elegans Project Lab Report
You will submit a formal lab report on your findings from the C. elegans project
Grading:
Report 90%
Peer Review 10%
Report Components (See rubric for more details):
Introduction: Provide background information on the project. Remember to include information on the specific mutation you investigated. Clearly state your scientific question and your hypothesis.
Methods: Clearly describe the procedure (How did you set up each of your crosses? How did you make maintenance plates?).
Results and Figures: Present your findings in writing and with figures. All figure labels must be clear and neat. Each figure must have a title and a legend. You must include 1) Punnett Squares of your F1 and F2 crosses and 2) tables with your F1 and F2 data. You may not have numbers for your F1 and F2 data, but report observations you made regarding your crosses. For example, “the F1 offspring all had the wildtype phenotype.”
Discussion: Discuss the significance of your results. Did your data support your hypothesis? Why or why not? Discuss any sources of error.
References: Properly cite all of your work. Use only appropriate sources. Format in text citations and citation list correctly.
More on References
You may cite your textbook. However, Wikipedia and other websites are not acceptable. All other references must be peer-reviewed references (review papers or primary articles). Hint: Wormbase.org and Wormbook.org have links to relevant peer-reviewed literature at the bottom of each page.
Helpful links:
http://www.ggc.edu/about-ggc/departments/library/research-help/popular-magazines-vs-scholarly-journals.html
http://www.ggc.edu/about-ggc/departments/library/research-help/how-to-find-articles.html
www.pubmed.com (You can specifically search for free articles.)
http://scholar.google.com/ (If you are on the GGC network, free papers will be highlighted)
Plagiarism is not acceptable and will result in a zero for the assignment. You will also be reported to the Office of Student Integrity. Explanation of plagiarism:
http://www.ggc.edu/about-ggc/departments/library/documentation-and-plagiarism.html
If you are unsure about how to properly cite sources and/or are concerned about unintentional plagiarism, ask!
Citations
***No quotations! Quotations are hardly ever used in scientific writing. Instead, restate the idea in your own words and cite the original work. Citations should be formatted according to American Chemical Society standards or use APA style (pick one or the other, be consistent throughout the document).
In text example (for ACS style):
Therapies targeting the EGFR receptor have been shown to slow the progression of non-small cell lung carcinoma (1).
Reference list example (ACS style):
1. Murphy M; Stordal, B Erlotinib or gefitinib for the treatment of relapsed platinum pretreated non-small cell lung cancer and ovarian cancer: a systematic review. Drug Resist Updat. 2011, 14, 177-90.
More details on ACS references:
http://library.williams.edu/citing/styles/acs.php#intext
More details on APA references:
http://libguides.ggc.edu/content.php?pid=16283&sid=109683
Rubric:
Topic
Excellent (5-6)
Good (3-4)
Poor (0-2)
Points
Introduction
Background information
Background information clearly explains rationale for questions and experimental design. References are specific and appropriate to discussion points. Explains how findings from current experiment might contribute to understanding the topic in a larger context.
Some relevant context, but one dimensional. Background with minor omissions. References too few.
Background info or references are narrow, inaccurate, or irrelevant. Rationale is vague.
Question/Aim of the study
Clear and novel, based on literature review and personal observations
Based on understanding of given material.
Not clear or specific
Hypothesis
Simple direct statement that is testable and novel
Describes relationship between variables to be manipulated and outcomes to be measured. Brief predictions of different possible outcomes and significance.
Derived from understanding material, but may address multiple explanations or be vague.
Not simple and direct. Not testable or worthy of testing.
Materials & Methods
Description
Concise and thorough. Written in third person, past tense. Includes detailed account of reagents, apparatus, software, measurements, timelines and protocols. Allows experiments to be reproducible.
Instructive, but too wordy. Minimal use of first person.
Vague. Not reproducible due insufficient details e.g. measurements
Experimental design
Tests hypothesis, is replicated for multiple determinations of results, and contains controls with proper explanation of their importance.
Controls and replication are appropriate, but not thoroughly explained.
No replication. Controls are vague or irrelevant. Does not address question
Results
Prose
Data are written in the order in which experiments in the Methods were described. Data for all experiments are included and allow the reader to evaluate the conclusions.
Data are complete and address hypothesis.
Some data missing or confusing.
Analysis / Statistics
Analysis is appropriate and concisely and objectively described with little interpretation. Analysis should state relationships between variables and measured outcomes only, including trends and patterns.
Analysis appropriate, but not well described or with inappropriate interpretation.
Analysis missing or inappropriate.
Figures and Tables
Graphs are well-labeled with axes, units and legends. Graphs, figures and tables have titles, captions and are numbered for reference.
Appropriate format. Contain only minor mistakes that do not interfere with meaning.
Contains errors or missing pieces (unlabeled axes, no title etc.). Hard to derive meaning.
Discussion
Results Interpretation
Conclusion about whether to support or reject hypothesis are justified by the data. Connections between hypothesis, data, and conclusions are comprehensive and relevance of trends/outliers is also discussed
Conclusions are drawn from the data. Connections are logical.
Conclusions are not bound by data. Connections between hypothesis, data, and conclusions are weak
Relevance/
Next steps
Generates new insight. Suggests novel findings that would fill gaps in current knowledge and explains significance of findings to the field. Proposes further questions that need to be addressed in future experiments.
Useful, but indicates incomplete knowledge of the field or implications.
Vague and trivial or too broad and irrelevant. Not connected to the data.
Error Analysis
Takes possible sources of error into account and also offers scientific explanations for findings different from expected. Discusses future procedures to reduce errors.
Not comprehensive, but more thoughtful than “human error”.
Trivial (e.g., “human error”). Inability to determine alternative reasons for data.
Citations
In text
Correctly inserted into text to fully frame the background, Methods, Discussion in current knowledge. Justify text and make connections.
Proper format. Provide background. May be too few.
Improper format or irrelevant/misplaced.
Bibliography
Proper format (APA style). Includes mostly primary literature and reviews.
Proper format, minor mistakes. Some primary literature.
Improper format. References to textbooks or websites.
Writing Quality
Organization / style
Organization according to the sections described in this rubric is maintained Professional style.
Organization is logical. Scientific style. Some use of colloquial expression.
No or some organization (does not flow). Inappropriate style.
Grammar
Correct grammar and spelling. Written in 3rd person, past tense
Few mistakes in spelling and grammar.
Errors hinder/prevent understanding. Poor spelling, incomplete sentences.