Criteria: DCP Aspect 1

It doesn't actually say so but this means "does the student draw a proper table". Remember (I think I said it some where) that these criteria are used in all science subjects so in biology it might be ok to collect data that wasn't in a table (flowers for example would be in a vase). In Physics we always expect data to be presented in a table and that table should always have the same structure. I guess there could be some variation here but I like to keep it simple and insist that the table should always be vertical (headings in the top row with data arranged in columns). I don't like students doing individual tables for each data run, if they are going to find the average in Excel it will be quite difficult if they have there data arranged like this.

Here's what a good one might look like (colours are optional):

 

Checklist: DCP Aspect 1

Draw a table (using Excel) with a column for each measurement.  This will generally mean one column for the independent variable and 5 for the repeated measurements of the dependent. There should be at least 5 rows one for each time you change the independent variable.

I state here that the table should be in excel, the actual table handed in will be in word however they shouldn't put their raw data straight into word since word tables aren't a spreadsheet so you can't insert functions. The best way would be to "paste special" as an excel object then it can be worked on in the word doc. and you can play with the figures too. This might be a bit too technical though. Students should avoid using screenshot for copying tables since you can't so anything with the numbers in a jpeg file.

5 repeats of each measurement and 5 different values of the independent is just an indication but its funny how many students take this as gospel. It actually says "at least 5 rows" that means that they can do more. The problem with only doing 5 is that if they have an outlier it only leaves 4 points for the best fit line.

If your data is coming from the gradient of a “data logger graph” or other graphic computer display include an example of this graph in you report.

Raw means not cooked, maybe that's not the best definition in this context since we hope that the students don't cook their data but it gives the idea that it is before processing. If we take the example of a student using a temperature sensor to measure the rate of temperature rise of some water in a boiler; the student is actually measuring the temperature and time but the quantity that you want is the rate of change of temperature. We could think of the sensor as a rate of change of temp. meter and so the rate of change will then be our raw data. To show where this is coming from the report should include some details of how the sensor and graph of temp vs time was used to get the rate. A screen shot is ideal for this.

The number of decimal places should be the same for all values in a column.

This isn't always the case since there will be occasions when for example the range of a meter was changed however what we are aiming for is a table that doesn't have randomly changing decimal places.

Each column must have a heading and the units of the quantity

Yep , as mentioned above.

You should estimate the uncertainty of the measuring instrument this must be in the header.  

This depends not only on the instrument but how it is used, anything reasonable is acceptable. I prefer students to think about what they have done and decide for themselves how well they thought they could use the device rather than using  the "half the smallest division rule". After all they used the instrument so should know. Having said that the "half the smallest division" is a good starting point.

Uncertainties should be rounded of to 1 significant figure  ±0.2 not ±0.17 and the number of decimal places in the data should not exceed the limit of the uncertainty e.g.  if uncertainty is ±0.2 the measurement should only be quoted to 1 decimal place.

Here we are trying to get across the idea that if the uncertainty is ±1mm then there is no point in quoting a value to the nearest 0.001mm. This doesn't normally happen in the raw data, it's when they process it that all the extra decimal places pop up.

Comment on how you arrived at any uncertainty value in the table.

This is very important even if the uncertainty is found from half the smallest division it msut be stated. Often the uncertainty is more than that in which case they should justify their value. It's quite difficult to measure the position of a football with a ruler to ±0.5mm but it might be possible to measure the size of a sheet of paper to ±0.1mm.

Comment on any observations you made that might be relevant later; there might not be anything here.

They don't have to go over the top but if they notice anything that might be useful when they come to evaluate the method then it should be noted here.