When I did this event, we did complete parallel processing (after deciding on an experiment together): one person did the beginning, problem-statement part, while another began executing the actual experiment, and the third started the write up (doing the parts that didn't require specific results first, like "potential sources of error" and "related experiments"). By the time the person doing the write up got to actually having to discuss the results, the experimenter would have some data for them.mnstrviola wrote:Alright, I think I get what you guys are saying. During the first part, the person with experience should be writing up the hypothesis, problem, thesis, etc. (the stuff before the data) while the other two are conducting the experiment. Then, the less experienced one should be recording the data on the graph while the other two are interpreting it and finding the results and conclusion. Is that right?
Typically the first person (doing the problem statement etc.) would finish first, and start cleaning up or help the experimenter finish up their graphs. In your case, it would definitely be the latter, since the experimenter will be the least experienced person and will need the most help. You can still parallel-process to some extent, though.