Lab Report Scaffold
Used for all four lab reports in the Reactivity Rocket Project
How to use this scaffold
You will write four lab reports during this 4-week project. They follow the same structure every time. By Report 4 you should be able to write sections in any order without referring to this template.
Each section has: - a heading you copy into your report - a what goes here explanation - a band 6 / band 4 / band 2 example showing the difference between excellent, adequate, and weak responses
The four reports are:
| Report | Lesson | Topic | Word target | Owner team supplying data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | W2L4 | Rates of reaction (H₂O₂ + KMnO₄) | 800–1200 | Rocket Chemistry |
| 2 | W3L4 | Methane combustion on insurance rig | 1000–1400 | Manufacturing + Heat Exchanger |
| 3 | W4L12 | Vendor prediction sheet + procurement memo + stoichiometric worked answer | 1000–1400 | Manufacturing + Computational Engineering + Rocket Chemistry |
| 4 | W4L4 | Final integrated report (full project) | 1500–2000 | All teams + own analysis |
Section-by-section
1. Title and Aim (~50 words)
What goes here: the experiment’s title, the date, your name and team, and a single-sentence aim that names the variable you are testing.
Band 6 example aim: “To determine how the concentration of potassium permanganate catalyst affects the rate of decomposition of 35% hydrogen peroxide at constant temperature.”
Band 4 example aim: “To investigate hydrogen peroxide decomposition with potassium permanganate.”
Band 2 example aim: “To do the rates lab.”
The Band 6 aim names the independent variable ([catalyst]), the dependent variable (rate of decomposition), and the controlled variable (temperature). Band 4 names the system but not the variables. Band 2 doesn’t name anything.
2. Hypothesis (~50 words)
What goes here: an if-then prediction with a because — a mechanism.
Band 6 example: “If the concentration of KMnO₄ catalyst is doubled, then the initial rate of O₂ evolution will approximately double, because doubling the catalyst doubles the number of active sites available for H₂O₂ molecules to decompose at, and the rate of a catalysed reaction is first-order in catalyst concentration when substrate is in excess.”
Band 4 example: “If we add more KMnO₄, the reaction will go faster because catalysts speed reactions up.”
Band 2 example: “It will go faster.”
3. Variables (~50 words)
A table:
| Variable type | Variable | How controlled / measured |
|---|---|---|
| Independent | [KMnO₄] | 0.05, 0.10, 0.20 M solutions, drip-fed at 1 drop/sec |
| Dependent | Rate of O₂ evolution (mL/s) | Volume vs time over inverted graduated cylinder |
| Controlled | Temperature | Bath at 25 °C ± 1 |
| Controlled | [H₂O₂] | 35% stock, 50 mL aliquot every run |
| Controlled | Drip rate | Counted by recorder, 1 drop/sec |
4. Risk Assessment (~150 words)
What goes here: for each hazard, the control measure. Reference the program safety case (safety-case.qmd) by ID where possible.
| Hazard | Risk level | Control |
|---|---|---|
| 35% H₂O₂ skin contact (R-01) | High | Teacher dispenses; nitrile gloves; goggles; eyewash within 3 m |
| Runaway decomposition (R-03) | Medium | Drip-feed only, never bulk add; max 50 mL aliquot |
| Pressure buildup in flask | Low | Vented flask; never sealed |
Every report must include this section, even if “the risks are the same as last time.” The discipline of writing it again is the point.
5. Method (~200 words)
What goes here: numbered steps. Past tense, passive voice, enough detail that a Year 10 in another school could repeat your experiment.
Example structure: 1. 50 mL of 35% H₂O₂ was dispensed by the teacher into a clamped 250 mL borosilicate flask in the fume cupboard. 2. The flask was connected via glass tubing to an inverted graduated cylinder filled with water in a trough. 3. …
Band 6 method is reproducible by a stranger with this document alone. Band 4 method is reproducible by someone who saw the experiment. Band 2 method is your story of what happened.
6. Results (~150 words + tables/graphs)
What goes here: a data table, then a graph, then a short paragraph describing what the graph shows (not what it means — that’s analysis).
Band 6: raw data table → processed data table (calculated rates) → labelled graph with axes and units → caption stating what the graph shows.
Band 4: one table, one graph, no caption.
Band 2: numbers in the body of the text.
7. Analysis (~250 words)
What goes here: comparison to the prediction sheet from the Computational Engineering team, and an explanation of any gap.
This is the section that distinguishes a Band 6 report from a Band 4 report. The Comp Eng prediction sheet will have given you a numerical prediction. Your measured value will not match exactly. Why?
Band 6 analysis uses the reconciliation template (predicted, measured, residual, named mechanism for residual) and quantifies at least one source of error.
Band 4 analysis notes the gap and offers a generic explanation (“there might have been heat loss”).
Band 2 analysis restates the result.
8. Discussion (~200 words)
What goes here: what the result means in the broader context of the project. How does it feed into the next step? What did you learn that changes a future design choice?
This is the section to discuss the engineering implications, not just the chemistry. Example:
“The Arrhenius fit gave an activation energy of 56 kJ/mol, consistent with literature values for KMnO₄-catalysed peroxide decomposition. The stoichiometric worked answer (RC-D8) showed that at 35% H₂O₂ a flow of ~5.6 mL/min would supply the O₂ for a 0.5 g/min ethanol burn — well within school-scale capability. The vendor’s actual catalyst bed must hold the decomposition rate stable across the 25–70 °C wall-temperature swing the chamber is predicted to experience; our Arrhenius fit predicts a ~3× rate variation across that range, which is what the vendor’s bed sizing has to absorb.”
9. Sources of Error (~100 words)
What goes here: a ranked list, with the largest source of error first. Quantify each where possible.
Band 6: “(1) Drip rate counting was manual; estimated ±10% on drop frequency, contributing approximately ±10% to rate. (2) Temperature in the flask was measured before run only; flask warmed by ~3 °C during run, contributing approximately ±5% to rate via Arrhenius dependence. …”
Generic statements like “human error” or “the equipment wasn’t accurate” are Band 2.
10. Conclusion (~50 words)
What goes here: one sentence per aim, stating whether the hypothesis was supported and to what precision.
Band 6 example: “The rate of H₂O₂ decomposition increased approximately linearly with [KMnO₄] over the range 0.05–0.20 M, supporting the first-order hypothesis to within ±15%; the residual from linearity is likely explained by mild self-heating during longer runs.”
11. Reference list
In Years 11–12 you will need formal referencing; for Year 10 we expect at least: - the SDS sheets you read for the chemicals you used - any textbook section you cited - the Computational Engineering prediction sheet (cite its filename and date)
How marking works
| Section | Weight |
|---|---|
| 1 Title & Aim | 5% |
| 2 Hypothesis | 5% |
| 3 Variables | 5% |
| 4 Risk Assessment | 10% |
| 5 Method | 15% |
| 6 Results | 15% |
| 7 Analysis | 20% |
| 8 Discussion | 10% |
| 9 Sources of Error | 10% |
| 10 Conclusion | 5% |
A passing static test is not required for a Band 6 grade. The grade is on the quality of analysis and reporting. A test that fails predictably and is explained well can score Band 6. A test that succeeds but is reported badly will not.
What a Band 6 report looks like at this year level
- 1000–1500 words (within target range)
- One graph minimum, axis-labelled with units
- One reconciliation table (predicted vs measured)
- At least one quantified source of error
- Numbered method steps
- No bullet-point dot points in the analysis or discussion (those are prose sections)
- Spelt-out chemical names and formulae the first time, formula only thereafter