Posted: February 26th, 2023

Chemistry Research

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) TOTAL

Theory
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

presented

Introduction 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
mistakes

WRITTEN 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) TOTAL

Deep 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%)

• Sheet1

© 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.