Conference Proceedings Assignment

ISAT 181: Student ResearchReport, Spring 2014

Your JMU writing assignment for the ISR dual enrollment is to present your research project in the form of a conference proceedings paper. This is a nice opportunity for you to learn about and practice a different form of scientific writing; it will build on the lab report that you have already prepared as part of your ISR experience. It also models many kinds of papers that you may be expected to write in college.

So what exactly are conference proceedings? Proceedings are a published collection of scientific papers presented at a conference. Scientists from all disciplines present their research at professional meetings, which are often annual events of a professional scientific association or society (for example, the Ecological Society of America or the American Chemical Society). In addition, research conferences can be convened around a special topic of interest as a one-time event for those working in that area (such as a conference on emerging technologies for water desalination). The purpose for hosting and participating in conferences is to inform the research community about work in progress, to highlight important findings that may be emerging from a scientific study, and to get feedback and comment from participants in the audience. We want to stress the point that research takes place within a community of scientistswho communicate with each other both formally and informally. Their formal communications include (among other things) conference presentations, conference papers, and peer-reviewed publications.

Not all conferences have published proceedings. For those that do, each person presenting at the conference is expected to write a brief paper to be compiled with all the others into a single, large collected works. The proceedings may be published on paper and distributed to conference participants as a bound volume, or they may only be available online by a password given to conference participants (which is increasingly common). All of the papers in the proceedings conform to specific style guidelines (font size, headings, word length, and so forth). More importantly, these papers offer short, concise summaries of research that can be shared within the community for critique, feedback, and refinement. A proceedings paper follows the same basic logic and architecture as all scientific papers. It contains an abstract, an explanation of the research question and why it is significant, a background discussion (usually referred to as a literature review), an explanation of the research hypothesis (if appropriate), a summary of the research methods, a presentation of findings, a discussion of the findings, and a conclusion.

Your assignment is to write up your ISR research project in the form of a conference proceedings. It should be in the range of 2500 - 3500 words (This is about 4 pages of single-spaced typed text). We will give you a style guide for format and to help you structure your written paper. We will also guide you through a series of short writing assignments and worksheets to help you draft your paper. We will provide feedback and comment to you on your drafts, and you are expected to revise your drafts accordingly. By the time you are done, you should have a polished, complete, and clear scientific paper on your ISR project. Your paper will be graded based on the attached scoring sheet.

