This paper structurally compares lab reports to the structure of a lab report mentioned in the textbook. Both papers had different ways of presenting similar material, but the general structure was almost the same. The papers are about the teaching of a fundamental engineering subject known as vector mechanics and how its teaching has been modified with the advent of a Learning Management System (LMS). APA format was utilized, and evidence was taken to support the claims I made.

My topic of interest is the teaching of vector mechanics, in which students analyze forces and motion to quantify what will happen to an object or particle by using Newtons Laws of Motion. I chose this topic because I find teaching very interesting along with the subject of mechanics. I combined my two interests and ended up with this topic. Lab reports typically contain a title, abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, conclusion, and references. I will go through each section and compare the presentation and structure of the information based on the lab report structure mentioned above.

Both papers spoke about the pedagogy of teaching mechanics. The papers I annotated discussed topics like a Learning Management System (LMS) which is used to supplement traditional or blended learning. It is the incorporation of technology into learning which assists in the student attaining mastery of the material (Gunawan et al., 2021). Another important concept is the idea of a cognitive domain. There are six levels of the cognitive domain which are used to assess the student’s mastery of mechanics (Putra and Heriyanto, 2020). The papers then go on to analyze the students understanding using different techniques and lays out the data in the forms of plots, charts, and figures. I will refer to the paper by Gunawan as Paper 1 and the paper by Putra as Paper 2.

Paper 1 has a title which is very descriptive. The title is “The impact of learning management system implementation on students’ understanding of mechanics concepts” (Gunawan et al., 2021, p. 2). This agrees with our textbook and tells us exactly what the paper is about. Similarly, paper 2 has a long, descriptive title. The title is “Analysis of student’s understanding about Newton’s laws, in terms of perceptions to learning in senior high school”  (Putra and Heriyanto, 2020, p. 1). I believe these titles share attributes of being descriptive to save the time of the reader. Having an idea of the paper from the title is something that the textbook mentioned which both papers have done.

The next important aspect of writing a lab report is the abstract. Paper 1 has an abstract which really condenses the paper like a well written abstract should do. It mentions why the study was done, what a Learning Management System (LMS) is and the results which were that the LMS had a positive effect on the students understanding of mechanics which was tested utilizing conceptual assessments. It also mentions the location of the study along with sample the sample size (Gunawan et al., 2021). Paper 2 has a similar structure where it discussed where the study was done, the sample size, and the idea of student/ teacher perception ( Putra and Heriyanto, 2020).  Both papers included things like location of study along with sample size. I saw that the abstract of Paper 2 was noticeably longer which I attribute to the overall detail of the second paper. Paper 2 in general goes into more detail on things like the background of Newtons Laws along with the philosophy of teaching. Since it is a more detailed paper, I think it is appropriate that the abstract is longer so that most of the important ideas can be summarized.

In the next section of the lab report we encounter the introduction. Here we are shown the motivation behind the study along with why it is important. Important concepts are introduced along with the study objective. Both papers follow the textbook structure of a lab report by doing things like defining important terms or explaining certain concepts used in the paper. For example, in Paper 1 this can be shown by the quote

“One innovative learning device-oriented to information technology is the Learning                                                 Management System (LMS). LMS is a method of learning that makes use of information technology in learning. LMS features that are designed as e-learning systems can be developed for social activities and assessments. Users such as students, lecturers, and administrators can manage schedules, work, discussions, lectures, and even research” (Gunawan et al., 2021, p. 2).

Paper 1 uses this paragraph to introduce a LMS which is an important part of the paper. The author chooses to do this in the introduction which agrees with the lab report structure studied in the textbook. Paper 2 had a similar structure to Paper 1. The author of Paper 2 says “A conducive climate in learning can only be achieved if the teacher is able to build students’ positive perceptions of learning , concerning goals, content, processes, and assessment of learning outcomes ” (Putra and Heriyanto, 2020, p.2).  The author of paper 2 is defining what he means by a conductive learning climate which he goes on to again mention in the paper. Both paper are defining concepts which will be used in the paper to get the reader familiar with their ideas or what they mean when they say certain words. This agrees with the textbook definition of what an introduction should be.

