ The verified answer to this question is available below. Our community-reviewed solutions help you understand the material better.
Discussion
Maximum of 300 words +/- 30 words.
This is where you discuss and give meaning to your results. You should also detail any experimental errors and make any other relevant comments about the experiment. Include possible improvements. Ensure you are not re-stating the method.
Discussion points to consider: (Note: The points below are not intended as questions! They are here to give guidance on what to include in your discussion. Do not simply list answers - incorporate them into a full discussion.)
- Relate results back to the aim and introduction of the experiment – what were you trying to do, did the results support the aim of the experiment?
- Discuss the titration results, was there a large percentage error?
- Discuss the calibration curve, any deviation from linearity?
Discuss the final values of the stoichiometry. Do the numbers seem reasonable? How do they compare with the expected values? i.e Potassium
is the counter ion that is required to balance the charge of the anionic
complex [Fe
x(C2O4)y] to form a
neutral compound. Using your derived stoichiometric ratio of iron to oxalate, determine the number of K
+required to balance the charge of the
anionic complex. Is the stoichiometric ratio of potassium what you expected
it to be?
If
not, how does this impact the mass of water obtained in the
K3[Fex(C2O4)y].3H2O?
(Hint: the stoichiometric ratio is determined based on the mass of each species,
then the mole of each species can be determined.)
What factors may have affected your final result? What are some sources of error you may have encountered, and how would they have impacted on your results?
Discussion marking rubric:
| 0 | 1 | 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
Relates results to aims. | Interpretation of results not related back to original experimental aims. | Results partially related back to original experimental aims. | Key results interpreted in relation to experimental aims. |
Discussion and interpretation of results. | No interpretation or comparison of results is made. No discussion points are addressed. | Some interpretation or comparison of results is made. Some discussion points are addressed. | Key findings are summarised. Results are interpreted. Results are compared to expected/predicted values. All discussion points are addressed. |
Actual data used to validate statements. | No experimental data used to justify scientific statements/claims. Multiple scientific errors are present. | Some experimental data used to justify scientific statements/claims. Some scientific errors are present. | Experimental data used to justify all scientific statements/claims. The science is correct. |
Factors affecting results discussed. | No errors were raised or were only non-scientific/experimental errors raised. | Only some errors raised or several non-scientific/experimental errors were raised. The impact of the errors was not discussed. | Multiple errors/factors are raised and are scientific/experimental in nature (i.e. NOT human error). The impact of the errors was discussed. |
Writing Style | Many grammatical/spelling/scientific writing errors were noted, and/or discussion was over 300 words in length. | Some grammatical/spelling/scientific writing errors were noted. | The discussion was free of grammatical and spelling errors, was written in the past tense, used full sentences and a passive voice, and was within 300 words. |
Word limit: 300 words+/- 10%.
An incomplete discussion may be given a zero mark.
For guidance on writing a meaningful discussion, please refer to the following resources:
- SoC: Undergraduate Student Handbook
- RLO: Writing a Science Lab Report
- RLO: Writing for Assignments