AS and A Level: Chemistry: Organic Chemistry Coursework

"A good attempt at a plan for this investigation, with some notable failings. While the author may understand what they're trying to get across, the introductory theory is, to my mind, poorly explained and overly dominated with formulae. I would suggest that an attempt to explain these in plain English would help the overall report significantly. More positively, the method is well-explained, in a suitable bullet-point format; the use of diagrams to illustrate the method is useful here. Finally though, I feel that the end of the report is rather weak, as although there is a heading 'Calculations', the author simply includes a sample graph with minimal explanation, giving the reader a rather poor impression to conclude the report. TSR User: Illusionary"

"Excellent - a superb, extremely thorough report on this investigation. The report begins will a well-explained discussion of the background theory, well-illustrated with appropriate diagrams - the author clearly has a full command of the topic. Following this, the method is ideally presented in short, easy-to-follow steps, but the final sections are where this report really shines. There is a very detailed numerical analysis both of the results and of the quantitative errors in the investigation, building towards a well-justified conclusion, while also making some sensible suggestions for improvements to the experimental method. TSR User: Illusionary"

"Quite weak. The format used for this write-up is rather unhelpful to the reader who is not already aware of the experiments being performed - the way that the report 'jumps' between four separate experiments makes it somewhat difficult to follow. In terms of the actual content, it's disappointing to see no discussion of the background theory to begin with. While the method is clearly stated in each case, the way in which the results are reached is not immediately obvious, particularly as *no* results are stated for two of the four, and the calculations show a lack of awareness of the importance of consistent precision - the data cannot justify answers to 6sf! I can't really properly assess the discussion, as the author is clearly answering pre-set questions, but the questions themselves are not stated. It would have been good to see an attempt to expand the scope of the work beyond the narrow confines of pre-set questions, and also to carry out an evaluation of the experiment's success (e.g. error analysis). TSR User: Illusionary"

"Poor - extremely brief, missing a number of vital sections. This experimental write-up has only a statement of the 'objective' to begin, and there is no attempt to explain the background theory, give a prediction or even set out the method followed. The results are simple temperature readings, but even the simple statement of the temperature change is omitted. The remainder of the write-up appears to be answering pre-set questions (though the questions themselves are not stated, so the context is rather unclear), and these answers are themselves rather brief, overly limiting the extent of the analysis/evaluation work. TSR User: Illusionary"

"Generally good, but with room for improvement. The report starts quite positively, with a failry wide-ranging exploration of relevant theory; however, this is notably missing a justification for the quoted 'expected' values (taken from a databook), which could be obtained using bond enthalpy considerations. The method is clearly stated, with a useful initial section justifying the choices made, but it's difficult to assess the results without the inclusion of the graph, which is not part of this upload. The report could also benefit from a clearer statement of the ultimate conclusion, but the final evaluation section provides a strong ending to the report with a useful consideration of errors and improvements to address these. TSR User: Illusionary"