On-Line Seminar, Fall 1997

Lesson 3: Presenting Your Project

As a scientist, you will be required to submit your work to your colleagues for peer review and evaluation. This is a critical step in the scientific process, where your experimental methods, results, and conclusions can be challenged and tested. The validity of research is dependent upon whether or not the results can be duplicated by other scientists. Science is a collaborative effort to gain new knowledge. Use the guidelines described below to help evaluate each requirement of the research project, as listed on the timelime found in Lesson 1.

Developing a Problem Statement by Brainstorming

If anyone has not yet decided upon a particular problem, let them tell the group what areas of science interest them. Try listing related words or phrases that might lead to a topic for study. Page through scientific magazines, such as The Journal of Chemical Education , to find a specific experimental procedure or chemical demonstration. How could this method be modified to fit a research project? Discuss unusual scientific events or household observations for further study, such as, "Why does pineapple make Jell-o become runny?"

Each student is required to conduct their own, unique research project. Once you have developed a specific problem statement, register your idea on the sign up sheet in your teacher's room. This gives you the 'copyright' to this particular idea, and NO other student may use the same research problem. You must register your project PRIOR to the September 29 due date for the initial proposals.

Peer Evaluation of Science Project Final Proposal

Name of Presenter __________________________


Title of Project __________________________


Name of Evaluator __________________________

Directions for the Evaluator: A well-designed research project must have a focused problem to be studied, one or more variables that will be changed to observe their effect, a controlled condition that will be used for comparison to the varied conditions, justification for conducting the research, and a method of quantitative, objective analysis of the results. As an evaluator, your job is to determine how well the presenter has achieved these objectives. Carefully read the project proposal and answer the following questions:

1. In your own words, state the specific problem that will be studied in this science project.






• Is the problem clearly stated? If not, how could it be written better?






• Is the focus of the problem appropriate, or is it too broad or too narrow? Suggest any possible modifications.






2. What are the variables that will be changed in this project?






3. Describe what the control is that will be used in this experiment as a standard reference.






4. How will the data and observed results be quantitatively analyzed?






5. What reasons are provided to justify the significance for this research?






6. What flaws or weaknesses do you see in the design of this project?

Peer Evaluation of the Science Project Rough Draft

Name of Presenter __________________________


Title of Project __________________________


Name of Evaluator __________________________

1. In your own words, describe the problem that the author is trying to solve through his/her research project.






2. Describe what method(s) will be used to analyze the problem.



• Are the procedures/methods to be used presented in a clear and logical fashion? If not, what step(s) are confusing?






• Will the method(s) used to analyze the results and data provide enough information to solve the problem? If not, what modifications do you think are necessary?






• Does the preliminary data indicate that the procedures/methods will give valid results?






3. What do you think the solution to the research problem will be judging from the information presented so far?






4. Based upon the logic, clarity, and potential for valid conclusions, how would you rate this project on a scale of
   1 (send it to the shredder) ----------------------> 10 (perfect in every way)

Guidelines for Oral Presentation

1. Clearly state the problem that you are attempting to solve. Briefly describe how you decided upon this problem and any background information that is essential for your audience to understand the project itself. Write balanced, chemical equations for any reactions involved. Draw structural formulas for chemical compounds when necessary. Avoid having your presentation turn into an "encyclopedia report".



2. Based on your background research, state your hypothesis for expected outcomes. Justify the logic you used to arrive at this hypothesis. What previous or new knowledge did you rely upon to develop the hypothesis?



3. Describe the procedures for conducting the experimentation. Give an overview of the steps involved, rather than every little detail. Make sure you emphasize what were the variables and controls used in the experiment(s). If an unusual apparatus was used, provide a clearly labeled diagram of the set-up and explain the function of each part.



4. Present the measured data in a summarized fashion. Select the best method to illustrate the outcomes of your experiment. Usually, only the average values of several trials are reported, along with the standard deviations(or range) of the data. (You should be prepared to show how the averages and deviations were calculated, in case someone asks.) Charts, graphs, and video images are also commonly used to summarize data.



5. Explain how the data and results were analyzed and include examples of any calculations performed. Describe the methods used to quantitatively measure any differences in the results. Discuss the reliability of these methods in terms of their accuracy and precision. For example, include the degree of correlation between the best-fit line and a set of graphed data points. Is there a mathematical relationship that can be used to describe the results?



6. What can you conclude from your experiment? Based upon the outcomes of your experimentation, determine what the solution is to your original problem. Was the hypothesis a valid assumption? Describe any further variations in the experiment that can be done to provide more support to your conclusions. Suggest the practical applications of the results of your project.

Mechanics of the Oral Presentation

• Use audio/visual aids to support your presentation. ALL key points of your talk should be highlighted on a transparency, poster, 35 mm slide or other 2-dimensional graphic. Keep the number of transparencies to a minimum by using only key words or phrases, rather than long paragraphs. Clearly label everything, add colors where appropriate, and make sure the text will be visible from the back of the room by using large print. Use a pointer to draw attention to specific sections of the A/V display. Position yourself so that you do not block the view of the audience.



• Practice your presentation and make sure you thoroughly understand your project. Rehearse your speech in front of a mirror and any willing family members. Make sure it fits within the given time requirements. Use note cards for reference, but do NOT read the entire speech. You should be able to explain your project to the class in a comfortable, relaxed fashion due to your in depth knowledge of the subject matter. Maintain eye contact with the group and speak with a clear, loud voice. Avoid turning your back to the audience. Pretend like your having fun.....smile!!!

The judges at the PJAS Science Fair will be evaluating your project in five different categories; scientific thought, experimental methods, analytical approach, presentation, and judge's opinion. Each category will be scored on a 5-point system; 5 = excellent, 4 = very good, 3 = good, 2 = fair, 1 = poor , and 0 = unacceptable. The specific criteria to be considered include:

Scientific Thought

• Meaningful problem


• Valid reason or purpose


• Limited problem


• Shows understanding of background information


• Problem stated clearly

• Suitable design


• Acceptable techniques


• Original material


• Proper controls


• Metric measurements


• Sufficient ventilation


• Clearly explained

• Data clearly interpreted


• Graphs


• Recognizes limits and weaknesses


• Suggests uses


• Statistical analysis


• Suggests further research

• Organized, clear


• All steps included


• Eye contact, posture


• Proper volume


• Clear visuals


• Free talk

• Age level


• Enthusiasm


• Overall feeling

Awards are based on the average score per category per judge. An average score of 4.0 or higher = 1st place award, a score of 3.0 to 3.99 = 2nd place award, and a score of 2.0 to 2.99 = 3rd place award.

Presenter(s) for this seminar:

Mark A. Case

Emmaus HS, 851 North St., Emmaus, PA 18049

The Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation webmaster@woodrow.org
CN 5281, Princeton NJ 08543-5281 Tel: (609) 452-7007 Fax: (609) 452-0066