Posted: February 26th, 2023
Due by 02/23/2023 Thursday
Including a PPT, 5 mins Script, and a written paper
Accomplished (9-10 points)
Good (7-8 points) Competent (5-6 points)
Developing (3-4 points)
(1-2 points) TOTAL
Thesis Introduced
Student presents clear, well focused hypothesis. Main question of interest is well defined and engages the audience.
Hypothesis clear but not well defined for audience
Hypothesis presentation confusing
Hypothesis not clearly
presented
No hypothesis presented
Main Points Clearly started, well focused, obvious
Obvious but not well organized or focused
Main points not obvious to audience Poorly organized Unorganized
Effective Conclusion
Main thesis identified and adequately addressed
Conclusions appropriate but not well supported by data presented
Conclusions confusing, not supporting thesis
Incorrect conclusions presented
No obvious conclusions reached
Delivery Confident of topic, obvious in delivery
Understanding obvious but organization distracting
Moderate understanding of topic, some confusion
Weak understanding of topic
Obvious lack of knowledge of topic
Communication with Audience
Audience interested and interactive
Interest generally held by audience
Interest not held throughout presentation
Audience polite but disinterested
Audience obviously not interested
Pace of Presentation
Appropriate pace of delivery allowing audience to track flow of information
Too fast; too much material presented; audience loses track
Erratic flow of information; confusing to audience
Poor pace, audience not held
No preparation and organization apparent
Visual Aids Appropriate and thoroughly explained. Support thesis
Explained reasonably well, matches and supports information flow
Matches content of presentation but not well explained
Does not add to knowledge base of presentation
Does not match and support presentation content
Principles of Chemistry (GNST 2630) Research Project Rubric
Total Possible Points: 200
Presentation (20%)
Content (15%)
ORAL PRESENTATION (35%)
Accomplished (9-10 points) Good (7-8 points) Competent (5-6 points) Developing (3-4 points) (1-2 points) TOTALTheory Developed
Presents precise and accurate scientific terminology and understanding. Explanation clear and informative
Adequately conforms to accepted scientific understanding
Deviates slightly from accepted scientific understanding
Theory not consistent with accepted scientific understanding
Theory not developed
Data Supports Theory
Support of theory is clear, concise and appropriate
Data moderately supportive of theory
Data poorly supportive of theory
Data confusing, unable to determine support theory
Data does not support theory
Clarity of Conclusion
Clear, well organized, well supported
Conclusion clear but not convincing
Conclusion stated but not supported Conclusion confusing No conclusion
presentedIntroduction of Thesis /Theory
Problem well understood as evidenced by clarity of stated thesis
Thesis obvious but not well thought out and structured
Thesis vague Thesis confusing No real thesis presented
Appropriate order of presentation
Order appropriate, follows correct scientific methodology
Order appropriate but not consistent with area/content of discussion
Report components present but improper sequence
Poor structure/presentation of scientific report w
Appropriate order not followed
Spelling
No mistakes Two mistakes Four mistakes Six mistakes Eight or more mistakes
Punctuation & Grammar
No mistakes Two mistakes Four mistakes Six mistakes Eight or more mistakesWRITTEN REPORT (35%)
Content (15%)
Organization (10%)
Mechanics (10%)
Accomplished (9-10 points) Good (7-8 points) Competent (5-6 points) Developing (3-4 points) (1-2 points) TOTALDeep and thoughtful thesis developed from scientific topic assigned. Scientific curiosity obvious
Thesis thoughtful but could have had more depth
Thesis adequate but developmental depth lacking
Thesis poorly developed No real thesis developed for assigned topic
Obvious critical analysis of findings and how they relate to thesis
Good analysis and adequate relationship
Poor analysis and weak relationship
Poor analysis and poor relationship No analysis presented
Final points are summed up clearly and cohesively; leaving the audience with clear understanding of the subject matter.
Adequately summed up the final points
Somehow summed up the final points but leaving out some other key points
Incoherent final points; leaving the audience confused about the final points.
No apparent conclusion
Very interesting proposal; obvious curiosity generated
Proposal moderately interesting
Proposal would not add to presented body of knowledge
No thought given, weak proposal None presented
Accomplished (18-20 points)
Good (14-16 points) Competent (10-12 points)
Developing (6-8 points)
(2-4 points) TOTAL
Strong critical evaluation of relationship of research to thesis
Adequate evaluation of relationship of research to thesis
Poor relationship of research to thesis
Very weak relationship developed
Conclusions do not support thesis
Validity of Conclusion(s) presented (5%)
Further Research Proposed (5%)
CRITICAL THINKING (30%)
Development of Thesis / Theory (5%)
Clearly presented supportive findings (10%)
Analysis of Research Findings (5%)
© 2011 FIDM/ Fashion Institute of Design & Merchandising
FIDM eLearning Program Page 1 of 3
GNST 2630 Principles of Chemistry
Research Report Guidelines
PART 1: WRITTEN REPORT (35%) 1. Select a research topic from the approved list on the Discussion Board.
