II. COURSE DESCRIPTION

A capstone experience that requires students to participate in a full semester, integrated research project. Projects will be based on contemporary issues in science. Students will work on multidisciplinary research teams to explore possible solutions to the semester project. Solutions will be presented in a public forum. All areas of science are welcome.

III. RATIONALE

This course has been specifically developed to ensure all adolescent science education candidates have the opportunity to demonstrate performance in distinct areas of the National Science Teachers Associations (NSTA) Standards for Teacher Education. The performance standards addressed by this course are:

Additionally, this course meets National Science Education Standards and American Association for the Advancement of Science requirements for open-ended inquiry and long-term research into new and novel problems.

IV. COURSE OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES

As a result of participation in this course, students in SCIN 390 will:

1. Engage in self-directed inquiry.

2. Communicate research processes and findings at a scientific meeting.

3. Display understanding of the central concepts, tools of inquiry, critical thinking and structure of the disciplines taught. [CF II]

4. Use knowledge and communication techniques to foster active inquiry, collaboration and supportive interaction. [CF IV, INTASC Principle 6]

V. COURSE TOPICS The topics covered will vary based on the research project selected. Successful completion of projects will require students to:

a) Engage in library research.

b) Understand and apply research design methods.

c) Communicate both orally and in writing the findings of their research.

d) Demonstrate competence in the use of scientific tools

e) Apply statistics to data analysis

VI. Instructional Methods and Activities

a) Cooperative group research. b) Student presentations. C) Active inquiry.

VII. EVALUATION AND GRADE ASSIGNMENT: COURSE REQUIREMENTS

Course is graded A-E. Rubrics used in evaluating b-f are attached.

Requirement	Due Date
a) Rubric 1: Research Proposal-. Team Score 29 points. .	September 22^nd. .
b) Rubric 2: Research Paper. Team Score 25 points.	December 1^st.
c) Rubric 3: Three 1-2-page Literature Reviews from Peer Reviewed Scientific Journals. *Individual Score* *100 points.*	Due Dates: 9/15; 10/13 and 11/13 .
Rubric 4. Individual Inquiry Rubric. *Individual Score* *200 points.*	October 6^th; November 3^rd; and 12/15.
Rubric 5. Final presentation Team Score 10 pts.	December 8^th.
Total points possible 364: 300/364= 82% individual and18% team based.

Rubric #1: Assessment and Scoring Guide for the Research Proposal: This will be a powerpoint presentation following the items below. 29 points maximum.

Component	0-points	1-point	4-points
Title	Does not clearly describe project	Clearly describe project-including but not limited to independent and dependent variables.
Research Summary- These are done individually. A guide is below. Three literature reviews/team member.
Research Questions	Not clearly stated or likely to largely repeat another study and not add to the current body of scientific knowledge.	Stated in measurable terms. Variables are clearly identified in research questions.	Stated in measurable terms with clarity. Variables are clearly identified in research questions. Evidence that the research questions are logical outcomes of the research review and are likely to lead to further scientific understanding.
Hypothesis	Poorly written, inconsistent with research questions and literature review.	Consistent with research questions and logical outcomes of the literature review.	Consistent with R.Q and substantiated with relevant research. Also, hypothesis statements should be directional, non-directional or null depending on the research review and the intended statistical analysis of data.
Variables	Unable to distinguish independent and dependent variables and controls.	Independent, dependent, and control variables identified.	Fully defined in the context of the study-including operational definitions, identification of independent and dependent variables.
Materials and Methods	Unclear or poorly planned. Highly unlikely that the plan will yield useful data.	Partially clear but with some ambiguities. This project can be done with the equipment available. Yu have read related research and adapted ideas as necessary.	Completely clear -materials identified, each step of the project carefully planned. Reader can follow the flow of the plan. You have utilized information from your literature review to enhance the creativeness and elegance of your plan.
Data Collection plan	Tables are not developed or are poorly developed. There are unanswered questions as to how the data will be collected, organized and presented.	Beginning stages-data collection tables need work, but you are on the right track. They may lack creativity, or may present non-essential information.	Complete system in place to collect data (tables, time-line, etc). Tables are made and ready for data input. They will lend enable you to report clear, accurate data.
Data Analysis	Wrong statistics planned for the hypotheses statements and data.	Simple statistics-or dubious statistics planned. No indication that you have explored the software (SPSS, etc), and related research in planning your statistics.	Accurate statistics and mathematical analysis planned. You can defend the decisions you made to use selected statistics.
Overall quality-Primarily I am looking for an investigation that is challenging and that draws on the resources of the research team and the resources of the college. Investigate a topic that will require you to learn and apply concept, methods and theories from several science disciplines.	Topic to simple for college level work. Lacks challenge. Perhaps it has been done many times before and the outcome will not lead to any further understanding. The topic may also be one-dimensional. That is, it may not require you to learn and employ methods or ideas from other science disciplines. For example, a soil study that simply compared porosity would be insufficient. Better would be a soil study that investigated soil chemistry, soil history, and its impact on the ecology of the region.	Appropriate topic -can be done in one semester. Will enable you to learn new science and apply that which you already know. The study connects more that one field of science.	Successful research within the topic requires unification of science processes or themes from different disciplines. For example, if primarily an Environmental Science study, you include ecology, earth science, and probably analytical chemistry. Topic, clearly presented and team capable of answering class questions. Researchers are totally prepared for the presentation and have obviously rehearsed it.

Rubric 2. Evaluation and guide to written paper detailing the research project. The maximum score on this part is 25 points.

Rubric #2: Maximum Score 25 pts.

