My head is throbbing today and I just cannot seem to concentrate. He has written and re written this. I just cannot reread again today. So, would the hive please please help me proofread this one last time. It is for his science report to his experiment. Thank you so much for you help. My head thanks you all so much! I cannot break him from the "I" statements. It has taken all day to get to this point. Conclusion My hypothesis did not support the results of my experiment. I found out that adding larger nucleation sites for the carbon dioxide to go, did not make the geyser any higher or better. It actually was a smaller geyser with the larger nucleation sites I put on the Mentos. I found out it worked better if I left the Mentos the way they were and not adding more nucleation sites. I ended up with a geyser of 11 ½ feet and 12 feet with the plain Mentos. As with the ones with the larger nucleation sites added were only 4-5 feet in height. I also did three more experiments using Mentos and other kinds of soda. Sprite, rootbeer, and orange soda. I found out you get a geyser from all sodas when adding mentos. Yet I did find out that the Diet Coke and Mentos mixture did cause the highest geyser of all of them. The sprite was the second best at six feet, the rootbeer third at 5 feet and the orange soda only doing 3 feet. From my research and experiment the reason the Diet Coke and Sprite did higher amount of carbon dioxide in the sodas. This causing a larger geyser. The more carbon dioxide means more nucleation sites once I put the Mentos in the soda. The Mentos caused the first nucleation sites for the carbon dioxide to form bubbles. Once a bubble was formed more bubbles could be formed off of that bubble. This happens at such a fast rate that it causes pressure in the soda bottle causing the soda to erupt out of the bottle in a lot of force causing the geyser.
I did this kind of thing all through high school! I would read other people's papers, proof them, and re write them. lolI doubt you want me to read and re-write, so maybe this advice will help: I used to tell people to write their papers as if the writer were actually a collective rather than one person writing a report w/o using the word "we". That gets rid of the "I" and it would sound silly if he wrote, "We did this test and we got X results". So let's take the first paragraph: The hypothesis reached did not support the results of the experiment. The expirament proved the pointthat adding larger nucleation sites for the carbon dioxide to go, did not make the geyser any higher or better. It actually was a smaller geyser with the larger nucleation sites placed on the Mentos. Findings showit worked better if the Mentos were leftthe way they were and not adding more nucleation sites. { Switch this sentance around to get rid of "I" :With the plain Mentos A Larger gyser of X ft andXfeet was reched} I ended up with a geyser of 11 ½ feet and 12 feet with the plain Mentos. As with the ones with the larger nucleation sites added were only 4-5 feet in height See what I mean? Depending on the age, tell him to really pretend he's a scientistand that scientists rarely work alone. Just pretend he hasa team, and he is recording the whole team's findings. Longer sentances work too. I hope this helped!!!!!!!!
He is 13 and in the 6th grade. I am so trying to show him all this, but get so burned out on days like this. Thank you for the suggestions. I will let him know.
I'd suggest a few things: 1) Where is the rest of the report? You posted the Conclusion section, but there should be an introduction, background information, the purpose of the experiment, details of the experiment, the raw results, the meaning of the results, and finally the conclusion. It's difficult to comment on the Conclusion section without seeing the rest. 2) For a science report, as you mention, there are too many 'I's. Now is the time to learn how to write reports in the third person: not "I did three more experiments" but "three more experiments were carried out." 3) The following statement is back to front. It should not be "my hypothesis did not support the results of my experiment" but "the results did not confirm the predictions of the hypothesis". The positive thing, though, is that he notes this. Too many students would try to explain away results that are not expected. 4) "From my research and experiment the reason the Diet Coke and Sprite did higher amount of carbon dioxide in the sodas. This causing a larger geyser." This is the main conclusion of the experiment, but it's not backed up by facts. How do you know there's a higher amount of carbon dioxide in the sodas? It's very important to verify this in some way. Why can't the larger geyser be caused by different ingredients or warmer temperature or greater pressure or something else? 5) What possibilities are there for error? How accurate were the readings? How sensitive are the results to the accuracy of the readings? What other factors (such as temperature) could have affected the results? How many times was the experiment conducted, and were the results reproducible? Hope this helps.
my dds has been working on dress-up in their writing. for now, here are what they have covered so far. -ly words(adverb) which/who clause because clause quality adjective strong verb adverbial clause(when/where/as/if/since/although. I thought that would enhance his paper. other than that, I am proud of your son.