2. Demonstrate the ability to research existing literature and integrate new ideas into the current
understanding of the assigned area of study.
3. As a researcher, contribute to “the body of knowledge” that has been presented during the course.
4. The report and presentation should include the areas required in any scientific exploration. These
are:
a. The theory or question under consideration; state the question to be addressed. (i.e.,
Can an automobile run on alcohol made from corn rather than gasoline?)
b. Present a brief abstract of your findings. (i.e., It has been shown that the internal
combustion engine can, in fact, run on alcohol.)
c. Give an introduction and history behind the topic to be researched. (i.e., When was
alcohol first tried for an internal combustion engine? Who did it and why?)
d. Give the methods used by the scientist to research the question. (i.e., Did they try a
lawnmower motor, a motorcycle or an automobile? Did they actually drive the vehicle? )
e. Discussion of findings. (i.e., Was the engine hard to start? Did it run as smoothly? Does it
produce more or less pollution?)
f. Research – if you had access to a laboratory, what would you do to validate your
findings or further investigate the question of interest? (i.e., Will alcohol damage engine
parts? Is it more or less expensive to make than gasoline?)
g. Present your conclusions and any implications they might have. This is where you would
add to the “Body of Science” concerning your area of interest. (i.e., Would corn alcohol
be a good substitute for gasoline? Why? Why not?)
h. What questions did this study leave unanswered that need to be researched further?
(How miles per gallon do you get with alcohol as compared to gasoline? What impact
will it have on the ozone layer? )
FIDM eLearning Program Page 2 of 3
i. The report and presentation should contain graphics to demonstrate you findings
(graphs, charts, chemical structures, chemical reactions, etc.)
j. Present statistical data that supports your research.
k. References should be properly documented.
5. Research papers will be evaluated on both content, and on overall scholarliness. Show a good
understanding of the chosen topic and be neatly and correctly typewritten using double spacing.
PART 2: ORAL PRESENTATION (35%) Please take a look on the course syllabus for the due dates of the oral presentations of our research
papers. Sign up for your chosen date in the Discussion Board. There will be 2 time slot options for your
online presentation through Blackboard Collaborate Online Meeting. This presentation and your
associated PDF file represent 35% of your final Research Project grade.
These presentations should be 5 minutes in length. During that time, “you are the instructor” and will be
expected to fully explain the research you have done and answer the question(s) you have researched.
Use visual aids if you feel they will enhance your explanation or you may use the online meeting “white
board” for visual enhancement during your discussion. I will not be grading the beauty or creative
cleverness of your visual aids. I will be grading the clarity and completeness of your research and
explanatory presentation.
You have completed courses in Professional Presentation and Writing for Professionals, so your
presentations and written research reports should reflect those efforts.
PART 3: CRITICAL THINKING (30%) See Course Project Rubric for details.
HOW TO SUBMIT YOUR FILES Submit your files using the Assignments tool.
GRADING THE REPORT The Research Report will be graded as follows:
a. 35% - Oral Presentation – The ability to explain (NOT READ) the question/topic
researched. This presentation should present to the audience (who will not have the
opportunity to read the report) a well-organized enlightenment regarding the topic that
you investigated. You should also be prepared to answer questions regarding the topic.
b. 35% - Research Report --Quality of research conducted; Strength/validity of conclusions
based upon research; Organizational structure of report (refer to “a” through “k”
above); 10% - Professional Presentation (grammar, spelling, etc.)
FIDM eLearning Program Page 3 of 3
c. 30% - Critical Thinking –Deep and thoughtful thesis developed from the assigned
scientific topic; strong critical evaluation of relationship of research to thesis; clear and
cohesive conclusion; interesting proposal for future research; generate interests from
the audience.
Cocaine vs. Methamphetamine
Introduction
Explanation of the topic
Brief background on the drugs
Importance of understanding the difference between cocaine and methamphetamine
Origin of the Drugs
Historical background of cocaine and methamphetamine
The current distribution of the drugs
Comparison of the production methods
Chemical Composition
Explanation of the critical components of cocaine and methamphetamine
Comparison of their chemical structures
Discussion of the implications of these structures on their effects
Effects on the physical and mental health
Physical effects of cocaine and methamphetamine
Comparison of their physiological impacts
Discussion about the behavioral and cognitive effects of the drugs
Impact at the Community Level
Discussion of the social and economic implications of cocaine and methamphetamine abuse
Comparison of the public health and safety issues related to the use of these drugs
Discussion of the efforts to reduce drug abuse and the impact of these efforts on the community
Conclusion
Summary of the main findings
Final thoughts on the importance of understanding the differences between cocaine and methamphetamine.
Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.