|
|
|
|
One of the requirements for this course is to design, complete, and present an independent experimental research project. You are not limited to chemistry, and may explore topics in physics, biology, earth science, or other sciences. You are limited to projects that (a) require the collection of quantitative data, and (b) ask questions that cannot be answered in commonly available resources.
DEADLINES:
|
DATE |
WHAT'S DUE |
|
by Sept. 14 |
topic & tentative focus approval |
|
by Oct. 1st |
bibliography to date & map or outline of brief checkpoint due |
|
Oct. 24 |
|
|
by Nov. 2 |
procedure idea conference deadline |
|
by Dec. 10 |
procedure draft and peer review checkpoint due |
|
Dec. 21 |
|
|
by March 7 |
research data and draft analysis checkpoint due |
|
Feb. 25-Mar. 7 |
teacher conference on results completed |
|
Mar. 17 - 28 |
|
|
By May 5 |
formal journal article draft due AND peer review due |
|
May 26 |
CONTENT: (75%)
a brilliant brief that exceeds expectations in either the depth of understanding on the topic or or synthesis of disparate ideas or the effective use of unusual sources
B a well-developed research brief that demonstrates depth & accuracy in understanding of the topic and at least two types of sources and 6 individual resources
C the brief meets standards in most areas but does not meet standards in one area (depth, validity, sources)
D the brief has significant faults in more than one area, yet does demonstrate some understanding of the topic & research process
F the brief demonstrates little or no understanding of the topic or the research process
WRITING & MECHANICS: (25%)
A each idea is clearly expressed; the flow of ideas is smooth & logical; the grammar & spelling are impeccable; the works cited are correctly formatted, the brief is a pleasure to read & to look at
B there are minor problems but generally as above; the brief may lack the more polished and sophisticated uses of language
C there are significant faults in one area (clarity of expression or flow of ideas or mechanics) but the brief meets the standards in the other areas
D the brief does not meet standards in more than one area but shows some knowledge of clarity, structure, or mechanics
F the brief shows little or no understanding of how to write a technical paper
CONTENT: (7 0%)
A creative, original research problem and method on a challenging topic; all parts complete and accurate
B well-developed research question and method with either minor flaws in 1-2 areas or a general lack of originality/difficulty
C proposal meets standards in most areas but does not meet standards in one area (focus, background, method); may wish to revise
D significant faults in more than one area, yet proposal does demonstrate some understanding of his/her project and the scientific method; must revise before proceeding
F proposal demonstrates little or no understanding of the project or the scientific method; must revise before proceeding
WRITING: (20%)
A each idea clearly expressed; flow of ideas smooth & logical; grammar & spelling impeccable; a pleasure to read
B minor problems but generally as above; may lack flair
C significant faults in one area (clarity of expression or flow of ideas or grammar) but meets standards in other areas
D does not meet standards in more than one area but shows some knowledge of clarity, structure, or grammar
F show little or no understanding of how to write a technical paper
MECHANICS: (10%)
A format followed exactly; no "typos"; referencing (works cited)
correctly done; figures (diagrams and tables) correctly handled; the proposal has a professional look
B meets the standards with the exception of minor flaws
C meets all standards but those in one area: format, references,figures, appearance
D demonstrates quality in at least one area but fails to meet the standards in at least two areas
F demonstrates little or no understanding of the task
PROPOSAL: (10%)
A the presentation begins with a clear description of the project (focus, background, hypothesis, and procedure) that skillfully balances completeness (scope) with the exclusion of unnecessary detail (clarity)
B the presentation contains minor flaws but otherwise is as above
C there are significant problem in one area (scope, clarity, or content) but meets all other standards
D the presentation showed several major flaws in more than one are but also demonstrated some understanding of how to describe a project
F the presentation showed little or no understanding of how to describe a project
DATA: (10%)
A well-organized and easy to follow; complete; valid & reliable
B minor flaws but otherwise as above
C incomplete or disorganized, yet adequate to answer the focus questions
D major flaws in validity, reliability or completeness, but demonstrates some understanding of how to collect and present data
F shows little understanding of how to collect and present scientific data
ANALYSIS & CONLUSIONS: (40%)
A conclusions show both depth and breadth of understanding based on creative, elegant analysis of the data that help to illuminate what happened and facilitate thoughtful conclusions
B conclusions shows high level of understanding of non-challenging topic or minor reasoning flaws concerning a challenging topic, based on valid and complete analysis
C conclusions are valid but inadequately backed up by analysis; OR analysis is complete but the conclusion are superficial; OR there is a significant misconception limited to one area of an otherwise complete and valid conclusion
D there are misconceptions in multiple areas of the conclusions or a severe lack of back-up, yet the presentation demonstrates some knowledge of the concepts behind the experiment and how to analyze the results
F the presentation shows little understanding of the results of the experiment or of the role of analysis in scientific method
PRESENTATION: (30%)
A the presentation was prepared & organized; the talk flowed smoothly; questions were well-handled; the student's voice was clear and distinct; the pace was excellent; visual aids were helpful & easy to read
B minor flaws but otherwise as above
C there was a significant problem in one area (organization, aids, voice, pace) but otherwise as above
D she presentation showed several major flaws but also demonstrated some effort at preparation and some knowledge of organization
F student showed little or no preparation or understanding of how to do a major oral presentation
WRITING: (50%)
A each idea ia clearly expressed; the flow of ideas is smooth & logical; the grammar & spelling are impeccable; this is a pleasure to read
B minor problems but generally as above; the paper may lack sophisticated use of language
C there are significant faults in one area (clarity of expression or flow of ideas or grammar) but other standards are met
D there are major problems in more than one area but the paper shows some knowledge of writing skills
F the paper show little or no understanding of how to write a major technical paper
CONTENT: (40%)
A the research question and hypothesis was original and thoughtful; the background concepts fully yet concisely integrated; the method is complete, valid, and reliable; data tables and analysis were well-chosen to enlighten the reader, showing logic and creativity; the conclusions are thoughtful, thorough, & fully backed
B there are minor faults, or lack of depth, in one area
C there is a general lack of depth throughout paper; or significant fault in comprehension in one area of the paper (background & focus, data & analysis, conclusions) while other standards are met
D there are significant faults in more than one area, yet the paper does demonstrate some understanding of the project and the scientific method
F the paper demonstrates little or no understanding of the basics of the experiment or the scientific method
MECHANICS: (10%)
A the format is followed exactly; no "typos"; referencing is valid and correctly handled; figures are accurately labeled & referenced; the article looks very professional
B a few minor problems but generally as above
C there is a major problem in one area (format, referencing, figures) but the other standards are met
D there are major problems in more than one area but the paper shows some knowledge of proper techniques
F the paper shows little or no understanding of proper techniques for formatting, referencing, or including figures in a scientific journal