Project help - Regional Fair

[pbeck]

Good afternoon! My daughter did this years science fair experiment on how temprature effects borax crystal growth. Her hypothesis was that colder conditions would grow crystals faster than warmer condidtions. By the time she got to recroding her findings she seemed to have shifted and was recording the size of the crystals (which one was larger) rather than which one formed first (which she does have that information, just not in great detail). I say all this to give just a little background. So, she was chosen to move on to the regional science fair (got 3rd place at her school) and she was told that she can use the judges/teacher comments to make changes to her board (changes due by 2-14-13) She was somewhat confused at what to change. The judges commented that she focused her conclusion on the size/weight of crystals, not which grew first. Along with a few other comments on her conclusion not including "data". I guess overall our question is how do you "correct" her project. Do you change the hypothesis to correspond with the results she recorded? And also, they have requested that she create an "Abstract" to be included at the regional fair. We know this is a sort of "summary" of the project, but are unsure what information should be included. Since it can only be 250 words, she is worried about not being able to provide enough detail to "catch" the judges attention, which is what her teacher said the purpose of the abstract is. Can you please offer any suggestions on changes that can be made, or assistance in what to include in the abstract? We have all of her work that can be attached if needed. Thank you for your assistance

[alison97]

Hi!

 

First of all, congrats! I'm a high-school student and currently working on my own science fair project, so I can definitely empathize. I suppose I would try to make the conclusion correlate a little more with the hypothesize. For example, instead of "I hypothesize the colder temperature will result in a faster rate of growth, and therefore the crystal exposed to colder temperatures will form first." she could write "I hypothesize the colder temperature will result in a faster rate of growth, and therefore the crystal exposed to colder temperatures will not only be the first to form, but should also be larger than that grown in warmer temperatures. Over time, the differences in rate of growth should compound, causing the size difference to likewise increase exponentially." She could then go on to make a line graph showing the size of each crystal over time, with emphasis placed on the widening size-gap (assuming the data's available). Or she could, in her conclusion, emphasize how not only did the colder cyrstal form first, but it maintained its faster rate of growht over the entire time frame, resulting in a larger crystal at the end of experimentation.

 

On second thought, it may be a good idea to totally revise her hypothesis to place more emphasis on the cyrstals' sizes rather than which formed first, if that would be more conveniant for writing the conclusion. It's completely ethical so long as she doesn't change her actual prediction (i.e which temperature will result in the faster growing crystal)l.

 

As for the abstract, a good way to catch the judge's eye would be to emphasize the effects of her experiment on society. For example "Knowing the ideal temperature for borax cyrstal growth would decrease production costs. If the price of borax crystals were to decrease, the products in which they are used- insect repellent, flux, weed killer- should become more widely and inexpensively available as well."

 

Good luck at the regional fair