The next section is the materials and methods section which is used to talk about how the study was done in terms of procedure and the experiment itself. The study should be reproducible which is why the section where the author outlines how the experiment was done is so important in a lab report. Paper 1 has an explicit method section where their methods of testing by use of a conceptual quiz is mentioned along with other specifics of the experiment like sample size, location, and the cognitive domain (Gunawan et al., 2021). Paper 2 has a method section, but also has an extra section which is long. This section is labeled literature review and contains info on the history of Newtons Laws along with definitions of each stage of the cognitive domain. In this section the authors mention their own philosophy on how students learn well. They say that students should have a positive attitude towards the material along with the use of things like virtual experiments and work sheets to help enhance their understanding on all levels of the cognitive domain (Putra and Heriyanto, 2020). In the methods section of Paper 2 measurement parameters are defined, sample size is stated, and location is mentioned. Paper 2 really went into detail on history and teaching philosophy much more than that of Paper 1. Paper 2 has an entire extra section which I thought was a great addition to help give the reader more information about what questions they were asking to assess the students along with their own model of how the teacher’s perception and students’ perception plays a role in the overall understanding of the material. One example of this extra information in Paper 2 can be shown when the author says, “A review of the Newton’s law material of motion, there are three laws that underlie it, which was developed by Newton (1687) as the basis of classic mechanics” (Putra and Heriyanto, 2020, p. 2). The author is mentioning the three laws of motion and is so particular with their origin which he mentions goes back to 1687 while the first author does not mention anything like this. The first author has a method section of around 6 lines and does not include nearly as much detail as the author of Paper 2. I believe this is because the LMS is relatively new, and Paper 1 has a sample size which was much smaller compared to Paper 2. Paper 2 also has much more detail since the topic of the paper is one that precedes the advent of a LMS. The topic of the study along with sample size is what created the discrepancy in the background information provided, which is why I feel Paper 2 included the extra section labeled literature review. Even though this section was different for both papers in terms of length and history mentioned, the overall idea was the same and agreed with the text. Procedures were described and the experiment itself was explained which agrees with the textbook definition of the materials and methods section.  

The next section of importance is the results section where the data is presented. In Paper 2 there were a total of 6 tables which displayed their results and basically went on to say where students struggle in understanding Newtonian Mechanics. Paper 1 only has 2 figures and contained much less detail in terms of figures. They used the levels of the cognitive domain directly while the other paper defined new parameters in terms the levels of the cognitive domain to better fit their needs. For example, in Paper 1, after a figure was presented, the author goes on to say, “Based on the data in Figure 2 there are differences in the percentage of the average score of students towards the acquisition of answers on each cognitive aspect” (Gunawan et al., 2021, p. 5).  He analyzes the data as it is presented which was unique and persuasive like this section should be. I thought it was interesting that Paper 1 combined the results and discussion into one section, but I like this presentation better since it tells you the importance of the data shown when you are first introduced to the data itself. This is the first section in the papers where I saw a noticeably big difference in structure. Paper 2 really went into detail on their figures and clearly stated their data in the form of 6 figures that had a large volume of information. Paper 1 being a relatively smaller study had a results section which was smaller and more direct. They combined their results and discussion section. I think that Paper 1 did a good job of keeping it simple and clearly displaying and analyzing the results while Paper 2 did not process the data enough to reach a concise results section. Again, I believe this difference comes from the different topics of the two papers along with the number of people in the sample. Paper 1 being a smaller paper did not want to just present two figures and do the discussion separately, so they combined the two section which I feel was a good decision. 

The discussion section is where the results are analyzed. Paper 1 chose to lump this in with the results. Paper 2 had a small discussion section which I think should have been longer. Their data was descriptive in the results section, but I still feel that this section should have had more volume in the paper. Paper 1 and 2 both mentioned some ideas from other papers by use of in text citation. This goes with the structure of a lab report we studied in class by displaying other studies which correlate the results attained in these two papers.

Both papers had a very concise conclusion section where the main point were summarized. Paper 2 chose to do this in the form of a list of 10 of the most important things they found in the study. These 10 things where the factors that caused difficulty in mastering Newtonian Mechanics. Paper 1 went on to say that the LMS is beneficial to learning. I liked the way that paper two chose to conclude with the list which was very clear but descriptive at the same time. I think it was necessary for Paper 2 to do it like this because of how many main points they wanted to fit in a near summary. Paper 1 was easily able to write a concise conclusion due to the specific nature of the topic and their concise results. The references section was similar in both papers and correct citation was followed.

As previously stated, both papers generally followed the structure of a lab report we studied in class. They had all eight sections, but some sections were combined due to the topic of the paper or the size of the study. The papers differed in a few ways, and I believe that this was due to the breadth of the chosen topic. Paper 1 had a topic which was much more specific than Paper 2 and I believe this caused the discrepancy in things like background information and results presentation. The skeleton of the reports was the same which was reassuring. All research papers have the same general idea where they want to convey some info and state their methods and results. This assignment confirmed that idea for me.

References

Gunawan, G., Harjono, A., Suranti, N. M., Herayanti, L., & Imran, I. (2021). The impact of learning management system implementation on students’ understanding of Mechanics Concepts. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1747(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1747/1/012020

Putra, A., & Heriyanto. (2020). Analysis of student’s understanding about Newton’s laws, in terms of perceptions to learning in senior high school. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1481, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1481/1/012134