The last part of the course is devoted to a single team-based independent project that combines the conceptual knowledge from lecture with the data analysis and report-writing skills from the 5 MPs. Your team should work with Prof. K to develop an interesting question with a reasonable scope to answer with your Final Project. There are two assignments associated with the final project: A report and short presentation.
The most important point to consider while undertaking your FP is this: pose an informed question (i.e., an hypothesis) and address it quantitatively with the data you collect. Beyond this, you must also explain why you asked the question you have, that is, establish what about this question is relevant about to the biology and physics underlying your hypothesis. To successfully pose a manageable question and realize its importance, it is critical to choose a topic or problem that is tidy and focused. In doing so, you can address it in enough detail in your report and presentation.
To understand what is important about your question and, just as importantly, establish how you’ll get your data (i.e., design your experiment), you must evaluate how similar questions have been answered and what the answers were. In other words, you must review the literature. The introductory and discussion material of your reports and presentations should include information gathered from the literature that address why the work is important and how your work contributes to new knowledge. Prof. K will work with you to review the appropriate literature.
Once you have a good idea of how to approach your problem and in what context it might land, you’re now ready to do some science. Your experimental subjects need not be human, but they must permit easy data acquisition—you only have a few days to collect these. Experiments should leverage the skills and technical knowledge you obtained in class, including biomechanical modeling in R, kinematic analysis in imageJ, and data acquisition with Arduino. Of course, critical to your choice of methodologies is the instrumentation you can access: wind tunnel, three-point tester, force transducers, calipers, iPhones and all the software used with these. In choosing what instrumentation and software to use, you must understand what data you want to gather. Therein, as the Bard would say, lies the rub. Think critically about this and consider how your data will perform in answering your question. A list of resources available to you can be found here.
We’ll break from lecture activities in late April to begin thinking about the final project. On Wednesday, April 21st, and Friday, April 23rd, we’ll hold a round table to discuss potential projects, including their scope and logistics. After this, you’ll have approximately three weeks to complete the project and submit your presentation and another week after that to complete and submit the project report. Please have a look at our schedule page for more details.
After the round tables, each team will be required to schedule at least one meeting with Prof. K to discuss relevant literature and perhaps collaborate on experiments.
Just like the MPs, the Final Project report should resemble a short manuscript that models a scientific paper. By this, we mean that it should contain appropriate headings or sections framing the question, how it was answered, the results, and how these results relate to the question and similar work that has been done. Like the MP reports, these sections include:
Please synthesize your results into a report 5 pages long using R markdown. Each group should submit on document containing the markdown code and a second document rendered in R markdown. These should be emailed to Professor Kenaley. The R markdown document should look something like a scientific paper, perhaps like one you read in your literature review. It should include the following sections and their associated content:
The very prestigious Nature publishing group has released a series of articles on their “Scitable” site devoted to writing in science. You may find this article helpful in writing your report.
The FP report is worth a total of 100 points toward your final grade. The following rubric describes how it will be evaluated.
| Component | Spot On | Pretty Good | Needs Work |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tasks and Outputs | Completes all tasks fully; submits all required outputs and
materials on time, including those scheduled before the final deadline.
