Don't you love it when your computer logs you out and you have to re-type the post you just finished? Oh well.
19sawickin wrote:Can anyone tell me what I'm supposed to do for "different ways to approach hypothesis" in the "applications" section? The scioly page gives an example of testing a parachute with varying masses I believe, and said that using a computer simulation is an example of approaching the hypothesis from a different angle. I've used this idea at a few invitationals as well as state tournaments, and it has never been a problem. However, at the Cornell invitational, my team received 2's in everything, and a 0 for this section, and no explanation was provided. We performed an experiment to determine the relationship between the volume of water in a constant sized beaker, and the amount of time it took for a drop of dye to reach the bottom of the beaker. In my questioned area, I more or less said that a different way to approach our hypothesis would be to use a computer simulation to take into account the surface tension of water as well as the dye, and provide more constant conditions. I literally said "a different way to approach our hypothesis is to..." so it was definitely present, meaning my example must not have been valid? What could I have done instead?
The supervisor probably wanted you to give an example of a different experiment that tests the same hypothesis rather than a different way of testing the same experiment. I'd argue that performing the same experiment in a different way is a different experiment, but not everyone will agree with that. I'd try thinking of some ways to change the experiment to test the same hypothesis.
Llamastwaimzjf wrote:Hey, this is my second year working on experimental design and I had a question on how to write a well written statement of problem and the standard of comparison? I'm having some trouble understanding these concepts, I would really appreciate your help. Thank you.
Two key things to keep in mind when writing your SoP is to make sure that its very specific and testable. "How does changing the mass of a paper airplane effect its time aloft?" rather than "Does changing mass effect paper airplane flight?". For the second part don't make a long complicated experiment if you can think of a much easier one (to save time and your nerves). If you are writing the SoP as a question, make sure that it isn't yes/no. "How does ____?" rather than "Does ___?". This is also shown in my above examples.
Defining a good SoC depends on what type of experiment you are doing. If performing an experiment in which you are adding mass to something, that thing without any extra mass would be the SoC (in the example above the SoC would be the paper airplane with no extra mass). If performing an experiment based on different sizes or types of something, the average would be the best SoC. For example if comparing the bounce height of various balls (lets say a soccer ball, a basketball, and a football (side note- why is soccer ball 2 words, but the other two are 1 word?)), the basketball would most likely be the best SoC because it is designed to be bounced. While some SoC are better than others, as long as you can explain
why you chose that SoC it works.
I hope this helps!