Do you want a critique of the writing style or ideas on how to edit the grammar? I can help with both as i am a certified English teacher. I've corrected the grammar mistakes in his conclusion. My hypothesis did not support the results of my experiment. I found out that adding larger nucleation sites He needs to state his hypothesis at some point before he explains the actual outcome of the experiment. for the carbon dioxide to go(no comma needed) did not make the geyser any higher or better. It actually was a smaller geyser with the larger nucleation sites I put on the Mentos. I found out the experiment was more successful if the Mentos were left the way they were, and I did not add more nucleation sites. I ended up with geysers of 11 ½ feet and 12 feet with the plain Mentos. The geysers with the larger nucleation sites added were only 4-5 feet in height. I also did three more experiments adding Mentos candies to other kinds of soda-Sprite, root beer, and orange soda. I found out you get a geyser from all sodas when adding Mentos. Yet I did find out that the Diet Coke and Mentos mixture did cause the highest geyser of all of them. The sprite caused the second best geyser at six feet, the rootbeer third at 5 feet with the orange soda geyser coming in at only 3 feet.. From my research and experiment, I can conclude that the reason the Diet Coke and Sprite geysers were larger was because of higher amounts of carbon dioxide in the sodas. Greater amounts of carbon dioxide produce higher geysers. The more carbon dioxide means more nucleation sites once I put the Mentos in the soda. The Mentos caused the first nucleation sites for the carbon dioxide to form bubbles. Once a bubble was formed, more bubbles could be formed off of that bubble. This happens at such a fast rate that it causes pressure in the soda bottle causing the soda to erupt out of the bottle with a lot of force causing the geyser. You should be so proud of your son. He really has a nice writing style! I've edited hundreds of papers as an English teacher, and I can tell that he has a solid grasp of grammar and great written communication skills __________________
The hypothesis did not support the results of the experiment. (shouldn't that say the experiment did not support the results of the hypothesis?) Adding larger nucleation sites for the carbon dioxide, did not make the geyser any higher. ( His version says 'or better'--what is 'better'?) . The geyser was smaller using the larger nucleation sites. (His version says 'worked better', What is 'worked better"?) The geyser measured 11½-12' in height with the plain Mentos. The test with larger nucleation sites resulted in geysers 4-5'. Three additional experiments were conducted using Mentos with Sprite, rootbeer, and orange soda. Geysers formed from each soda when Mentos were added . The Diet Coke and Mentos mixture caused the highest geyser. Sprite was second best at 6'; rootbeer was third at 5'; and orange soda only resulted in 3'. (Either all the numbers should be wrote out, or used in numerical form, but I wouldn't 'mix' that) The research indicates that Diet Coke and Sprite contain a higher amount of carbon dioxide than the other sodas. This resulted in a larger geyser. More carbon dioxide caused more nucleation sites when the Mentos were added to the soda. These nucleation sites allow the carbon dioxide to produce bubbles. ( In his version, first it says the carbon dioxide caused the nucleation sites, in the next sentence it says the Mentos caused nucleation sites. ?) Once a bubble forms, more bubbles form off of the first bubble. This happens rapidly, causing pressure in the soda bottle. After building up in the bottle, the pressure is released; erupting with enough force to cause a geyser.
I have to say some of this report didn't make sense, but I am assuming that is because it is a conclusion and there was more to the report? For example he says in the first paragraph that the geyser measured 11 -12 feet witht he plain mentos. Plain mentos and? what? He also doesn't have any source to back the claim that it is the carbon dioxide that is causing the higher geysers. Is the point of the experiment to show that the carbon dioxide causes geysers, or that a particular soda will produce higher geysers? he uses the word 'better' a couple of times, what does 'better' mean? higher? more forceful? wider? louder? 'better' could be an opinion, is it measurable?
Yeah, I know it is hard to get the full grasp of the paper without knowing the rest. He has written all the rest. There was a page for abstract (which I still think needs a lot of work), hypothesis, introduction, materials list, experiments purpose and procedure, data, then the conclusion. Now we are having flow problems. All pages were written following directions of what needs to be on each page. In doing that this report has not flow at all. It repeats most of the information over and over again. So, back to doing this again.