Grading Element / Total Points / Your Score
Abstract
~250 words written in the style of an informative abstract. All required elements of the abstract are present; the abstract reflects good judgment about the most important features of the research that need to be highlighted. See “Checklist: What makes a good abstract.” / 10
Statement of the Research Question or Problem
(A) For experimental projects:
The research question is concisely summarized; it is clear and uses precise, unambiguous terms. Appropriate literature is cited to ground the significance of the research and its relevance scientifically/technically and socially.The problem is sufficiently limited to allow a plausible approach.
(B) For “engineering” (e.g., design) projects:
The project has a clear objective, and the problem statement is concisely summarized using precise, unambiguous terms. Appropriate literature is cited to ground the significance of the research and its relevance technically and socially.Potential users of the design are identified, and the objective is relevant to their needs. / 10
Background/Literature Review
Relevantand non-trivial literature is reviewed, and synthesizes (A) background on the topic and associatedscientific/technical/social issues, and (B) previous research relevant to the research study or design project. The review provides necessary context to the research study or design project. The references include an appropriate mix of scientific, professional, and popular literatures and sources. Length is ~1,000 words. / 10
Methods
(A) For experimental projects:
  • A concise summary of the overall research design/experimental design is provided. The research design is explained in a manner that allows the reader to understand the overall process, the experimental conditions and control group, the techniques of data collection, and the manner in which alternative predictor variables or conditions were held constant.
  • Predictor and response variables are clearly identified and appropriate to the hypothesis. Operational definition of the variables, their units of measure, and the method of observation and data collection are clear and logical. The issue of bias and measurement error is addressed.
  • Details of materials and procedures aresummarized, and addressed only to the extent that they need to highlight unusual experimental circumstances. Materials lists are avoided, as isa sequential presentation of procedural techniques and steps.
(B) For design projects:
  • A concise summary of the overall design approach is provided, and in a manner that allows the reader to understand the overall problem-solving process.
  • Design criteria are clearly stated, and tied to explicit performance or outcome characteristics or design constraints.
  • Details of materials and procedures are summarized, and highlight any unusual material requirements or design techniques
/ 20
Findings
(A) For experimental projects:
Research findings are stated using clear narrative, supporting data, and appropriate statistical tests (if applicable). Tests of statistical association and significance are appropriate to the units of measure, and are correctly summarized and interpreted in the context of H0 and H1. Data are presented in effective graphical and tabular form and represent analytical findings, not raw data. Photographs or other images are included (as appropriate) as visual data.
(B) For design projects:
Results are discussed in terms of the workability of the solution; design elements that were particularly challenging or problematic; failures of design efforts, components or materials; ability of the design to achieve the stated performance goals and design criteria. / 20
Discussion
(A) For experimental projects:
The findings are discussed in terms of their implications for the defining research problem and question; unexpected results are highlighted. Tests of statistical significance (if appropriate to the study) are addressed in terms of their implications for relevant hypotheses or the central research question.
(B) For design projects:
The discussion explores the solution’s overall workability technically, whether it meets potential user needs, and is economically feasible. Is the solution a significant improvement over previous alternatives? Ongoing challenges to the design problem and its solution are addressed. / 20
Conclusions
(A) For experimental projects:
The overall findings and implications of the research are summarized. Limitations of the study (bias, error, limited data collection, lack of replication, and so on) and its generalizeability are identified.Future work is suggested.
(B) For design projects:
Implications of the results for remedying the design problem are explored. Ongoing challenges to the design problem and its solution are addressed, as well as whether or not the solution been tested for performance under the conditions of use. Limitations of the study are explored. Future work is suggested. / 10
Formatting, Grammar, Mechanics, Clarity of Prose
  • Paper fails to follow one or more major formatting requirements.
  • Numerous errors in grammar and mechanics, confusing prose and composition, and/or lack of clarity prevent the reader from making sense of the author’s work.
/ Up to 10 points lost (negative points)
100

Note: no points are lost in the final grade with respect to writing quality, logic, and soundness, as these are implicit in the scored items. Feedback is provided to students in their draft compositions using the criteria in the next table.

You will be given ungraded, informal feedback about the writing quality, logic, and soundness in your written drafts using the criteria below.

Writing Quality
Below average writing quality. Shows numerous errors in grammar, mechanics (punctuation, spelling, capitalization, use of numbers, acronyms, and so forth), and syntax. Composition and narrative reflect a lack of richness in language and overly simple sentence structures and prose. The narrative may be frequently unclear.
Average writing quality. Shows evidence of occasional major or minor errors in grammar, mechanics (punctuation, spelling, capitalization, use of numbers, acronyms, and so forth), and syntax. Composition and narrative demonstrate the richness of a skilled but still developing writer. Confusing language or expression may occasionally be present.
Above average writing quality. Shows evidence of few, if any, errors in grammar, mechanics (punctuation, spelling, capitalization, use of numbers, acronyms, and so forth), and syntax. Composition and narrative reflect the clarity and richness of a highly skilled writer.
Logic and Soundness
The paper demonstrates poor reasoning and logical connection between points, and/or frequently fails to substantiate claims with examples and evidence. Overall, the paper lacks a structured and logical sequencing of points into a coherent argument, description, discussion, or analysis.
Overall, the paper shows a coherent, logical flow and structure; however, key points, claims, and conclusions are often not substantiated. Major omissions or gaps may be present in required grading elements (insufficiently comprehensive).
Overall, the paper shows a coherent, logical flow with only minor flaws in structure or sequence; key points, claims, and conclusions are usually substantiated.
The paper shows a coherent, logical flow and structure, with few (if any) flaws in structure or sequence. Key points, claims, and conclusions are almost always substantiated with compelling evidence and example.