Geo388H/376E Semester Project Information and Schedule
Schedule
Short summary of ideas for project to Jay: Jan. 30
Schedule meeting with Jay to discuss project ideas: before spring break
Papers due to review panel of classmates: April 28, 5 pm (cc Jay)
Comments due to authors: May 4
Presentations: May 1, May 9
Final draft of paper due, along with reviewer comments, to Jay: May 11
May 3: No class
Review Panels:
Panel Salty: R Phelps, L Upchurch, B Linhoff
Panel Lone Star: S Davidson, C Wong, B Cowan
Panel GeoMajor: C Kwong, J Pape, M Al-Johar
Evaluation of your reviews
Semester paper written reviews will be graded based on the
clarity and utility of your constructive criticism. Consider if you have
conveyed to the author the following: 1) uncertainties in the paper's scientific
reasoning; 2) how the author's message can be made clearer; 3) how the
presentation of the importance of the study and the presentation of the results
and interpretations can be improved. Have you done all this in a way that is
useful to the author?
Evaluation of your oral presentations
Presentations will be graded using the following criteria:
a. organization
b. time: 16 minutes for presenting, 3 minutes for questions, 1 minute for changeover of speakers
c. clarity of graphics
d. communication effectiveness - were the main points clear? Did the speaker use the media effectively?
e. science content - this will follow the guidelines for
evaluation of your written paper or proposal
Paper vs. Proposal
Semester projects may be written in the form of 1) a research proposal; 2) a journal article presenting new data or 3) a journal article that reviews previous results from the literature. There are merits to each of these. Be sure to make clear the hypothesis to be tested in any of these cases. A good review of the literature is a B paper. A good review of the literature that brings a new perspective to existing data is an A paper. Proposals should follow NSF’s format, but don’t go as far as making a budget, and follow length guidelines given here, not by NSF.
Paper/proposal format
10 pages of text, not including references, figures, tables, and project summery.
Double spaced (not 1.5, not single spaced), Times New Roman font, 12 point, 1 inch margins.
Project Summary may be single spaced, one page maximum.
Five individual figures, two tables maximum.
Color is acceptable.
Table of Contents not needed.
Write in the third person.
Key guidelines: Your proposal or paper must have a clearly identified and stated hypothesis to be tested. It should have clear justification of why the questions you are posing to address are important and what the broader impacts of your study will be. What is new and different about your study - the application of the methods? The science questions being posed? If a particular field area or isotope system is being used, your proposal or paper must justify why this area and/or this system is so well suited to addressing the questions posed.
NSF's guidelines, distilled from their grant proposal guide: Areas grayed out can be ignored.
b. Project Summary
The proposal must contain a summary of the proposed activity suitable for publication, not more than one page in length. It should not be an abstract of the proposal, but rather a self-contained description of the activity that would result if the proposal were funded. The summary should be written in the third person and include a statement of objectives and methods to be employed. It must clearly address in separate statements (within the one-page summary): (1) the intellectual merit of the proposed activity; and (2) the broader impacts resulting from the proposed activity. (See Chapter III for further descriptive information on the NSF merit review criteria.) It should be informative to other persons working in the same or related fields and, insofar as possible, understandable to a scientifically or technically literate lay reader.
Proposals that do not separately address both merit review criteria within the one page Project Summary will be returned without review.
c. Table of Contents
A Table of Contents is automatically generated for the proposal by the FastLane system. The proposer cannot edit this form.
d. Project Description (including Results from Prior NSF Support)
(i) Content
All proposals to NSF will be reviewed utilizing the two merit review criteria described in greater length in Chapter III.
The Project Description should provide a clear statement of the work to be undertaken and must include:
Objectives for the period of the proposed work and expected significance; relation to longer-term goals of the PI's project; and relation to the present state of knowledge in the field, to work in progress by the PI under other support and to work in progress elsewhere.
The Project Description should outline the general plan of work, including the broad design of activities to be undertaken, and, where appropriate, provide a clear description of experimental methods and procedures and plans for preservation, documentation, and sharing of data, samples, physical collections, curriculum materials and other related research and education products. It must describe as an integral part of the narrative, the broader impacts resulting from the proposed activities, addressing one or more of the following as appropriate for the project: how the project will integrate research and education by advancing discovery and understanding while at the same time promoting teaching, training, and learning; ways in which the proposed activity will broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.); how the project will enhance the infrastructure for research and/or education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships; how the results of the project will be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding; and potential benefits of the proposed activity to society at large. Examples illustrating activities likely to demonstrate broader impacts are available electronically on the NSF Website18.