Lab Assignment 2: Hypotheses and Predictions Evaluation

Evaluation of Three Scientific Statements with Hypotheses and Predictions

You will upload the word document entitled Lab Assignment 2 that is found in your lab 2 folder. This file is for you to complete the assignment based on the contents of this assignment outline.You will evaluate (rate using the rubric) the following THREE statements #EVALUATE To help you learn to write your own testable hypotheses and predictions, you will gain experience reviewing previously written hypotheses and predictions. You will be required to provide a constructive comment for EACH statement. A constructive comment includes a summary of a strength and weakness. Additionally, in your comment you will provide a rationale that explains the rating you provided for the hypothesis and prediction of each statement. You will not be required to determine if the prediction is correct. You are evaluating if the hypothesis and prediction are structured properly so they are scientifically valid. Comments for each statement should not exceed 250 words. You will also rate eachstatement using the ratings on page 4 in this assignment outline.

If parasite abundance modifies predation rates, then we expected that captured isopods would have consistently higher numbers of parasites. Understanding isopod parasite load is important.Potassium (K) can be found in plant cells. We predict that if there is low potassium concentration in plant cells other ions, such as Sodium (Na) would be found in high concentrations.Amphibian cutaneous respiration rate is related to water temperature and amphibian skin thickness. Frogs with thicker skin will have decreased cutaneous respiration rates compared to frogs with thin skin.

This assignment will also provide you with an opportunity to gain skills in reviewing written scientific work, that you will apply to future assignments using Peerceptiv. You will be provided with feedback on the accuracy of your ratings and, more importantly, the quality of your comments that you can apply to future assignments when you comment and rate work completed by your peers Here is an example If food is present in the aquarium, then snails will move with greater speed. Which is important to understand.

Comment The statement is clearly written, so it can easily be understood with a single read through, and the two variables are clearly outlined. However, using the if and then framework for finalized work does make it wordy so it could be written without the use of “if” and “then” for improved clarity. I suggest trying “when food is present in the aquarium the snails with greater speed”.The hypothesis is the portion sandwiched between if and then and therefore this statement doesn’t contain a valid hypothesis because it is missing the connection or relationship between the dependent and independent variables. To improve this, I suggest stating something such as “snail speed will be influenced by the presence of food” to connect the two variables and make the hypothesis valid. The prediction (portion that follows the “then”) indicates that snails will move with greater speed and is clear, but hard to follow since the hypothesis is not structured properly. Include more reason to why this is important to convince a reader. Overall, great start to writing a scientific hypothesis.

Constructive Comments Required for Each Statement

Explanation of why the comment would be considered a valuable and constructive comment is written on the next page. Remember that a constructive comment would give the original author of the written work something to reflect on so that they could make improvements and/or changes.

The comment is constructive because it highlights a strength The statement is clearly written, so it can easily be understood with a single read through and the two variables are clearly outlined.The comment also identifies a weakness, and suggests a way to improve the statement However, using the if and then framework for finalized work does make it wordy so it could be written without the use of “if” and “then” for improved clarity. I suggest trying “when food is present in the aquarium the snails with greater speed.”

Additionally, the comment provides a rationale to rating of the hypothesis and prediction The hypothesis is the portion sandwiched between if and then and therefore this statement doesn’t contain a valid hypothesis because it is missing the connection or relationship between the dependent and independent variables. To improve this, I suggest stating something such as “snail speed will be influenced by the presence of food” to connect the two variables and make the hypothesis valid. The prediction (portion that follows the “then”) indicates that snails will move with greater speed and is clear, but hard to follow since the hypothesis is not structured properly. Include more reason to why this is important to convince a reader.

The hypothesis statement should explain some observation and not contain indication of expected results if an experiment was conducted to test the hypothesis. Hypothesis is Testable The hypothesis statement should explain some observation and not contain indication of expected results if an experiment was conducted to test the Hypothesis is clearly outlined The hypothesis statement should explain some observation and not contain indication of expected results if an experiment was conducted to test the Rationale A statement about why you rated the hypothesis and prediction the way you did, be sure to include what compo Prediction Prediction is logical Your prediction should logically flow after your hypothesis statement.

Rating 5 – The hypothesis explains an observation and includes a tentative relationship without indicting expected results

Rating 4 – The hypothesis partially explains an observation and includes a tentative relationship without indicting expected results
Rating 3 – The hypothesis does not fully explain an observation or indicates expected results
Rating 2 – The hypothesis indicates expected results
Rating 1 – There is no hypothesis

Rating 5 – The hypothesis indicated which two variables could be tested.
Rating 4 – The hypothesis is too broad and suggests multiple variables that could be tested.
Rating 3 – The hypothesis only indicates one part of the relationship that could be tested.
Rating 2 – The hypotheses does not clearly indicate what could be tested
Rating 1 – There is no hypothesis

Rating 5 – The hypothesis is written concisely, focused, and easy to follow.
Rating 4 – Hypothesis statements is too long or too short.
Rating 3 – Hypothesis statement is unfocused.
Rating 2 – Hypothesis statement is too long and unfocused.
Rating 1 – There is no hypothesis

Rating 3 – A single sentence statement is included that clearly indicate why this would be an important hypothesis to test
Rating 2 – A statement is included but is too long and/or does not clearly indicate why this is an important hypothesis
Rating 1 – No statement that explains the importance of the hypothesis is included
Rating 5 – The Prediction logically extends from the hypothesis and indicates an expected result
Rating 4 – The Prediction logically extends from the hypothesis, doesn’t contain an expected result
Rating 3 – The prediction is not clearly written but indicates what would be tested and an expected result
Rating 2 – The prediction is not testable as written
Rating 1 – There is no prediction.