(15 pts) |
Completes a majority but not all tasks fully; final submission meets
the deadline but some preliminary deadlines may have been missed
( 8 pts) |
Completes few required tasks or submits few required materials; most
submissions miss their respective deadlines (3 pts) |
| Scientific Rigor | The project approaches an important question in organismal biology
with a reasonable scope using tools and techniques used in the course
(15 pts) |
The project question is well defined, but perhaps trivial, or the
project scope is too narrow or ambitious (8 pts) |
The question is trivial and the scope unreasonable. (3 pts) |
| Effort and Engagement | The individual or team pursues help from the instructor, ask
questions and/or seeks help regularly (15 pts) |
Individual or team asks questions or seek help sometimes, but not
regularly (8 pts) |
Individual or team does not seem help (3 pts) |
| Report Format | Report contains all the appropriate headings and components
(including a bibliography) (10 pts) |
Report contains most of the appropriate headings and components
(including a bibliography) (6 pts) |
Report contains few of the appropriate headings and components
(2 pt) |
| Analysis and Code | Report contains concisely written code chunks within the results or
methods sections that produce creative analyses, figures, and/or tables
that have clear implications for the project’s question (15 pts) |
One or a few code chunks are unneeded or produce analyses, figures,
and/or tables that do not have clear implication for to the project
goals (8 pts) |
No code chunks contained in report or all code chunks are unneeded
or produce analyses, figures, and/or tables not directly related to the
project goals (3 pts) |
| Graphics and Tables | Figures, tables, and images are clear, add much to the results in
analysis, and have concise but descriptive captions (10 pts) |
One or a few figures, tables, and images are unneeded or
inappropriate or they lack captions that are concise or descriptive
(6 pts) |
All figures, tables, and images are unneeded or inappropriate
(2 pt) |
| Writing and Style | The writing is concise, clear, avoids passive constructions, and is
in the past tense; grammar is appropriate (10 pts) |
The writing is unclear or rambling in spots or uses passive
constructions and future tense; grammar is shaky in spots (6 pts) |
The writing is unclear, and/or uses passive constructions or future
tense throughout; grammar is shaky for the most part (2 pt) |
| Sources and References | The report contains 3 references to primary research pieces that
support statements of fact; references are contained in a BibTex bibliography and
inserted with @ tags (10 pts) |
Report contains fewer than 3 references; some statements of
scientific findings and fact are not supported by references; some
references are not contained in a BibTex bibliography or inserted with
@ tags (6 pts) |
Most statements of scientific findings and fact are not supported by
references; references are not contained in a BibTex bibliography nor
inserted with @ tags (2 pt) |
Like with the MPs, you may find this article helpful in writing your FP report. Likewise, advice concerning [how to avoid common writing mistakes]Common_mistakes.pdf)) may also be helpful.
Each team will make a 10-minute presentation using the software of their choice. The content of the presentation should be a distillation of project paper, however, it should be visually pleasing and not just a bunch of text. More specific guidelines and advice for composing the presentation can be found at this nifty post on Nature’s Scitable site.
The presentation should include 8 minutes for sharing your project and 2 minutes for questions. This time allotment will be strictly enforced. Each member of your group must present at least one slide. Questions will be addressed to the group as a whole.
The presentation should be recorded in Zoom or some other software that can record video and a screen simultaneously. Each team member should record their part of the presentation for the team to assemble into the final presentation. Presentations should be uploaded to this directory with a file name in the following format “TEAMNAME_final_presentation.mp4”.
The class will convene at Prof. K’s home at some point over finals period to watch the pre-recorded presentations and ask questions of each team.
The FP presentation is worth a total of 50 points toward your final grade. The following rubric describes how this presentation will be evaluated.
| Component | Spot On | Pretty Good | Needs Work |
|---|---|---|---|
| Communication and content delivery | The topic was communicated effectively; language and graphics were
clear, concise (10 pts) |
Communication of the topic was unclear in some parts; some graphics
and language may have been confusing (6 pts) |
Communication of the topic was unclear throughout; most or all
graphics and language were confusing (2 pts) |
| Organization | Presentation was well organized; presenters introduced the topic
clearly, maintained focus throughout, and made logical and relevant
conclusions (10 pts) |
Presentation was unorganized in parts; presenters failed to either
introduce the topic clearly, maintain focus, or make logical and
relevant conclusions (6 pts) |
Presentation was not organized overall; presenters failed to
introduce the topic clearly, maintain focus, and make logical and
relevant conclusions (2 pts) |
| Content | Presenters proposed a logical question, clearly explained the
project’s process, its results, and what was learned; presenters
combined class concepts with their results to draw new insights
(10 pts) |
Presenters failed to propose a logical question or clearly explain
the project’s process, its results, and what was learned, or did not
combine class concepts with their results to draw new insights
(6 pts) |
Presenters failed to propose a logical question, explain the
project’s process, its results, and what was learned, and did not
combine class concepts with their results to draw new insights
(2 pts) |
| Questions and answers | Presenters demonstrated enough knowledge of the topic to respond to
questions with confident, succinct, and insightful answers
(10 pts) |
Presenters demonstrated enough knowledge of the topic to respond to
most but not all questions with confident, succinct, and insightful
answers (6 pts) |
Presenters failed to respond to all questions with confident,
succinct, and insightful answers. (2 pt) |
| Individual contribution | The individual presenter’s contribution was substantial and key to
an effective presentation (10 pts) |
The individual presenter’s contribution was obvious but perhaps not
pivotal. (6 pts) |
The individual presenter’s contribution was unclear, limited, or not
important (2 pts) |
Please upload your report and presentation using this form.