17 March 2021
Rhetorical Analysis of Lab Reports
In their article, professors in the Department of Psychology, Austin et al., in their article, emotional intelligence, coping and exam-related stress in Canadian undergraduate students, published in 2010 addresses the topic of Emotional intelligence and argues that the level of emotional intelligence or consciousness is the main factor to cope with stress. The purpose of this article is to define the factors that contribute to stress for an undergraduate and its relations to emotional intelligence. The writer adopts a professional tone for the audience, the readers of The Australian Psychological Society, and others interested in the topic of exam-relate stress. In another topic-related article, Reappraising Stress Arousal Improves Performance and Reduces Evaluation Anxiety in Classroom Exam Situations (2016), authors Jamieson et al., professions in psychology, asserts that stress appraisal will improve student’s performance during the exam period and suggests one to have a thoughtful experience to alter the emotional reaction. The authors appear to write to improve students’ academic life at zero cost to brighten up the future generations of students. Because of the authors’ inclusive and appreciative tone, it seems as if they write for an educational and information-seeking audience. Also, in the article, Saliva pH as a biomarker of exam stress and a predictor of exam performance (2014), professions in Social Welfare and Health Sciences and Nursing, Miri Cohen and Rabia Khalaila, asserts that the pH level of the saliva is an accurate way to detect stress level by addressing the use of pH in saliva, the change in pH level of the participants during the exam date, and look at the cause for the increase or decrease of pH level that defines stress increase. Miri Cohen and Rabia Khalaila wish to convey to readers the importance of stress studies to improve future researchers. The authors’ audience likely consists of those interested in pH level studies as is evident through their references to saliva and stress; they address readers with a tone that is formal and purposeful. The authors of Saliva pH as a biomarker of exam stress and a predictor of exam performance and Reappraising Stress Arousal Improves Performance and Reduces Evaluation Anxiety in Classroom Exam Situations effectively convince their audience that their exam-related stress studies are well supported through the use of statistics, addressing the efficacy of the research in concise and clear details, and the use of surveys paired with positive outcomes; while the article, Emotional intelligence, coping and exam-related stress in Canadian undergraduate students, is a bit difficult to understand with its given emotional intelligence scale which made it hard for the readers to grasp the statistics and results.
The authors, Jamieson et al. and Miri Cohen & Rabia Khalaila have effectively convinced their readers through the use of statistics. In the article written by Jamieson et al., they specify the scale that is used in the data table. For example, “Exam score (scale: 1-100)”, “anxiety (scale: 1-5)”, and “appraisals (scale: 1-7)”. The statistic is clearly labeled and organized, you can tell where the name of test groups, exam number, mean value, standard deviation, and correlation value is labeled in the table. Similar to the article written by Miri Cohen & Rabia Khalaila, you can clearly see the trend through the table, “Experienced stress: 6.01, 5.72” and “ pH: 6.95, 7.41”, as the mean value of experienced stress decrease the mean value pH increase. The techniques used by both of these articles have well-organized data that is concise and clear to view, which makes the statistic more convincing. Differently, compare to the article written by Austin et al. is a bit more complicated to understand the table. The reason is that there are a lot of unnecessary data that is shown in the table that can be cut out because they were not used or discussed in the article. Another reason is an unclear explanation of the scale that is used. Austin et al. stated, “The scope of this investigation of EI/coping associations was, however, limited by the use of a short trait EI scale, meaning that the associations of EI subcomponents with coping were not investigated”. This shows a lack of information or explanation for the reader to understand an EI scale. It is important to be organized research data and have a clear explanation for the readers to understand. An effective way of presenting statistics will make the article appear more convincing.
The ability of the authors to address the efficacy of their research in concise and clear details makes their studies more convincing. In the article, Reappraising Stress Arousal Improves Performance and Reduces Evaluation Anxiety in Classroom Exam Situations, they refer to the data to support their hypotheses. One example is “Consistent with hypotheses, students assigned to reappraise stress arousal as a coping tool performed better on Exam 2 than on Exam 1 (MzD = .19, SD = .72) compared to placebo controls (MzD = .21, SD = .78), t(79) = 2.42, p = .018, d = .55 (see Table 1)”(Jamieson et al., 2016). The authors state a concise worded sentence and a clear data comparison between the reappraisal group and placebo group which illustrates that stress reappraisal does improve a student’s performance in exams. The author of Saliva pH as a biomarker of exam stress and a predictor of exam performance also had a concise and clear explanation about the relationship between salivary pH and stress. They stated “Hypothesis 2 regarding the effects of appraisals, experienced stress and test anxiety on levels of pH were assessed using correlations and multiple regressions. At Time 1, pH levels were negatively associated with threat appraisal (r = −.38, p < .001) and with experienced stress (r = −.49, p < .001); meaning, the higher the threat appraisal and the experienced stress, the lower the pH (the higher the saliva acidity)”(Cohen and Khalaila, 2014). This shows a concise and clear explanation about the higher the stress level is, the lower the pH level (which means the saliva is becoming more acidic). Both of the articles, Reappraising Stress Arousal Improves Performance and Reduces Evaluation Anxiety in Classroom Exam Situations and Saliva pH as a biomarker of exam stress and a predictor of exam performance, address the effectiveness of their research with a well-written explanation of the results of their studies; the studies can effectively convince the readers and backup their own claims.
The results of surveys or questionnaires paired with positive outcomes make the evidence more convincing to the audience. The Adapted Stress Appraisal Questionnaire from the article, Reappraising Stress Arousal Improves Performance and Reduces Evaluation Anxiety in Classroom Exam Situations, written by Jamieson et al. had included a great example. It has written statements for the students to respond on a scale of 1-7 from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The appendix shows “1. The upcoming math test is very demanding. 2. I am uncertain about how I will perform on the test. 3. The math test will take a lot of effort to complete. etc.”, these statements help gather stress rating data from participants. The outcome supports the authors’ claim that student that copes using stress reappraisal lowers their stress level and therefore improve their exam performance. The article, Saliva pH as a biomarker of exam stress and a predictor of exam performance, also uses a questionnaire to gather participants’ stress levels, but there are no examples of what statements or questions are written in the questionnaire. The outcome is positive because it supports the hypothesis that the higher stress would decrease the pH of the saliva. Makes it a reliable, convincing, and effective study to use salivary pH can determine a person’s stress level. A questionnaire or survey helps a research study gather effective data to support their hypotheses that’s why the results of surveys or questionnaires are strong evidences to convince the audiences.
The article Saliva pH as a biomarker of exam stress and a predictor of exam performance by Cohen and Khalaila and the article Reappraising Stress Arousal Improves Performance and Reduces Evaluation Anxiety in Classroom Exam Situations by Jamieson et al. have successfully convinced their readers that their exam-related stress studies are evidently fact-based through the use of statistics, explaining the efficacy of the research in concise and clear details, and the use of questionnaires paired with positive outcomes. Both articles are great examples of a well-written lab report. First, they have a well-organized data collection that is present on tables; the labels on the table are easy to understand without being overwhelmed by too much naming or data. Second, reflecting on the results then sum up the evidence concisely and clearly to prove their hypotheses. Lastly, state a purpose or reasoning behind the undertaking of this research, in the article written by Jamieson et al., their purpose is to invent a student academic improvement tool at a cost of nothing. These three steps combine will help formulate a well-constructed research article that is convincing to the readers.
This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
