PEAS6000: Research Methodology

Term Project
Date: December 1
st
, 2014 by 8:30 am in F-210 Weight: 60% of Final Grade


The intent of this course is to expose you to graduate level concepts in experimental
design, safe research practices, technical evaluation of experimental results and error sources,
technical writing and presentation fundamentals, the publication and management process, and
the fundamentals of research methodology in general. While topic-specific assignments provide
you with specific examples where the methods may be employed, this term project provides you
with the opportunity to apply these methods practically to either your thesis topic or a research
topic of personal interest to yourself.

For this term project, you will be performing a literature review, experimental plan,
safety analysis and publication/management plan for an approved topic of your choice associated
either to your thesis topic or a recent series of publications which, in your opinion, have
identified an area of potential research which youd like to explore.

This term project consists of 5 main components, each of which must be completed
progressively over the duration of the course and submitted as a final compiled document on the
indicated due date:
A 2-page description of the subject/focus of your term project, and if applicable, a signed
statement for your selected topic indicating that its use for this term project does not
violate intellectual property or confidentiality agreements in place associated with your
selected topic. This must be signed by both you and your supervisor if your selected
topic is related to your thesis, or signed by you if the topic in question is not directly
related to your thesis.

A literature review describing the context of your topic, recent developments which have
created the basis for your direction of study, and the objectives/goals of the proposed
study as they relate to both the technological state of literature and the identified
deficiencies in knowledge in the field. Taking these numbers as a guideline only, this
review should be approximately 5 to 10 pages in length (double spaced), contain at least
10 references from peer-reviewed journals which are not derived from an individual
series of review papers, and should guide the reader through a background and series of
technological advances which lead into the objectives of your study.

A clear description of your objectives and an experimental plan which you intend to
follow to meet those objectives. Your planning strategy should incorporate elements of
this course as they relate to identification of outcomes, measurement methods, and
dependent/independent variables within your experimental system. Consider how you
might validate/test a new design/product (if applicable), track relevant variables key to
the analysis youll need to perform, and quantity experimental error with your intended
project. Also consider your timing schedule for the experiments performed, providing a
suitable description of the anticipated completion of milestones.

Perform a safety review of both the experimental plan you intend to carry out and the lab-
space where you will be performing the experiments. Each participant in this course
brings a diverse background of expertise into a lab setting, which may both add to the
pool of knowledge of safe working practices and present challenges in maintaining
consistent lab management and workspace control. The intent of this component is for
you to identify, assess and mitigate risk factors both within your intended plan of study
and the existing workspace that you are involved in within your research group. This
component must be signed by your research supervisor prior to submission or, if
you do not have a supervisor, the department safety officer.

Finally, prepare a publication strategy for the results you anticipate from your work. This
includes identifying at least 2 journals where you would publish the results from at least 2
milestones, justifying why you would select those journals for each of the anticipated
milestones, and writing a 1-page letter to the editor for each journal which you would
expect to include with your hypothetical submission.



A significant focus of this report is on your ability to convey these details succinctly and in a
professional manner. Keep this in mind when preparing your report.


A word of caution: This is not something which can be left until the end of the term, it should be
completed progressively over the term. You are strongly encouraged to create a term work-plan
for these elements, correlating each item to the schedule for lectures in the course and adjusting
your work plan accordingly.

All late submissions will receive a mark of 0. Students are encouraged to complete the report
early to avoid potential illness-related delays. The final report should be Spiral-bound with a
hard front and back cover, should be double-spaced, and should be typed in Times New Roman
font (minimum size 10, 12 preferred). References should follow a standard APA style or format
which is consistent with a Peer Reviewed journal of your choice with an impact factor greater
than 1. The journal / source for your chosen referencing format must be clearly indicated at the
beginning of your References section.

Note that instances of plagiarism or poor academic integrity will result in failure of the course, as
this is the equivalent of a cumulative term project on the course material covered.
Marking Sheet:

Name:_______________________ B00: _______ Signature:______________________


Grade (Filled out by professor):



Poor Below
Expectations
Meets
Expectations
Exceeds
Expectations

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Multiplier
Project Description & IP Waiver

0.5
Literature Review: Depth of
Review

1.5
Literature Review: Flow to and
identification of Objectives

0.5
Experimental Plan:
Identification of Methodology
and experiments relative to
objectives

2.0
Experimental Plan: Error
Quantification

0.5
Experimental Plan: Schedule
and planning

0.25
Safety Review: Assessment of
experimental plan

1.0
Safety Review: Assessment of
workspace

1.0
Publication Strategy:
Identification and Justification
of journals

0.5
Publication Strategy: Letters to
the Editor

0.25
Communication, Organization,
Professionalism

2.0

Total:


The total mark out of 100 is obtained by multiplying the grade in each row by the multiplier and
adding the results.