Component	0-Points	1-Point	4-Points
Title page		Includes title, names, contact information, and course number.
Abstract: Look carefully at how professional scientists write abstracts and model after those.	None	Contains most of what is in the next column but leaves the reader guessing as to what the research is about.	A good abstract usually: a) describes the objectives of the research. b) states the research questions. c). briefly describes the main methods used. d.) describes the results including statistical significance. e.) describes some implications of the study.
Literature review: These are written and scored individually.
Research Questions	Not clearly stated or likely to largely repeat another study and not add to the current body of scientific knowledge.	Stated in measurable terms. Variables are clearly identified in research questions.	Stated in measurable terms with clarity. They lend themselves to a quantitative study and statistical analysis of data. Variables are clearly identified in research questions. Evidence that the research questions are logical outcomes of the research review, and will lead to further scientific understanding.
Hypotheses statements	Poorly written, inconsistent with research questions and literature review.	Consistent with research questions and logical outcomes of the literature review.	Consistent with R.Q and substantiated with relevant research. Also, hypothesis statements should be directional, non-directional or null depending on the research review and the intended statistical analysis of data.
Materials and Methods	Unclear or poorly planned. Highly unlikely that the plan will yield useful data.	Partially clear but with some ambiguities. This project can be done with the equipment available. Yu have read related research and adapted ideas as necessary.	Completely clear -materials identified, each step of the project carefully planned. Reader can follow the flow of the plan. You have utilized information from your literature review to enhance the creativeness and elegance of your plan.
Results-Look carefully at how professional scientific papers present the results and model those.	Do not address R.Qs and hypothesis statements.	Address R.Q and hypothesis statements. Charts and tables mostly clear. Proper use of statistics and applications of mathematics. You will get this rubric score if the section is acceptable but still leaves the reader with unanswered questions or if there is a lack of clarity that obscures the findings.	Elements of a good results presentation. a. Respond to each question parallel to their initial presentation in the introduction. b. Respond fully but do not exceed the data. c. Do not offer conjecture of anecdotes beyond the defendable facts. d. Refer to tables and figures as needed in text. e. Present the important information and use correct scientific language and statistics.
Discussion	Inadequate. Fails to revisit the findings and offer explanations. Fails to refer to related scientific research.	Contains most or all of the elements in the next column but lacks clarity or style of presentation.	Elements of a good discussion presentation. a. provide a general overview of the findings. b. offer explanations on findings that may not be completely defendable in the study. c. refer to research cited and compare these findings to related research. d. offer ideas for possible follow up studies. e. describe any possible flaws or elements of this study that may cause you to be cautious in generalizing the data.

Rubric 3. Assessing 1-page literature reviews from Peer Reviewed Scientific Journals. Scores of 3 reviews averaged to 100.

Assessed	Details of what is expected	Poor 0-10	Developing 11-28	Excellent 29-33.3
Main features of a literature review.	The writer describes the following: what was researched; the main attributes of the theory supporting the research; how the research was conducted; what the main findings were, and how the data were analyzed or presented; and the implications of the paper on future research.
Importance to our project	Describe how the research informs or may be helpful to our project.
Writing quality	A very clear and nicely flowing literature review. The paragraphs are logically structured. A basic rule of writing is to keep “One Idea to One Paragraph”. Paragraphs should begin with a “Topic Sentence”; be “Adequately Developed” and “Transition” into the following paragraph.

Rubric 4: Individual Inquiry Rubric: You will receive feedback from this rubric on three selected dates (5-week intervals). The scores will be averaged to 200 points.

Inquiry Skills Assessed	Poor	Acceptable	Well Done
Group Involvement Max 50 points	Minimum participation	Occasionally off task and or not fully prepared for the days work.	Listening to team members and communicating ideas. Focused on the task and working for the success of the group.
Application of Science Skills Max 50 points	Relying heavily on the professor for solutions to every problem	Some evidence of using research and resources to solve problems. Work somewhat messy and disorganized.	You have read and are applying current science to the project. You are taking careful measurements, and organizing data.
Independence and Problem Solving Max 50 points	Little to no evidence of initiative, intuition and energy in thinking of ways to solve problems.	Make several attempts and work with the team at solving problems.	Recognize that science involves problem solving and you are thinking on you own and working with your team to solve problems. You are conducting out of class research to help solve problems, creating mathematical solutions to problems, and sticking with it despite the inevitable problems. There is evidence of creativity in your solutions to problems.
Data Collection and Analysis Max 50 points	Messy or you rely on your group members to do the work for you	Collect data but struggle with clarity of presentation and statistical analysis of data.	You are organizing your daily work in ways that make the data accessible for analysis-i.e., charts, tables, Excel, SPSS. You demonstrate an ability to apply Statistics and Mathematics to the analysis of data.

Rubric 5. Rubric used to grade d) Final Research Presentation: Either a poster or powerpoint (format to be determined). Maximum 10-Points.

Rubric #3

Research Features

0-6-Points

-7-8 Point

9-10-Points

Attractive Display-the audience will walk around the display room and come to your station as they please. You have to have an inviting display that captures their interest and then successfully keeps them there until they understand what is going on.

Poorly designed, sloppy appearance.

Elements of a good scientific display.

Attractive and draws the audiences attention. Display contains:

Hypothesis and or research questions; a rationale for conducting the study; summary of literature reviews; brief description of methods; key findings presented-usually with tables, pictures graphs, etc. and a conclusions or implications section.

Date	Summary of Work Accomplished: What did you do? Where did you do it? What did you accomplish?	Who helped you?	Time (minutes) spent on project	Problems Encountered