Organic Chemistry 1: Lab Report Feedback

This reflection is a part of our lab report assessment, which will enable us to receive
comments of praise and criticism. If given another opportunity to change this lab report, it
would be beneficial for myself to enhance this report. With these comments of praise and
criticism, I am given the opportunity to understand the properties in my lab report which
weren’t at its best standard and if given the opportunity, be able to alter and enhance my
report. The feedback gives me time to understand what problems I have when writing a
professional and proper lab report. The reason for this lab report was to demonstrate the
mechanisms of Sn1 and Sn2 reactions.
The lab report was marked by the demonstrators who have many creditability in which
justifies their reasoning in the marking scheme.
There were two major problems with my lab report where I didn’t reference some of the
information that I had collected through publish, literature texts, and I didn’t discuss the
importance of the second part (Part B) of the experimental practical.
In my introduction, most of the information I provided was common knowledge of the topic
and it was information which wouldn’t be hard to understand so I found it hard to reference
any additional information since it was my own knowledge of the topic. However, it was
stated in the marking scheme that the agenda of the introduction is to assume that the
marker has very little knowledge of the topic. That’s why it was hard to reference additional
information that I didn’t receive from the theory in the lectures and from the practical. In
addition, even when having an image of the mechanism, it must be referenced since I did not
draw it. I thought it was assumed that I got the image from the lab manual that I wouldn’t
need to reference the image. I did, however, reference all my published, literature values.
Throughout my discussion, I analysed the first part (Part A) of the experimental practical but
I didn’t discuss Part B of the experiment. I assumed since there wasn’t much information from
the data obtained for there to be a discussion component for it. However, Part A and Part B
do relate to one another and I should’ve discussed every aspect of the experiment no matter
how small the significance. In conjunction, adding diagrams of how Sn1 and Sn2 mechanisms
are a part of the experiment would’ve been helpful for the marker to understand the topic
better.
In addition, I should’ve addressed more complex answers within my discussion questions. For
the discussion questions, I only saw the questions from face value and didn’t see the other
reasons why a reaction has occurred or how a certain physical property effects the
compound. For example, in questions seven, eight and nine, I should’ve discussed about the
stability, steric hindrance and the resonance structure, respectively. I can also add that my
discussion was lacking in a lot of content since most of the discussion questions would have
covered what would’ve been written in the discussion. The discussion itself should’ve been
independent from the discussion questions.
Within my results, I should’ve stated also the temperature for the obtained RI value and
published, literature RI value. I also should’ve stated the significance of the RI value if it was
measured at a high or low temperature.
To conclude, being able to reflect on the feedback given and understand the problems arisen,
has been beneficial for future reference to increase my knowledge. It gives an opportunity to
understand the problems in writing lab reports for me.