Poor Below Expectations Meets Expectations Exceeds Expectations
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Project Description &
IP Waiver
Description of project is rudimentary, with
limited demonstration of understanding.
IP Waiver missing, unsigned
Project description is present, but poorly
constructed or lacks enthusiasm and clarity.
IP waiver present but unclear or rudimentary
with limited specific reference to his report.
Project description summarizes the reports
focus, is well written, and demonstrates a
understanding of the topic commensurate to a
graduate students research capability
IP Waiver signed, clearly written.
Project description provides an enthusiastic
overview of both the reports focus and
content, is written both concisely and
accurately, and makes efficient use of the
available space to maximize content. IP
waiver signed with no ambiguity.
Literature Review:
Depth of Review
Little to no background given on the project.
Limited references of note, poor use of
available space to fully explore the topic in
question
Description of topic presented in a cursory
fashion with minimal depth. The information
presented is parsed and poorly linked together.
Some references are appropriate, but many are
fillers
The topic is presented in a clear fashion, with
the links between prior literature well
established and constructed as a review
highlighting aspects relevant to this project.
The majority of references are appropriate,
with limited fillers
The topic is presented in such a way that it
conveys the speakers enthusiasm and
understanding of the current state of the field.
All references are relevant and used to enhance
the review presented. The review is original
and constructed within the context of
providing a good basis for subsequent report
components.
Literature Review:
Objectives
Relevant research methodology principles not
defined, objectives not defined
Broad objectives given, with limited focus.
Links to the research methodologies clearly
indicated and the objectives of the project
given.
Relevant methodologies are presented in such
a way that they are integrated within the
context description. Objectives are reasonable,
clear and concise
Experimental Plan:
Identification of
Methodology &
Experiments
The identified research methodologies are not
applicable to the topic in question. The
approach described demonstrates a clear lack
of understanding of both the topic and the
principles of research methods.
Experimental methods are irrelevant or poorly
conceptualized
The research methodologies applied are
applicable, but are applied incorrectly.
Understanding of the topic is cursory at best,
and has led to significant errors in the
presenters analysis. Limited demonstrated
investigation of the topic/methods in question.
Experimental plan are of limited relevance and
do not demonstrate an understanding of how
they would be applied
The research methods applied are applicable,
and for the most part correctly implemented.
The links identified between the topic and
methods are relevant, but at a superficial
depth. Experimental methods well described
and relevant. Understanding is consistent with
what would result from a literature review.
The research methods applied link
fundamentally with in-depth aspects of the
topic in question, demonstrating an advanced
understanding of both the topic and how the
methods can be implemented to strategically
approach research problems.
Experimental Plan:
Error Quantification

Experimental Plan:
Scheduling
The methods discussed are implemented
incorrectly, with interpretation of the
strategies/results being irrelevant
Implementation of relevant methods was
performed with some major errors, resulting in
discussions and conclusions with significant
deficiencies. Limited links back to the
objectives during discussions.
The research methods have been implemented
with some minor errors potentially present,
leading to discussions and strategies that,
while qualitatively correct, require some
revision to be accurate. The results are
discussed within the context of the objectives
The research methods relevant to the identified
topic are implemented without error, resulting
in a comprehensive strategy which is linked
back to both the objectives and intended scope
of the topic in question. .
Assessment:
Experimental Plan
Limited understanding of hazards associated
with the experiments identified (or poor
experiments)
Generalized review with no plan
The assessment performed shows an effort at
understanding the risks associated with the
experiments, but limited attempts to form a
plan to minimize risk.
The assessment identifies many of the risk
elements associated with the experiments
proposed, with reasonable attempts made to
create a plan for mitigating those risks.
Elements of the risk analysis are incorporated
into the experimental plan, presented as an
integrated part of the report rather than an
isolated review
The assessment demonstrates a concerted
effort to identify risk through personal
knowledge and external review. The proposed
plan is reasonable in nature and fully
integrated within the report.
Assessment:
Workspace
The workspace identified is not reasonable to
perform the experimental plan. The
assessment is rudimentary in nature and fails
to identify risks which may be present, or
insufficient detail is provided to adequately
assess if these risks may have been present.
No sign-off provided for the assessment
The workspace identified is appropriate, with
justifications provided. The assessment of the
space is relevant to the experimental plan, but
fails to fully consider the requirements of the
space or modifications required.
Limited visual aids to assist in establishing the
basis of the evaluation
The review is signed off by your supervisor
The workspace in question is introduced with
pictures illustrating both the space in general
and risks identified. Most risks/modifications
are noted, with reasons provided and practical
proposals given for mitigation. The
assessment has been signed off by your
supervisor, and incorporates feedback from
discussions prompted from you assessment
The assessment demonstrates a concerted
effort to identify risk through personal
knowledge and external review. The proposed
steps for mitigating the identified risks are
appropriate, and are discussed both within the
context of the current workspace and what
would be needed for the proposed
experimental plan.
Publication Strategy:
Identification of
Journal & Letter to the
Editor
Journals identified have limited relevance or is
inappropriate for the scope of work proposed
within the milestones(s).
Letters to the editor would likely result in
immediate rejection.
The Journals identified are relevant but
inappropriate for the intended scope of study.
The letters to the editor provides a sufficient
introduction/justification for consideration, but
is not of great quality
The identified journals are well justified both
in terms of scope and publication history on
the topic in question. The letters to the editor
is well formulated and professional in nature
The milestones and selected journals are both
reasonable and well-considered, justified by
the publication history in the field and the
journals scope. The letters to the editor are
succinct yet informative, and are catered to
each milestone and journal.
Communication,
Organization,
Professionalism
The report is poorly organized, with significant
format, grammatical, and spelling errors
throughout. The document does not appear
cohesive, with no flow between sections. Note
that the presence of uncited material will
immediately result in a mark of 0 for this
section and consideration of action under the
Academic Integrity review.
The report shows a rudimentary effort at
maintaining consistency and an appropriate
form of organization (i.e. issues with figure
and table titles, reference format, headings,
table of contents, page numbering, etc.).
Communication is effective but contains
obvious mistakes at multiple points from
failure to adequately proof-read.
Inconsistencies in the reference list or citations
will likely result in a mark in this range.
The report consistently maintains an
organizational structure appropriate to this
type of document. Limited
grammatical/spelling/consistency errors are
present. References and citations are properly
tracked with only minor format
inconsistencies. The report appears as a
professional document commensurate with
what might be expected of someone who has
made a concerted effort to improve their
technical writing skills
The report is well organized and contains a
negligible number of errors. The language
used demonstrates familiarity with technical
writing and succinctly conveys the concepts
involved.