Rhetorical Analysis of a Lab Report
The lab report I decided to analyze is “Fabrication of bioactive composite scaffolds by electrospinning for bone regeneration” by Anandkumar Nandakumar, Hugo Fernandes, Jan de Boer, Lorenzo Moroni, Pamela Habibovic, and Clemens A. van Blitterswijk. This lab report is from the MEDLINE complete database and was published on August 26th, 2010. This lab report shows the process researchers took to help with the development of bone regeneration using different types of electrospun bioactive chemicals. This lab report includes the 8 basic elements to a lab report which are title, abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, conclusion, and references.
The title of a lab report “should be informative enough to enable readers to decide whether the report interests them” (Markel & Selber, 2017). The title for this lab report is very clear on what the area of research is and has common terms like bone regeneration and electrospinning. These terms allow incoming readers to see if this report is in their area of interest. This is very useful to a lab report because it makes it easier for people to search the terms they want to research, which then directs them to report’s that include those terms.
The abstract to a lab report should always summarize the entire report and also have the structure of the report. Each part of the lab, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion, are briefly summarized (Markel & Selber, 2017). This report’s abstract, briefly explains the processes they took for this experiment. It also gives us a summary of the results found from day 4 and day 6. Then it gives us a short concussion as to how this experiment will be beneficial to bone regeneration. This lab’s abstract is very informative and shows the major findings in the research, which is more attractive to the readers (Markel & Selber, 2017).
The introduction of this lab follows the structure by “describing the hypothesis or question your study attempted to address and why this question is significant”(Markel & Selber, 2017). This hypothesis this lab provides is that “Combining collagen and HA is, therefore, a logical step toward creating scaffolds for bone regeneration” (Nandakumar, 2010). The introduction for this lab report also follows an example of how it “should include a concise review of previous research relevant to your study and should describe how your study extends the knowledge in your field or overcomes a weakness in previous studies” (Markel & Selber, 2017). This particular study shows a previous study about how researchers found it difficult to maintain electrospinning above a 20% weight percentage because of the “ineffective distribution of HA by the collagen” (Nandakumar, 2010). Then the introduction offers a solution to this problem which will be conducted in this experiment. The solution shown in this study is to either cross-linking the collagen or by combining it with another synthetic polymer (Nandakumar, 2010). By showing a solution to a previous study shows the significance to this study because it provides new information to this particular area of study. The introduction should also define important terms used in the experiment which is also done in this lab report in the very beginning.
The materials and methods part of a lab report should start with a list of materials used for the experiment (Markel & Selber, 2017). In this lab report, the materials and methods section was named the experimental part. The experimental part includes a list of materials and also gives credit to companies that have provided some of the materials. After listing the materials this section should provide the procedures used for the experiment (Markel & Selber, 2017). This lab report does this by providing information about how the solutions were prepared and the temperatures they were kept at. Then it provides a chronological step process the researchers took to conduct this experiment. By providing full details on how they did each step will help readers to fully understand what the experimental process was for the experiment. This is very crucial to the lab report because “your credibility rests on your ability to explain clearly what you did and why” (Markel & Selber, 2017).
The results of the lab report should present the evidence used to support the claims that will be made in the discussion (Markel & Selber, 2017). This part of the lab report will provide raw data found during the experiment. This is shown in this lab report through graphs and pictures of the outcome of the experiment. Each of the graphs also has a clear description of what the data is showing. It also provides an understanding of the major trends being shown in each of the graphs and pictures. The data then should also be referred to in the text and explain why it is significant to this experiment, which this lab report does by going over how these findings will be relevant to bone regeneration for humans. These elements are important because they will decide “how persuasive this evidence depends on how successfully you present it to your readers” (Markel & Selber, 2017).
The discussion part of a lab report is meant to either support or argue against the proposed hypothesis of the experiment. In this particular lab, the discussion does support the hypothesis of the experiment, which is shown when the researchers stated that “our results demonstrate the potential advantages of using bioactive scaffolds mimicking the ECM physical and chemical cues for regeneration of bone tissue” (Nandakumar, 2010). The discussion also provides a failed experiment, “All groups generally displayed this trend except PA–HA–Col” (Nandakumar, 2010). This is very important in the discussion because it provides new knowledge to this field of study. They explain the outcomes of the experiments so readers can get a better understanding of what the data represents.
The conclusion of this lab is a very clear summary of the main details shown in the lab report. It starts with a quick sentence saying what the purpose of the research was and then is followed up with a summary of the results found from the experiment. Then it states the significance of the research being done. This conclusion follows the appropriate model for a lab report since it was only one paragraph and summarizes everything done in the report. After the conclusion, this lab report also provides all the references made in the report. It shows a list of references made in chronological order of when the reference was made.
This lab report was very effective in keeping the structure of the 8 basic elements to a lab report. The title of the lab is very clear on what it will be about, and the abstract summarizes the entire report chronologically. The introduction then explains what the experiment is for and its significance. The materials and methods part of the lab goes over the steps taken in the experiment and gives full detail on how they did it. The results are also in the lab which informs readers about what the finished results were from the experiment through graphs and images. These graphs are fully summarized and explained and also give the major trend that appears in them. In the discussion, this lab does not hesitate to share the failures of the experiment because it is very crucial for future researchers in this subject. The summary is very short and gives a quick summary of the entire report. This lab also gives all the references that they used in the lab in the end. I think this lab would have been better if there was a table that shows what all the abbreviations of the terms were because it was hard to follow along since there are many terms used in the text. Overall this lab does follow the 8 basic elements to a lab report and does so at a high level.
Citation:
- Markel, M., & Selber, S. (2017). Technical Communication (12th ed.). Bedford/St. Martin’s.
- Nandakumar, A. N., Fernandes, H. F., Boer, J. B., Moioni, L. M., habibovic, P. H., & Blitterswijk, C. B. (2010). Fabrication of Bioactive Composite Scaffolds by Electrospinning for Bone Regeneration. https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/doi/full/10.1002/mabi.201000145#
Reflection:
