FOUN1014: Critical Reading and Writing in Science and Technology and Medical Sciences

The Scientific Research Paper (SRP) - 30%

Your team’s 1500-word research paper will be done in a minimum of two drafts, and according to the APA (7th edition) documentation conventions. It must show
evidence of 6-12 credible and reliable sources including a minimum of four scholarly sources (for example journal articles, book chapters). Make every effort to find
sources that meet these requirements. The word count, which must be printed at the end of the paper, does not include the reference list. A soft copy of the paper
(Word document) must be uploaded to Turnitin and the drop box on OurVLE. Assignment must be submitted as a Word document, to both portals for a grade to
be assigned.

A BRIEF GUIDE TO THE SRP DRAFTS

The FIRST DRAFT:
After you receive feedback on your SRP plan, you will type a first draft of your SRP. This must be a complete 1500-word paper. Each team member will conduct a
self-review of this draft (using the guidelines for assignment #5). Type an individual review which responds to the task instructions. Team members will then meet to
discuss reviews and prepare a revised draft of the SRP.

The REVISED DRAFT:

After completing the self-review activity, team members will type the second draft, revising and editing as well as formatting according to APA research paper
documentation conventions. Pay keen attention to sentence structure, expression (diction, tone, register) and grammar.
Upload to Turnitin REVISED Draft SRP file. Check for any evidence of improper paraphrasing, cutting and pasting, etcetera and rewrite those sections. When you
are satisfied that you have used information from sources appropriately, send a copy paper to the peer reviewer in Week 10, so that the peer review activity can
be completed and the S-&P-R assignment submitted in Week 11.

Outside of class, individual team members will combine self- and peer-reviews into ONE document, upload to Turnitin and a hard copy in your seminar in
Week 11. Students in online seminar streams will submit to the assignment drop box on OurVLE before your seminar in Week 11.

After the peer review activity, the team will do a further review of the revised draft of the SRP in preparation for consultation with your instructor.

The FINAL DRAFT:

Using the feedback received during consultation with your instructor, prepare the final draft of your SRP making necessary revisions, and correcting references (in-text
citations and on the list of References). When your team is satisfied that your paper is ready for publication, the team leader will upload to Turnitin “Final SRP” file.
Submit also to the drop box on OurVLE.

Submit Final SRP in Week 12, according to guidelines on OurVLE and Instructor directions

Semester 1, 2022-2023
 RUBRIC for EL FOUN COMPOSITIONS - SRP
Papers submitted for grading will be evaluated based on the following rubric. However, papers must satisfy minimal requirements in analysis, content,
organisation, style, mechanics and documentation in order to qualify for a passing grade overall. Additionally, students who violate the principles of the signed
coursework accountability statement will receive a zero for the assignment and all its related components. A report will also be submitted to the relevant
university authorities.
A paper: (75-100) - demonstrates a superior level of competence in fulfilling the task.
The writer accepts the task assigned and establishes a clear purpose and maintains focus. The information presented is accurate, relevant, adequate and appropriate
to the audience and situation. Ideas and thinking are at an appropriate level of sophistication. Examples and explanations are well-developed and draw on
authentic, credible sources. Three or more insightful ideas or claims are developed, and each claim is directly and explicitly related to the thesis or some portion of
it. The writer shows clarity and originality in the development of claims, discusses illustrations fully and appropriately, and avoids unwarranted or uncritical
assumptions. By making effective use of developmental strategies, the writer presents a clear introduction and conclusion that frame the topic, demonstrates
mastery of the principles of effective paragraph development, and effectively establishes interrelationships among ideas within and between the paragraphs. The
paper demonstrates full communicative competence in Standard English and is ready for publication. It shows precise language use and effective word choice and
sentence structure and variety, suggesting originality and sophistication. Voice and tone are appropriate to the topic, purpose and audience. The writer uses
idiomatic English and virtually no errors occur re sentence boundaries (absence of comma splices, run-ons, fragments…), forms of usage (number, subject/verb
agreement, verb forms, pronoun reference …), spelling, punctuation and capitalisation. The writer a) consistently demonstrates prudence in selecting among
quotes, paraphrases and summaries in providing support for a line of argumentation/discussion pursued; b) having made the appropriate choice of strategy,
skillfully integrates/weaves the information from sources with own prior knowledge and critical/creative thinking to create a new whole with the voice of the
student writer visible and audible; c) demonstrates a clear understanding of the language and substance of the original source (not just isolated sentences); d) has
no occurrence of patchwriting; e) observes all the formatting conventions of the documentation style being used.
A+ – Exceptional (90-100): consistently demonstrates a superior level of competence in all areas of analysis, content, organisation, style, mechanics and
documentation/exceptional performance and achievement in all aspects of the task [GP 4.3]
A – Outstanding (80-89): consistently demonstrates a superior level of competence in most areas of analysis, content, organisation, style, mechanics
and documentation/superior in most aspects of the task [GP 4.0]
A- – Excellent (75-79): consistently demonstrates a very high level of competence in most areas of analysis, content, organisation, style, mechanics and
documentation/very high level in most aspects of the task [GP 3.7]
B paper: (60-74) – demonstrates a high level of competence in fulfilling the task.
The writer maintains a clear focus and presents clear and insightful ideas that adequately support the thesis most of the time. The credible sources used support
points and help to demonstrate appropriate levels of accuracy. A reasonable level of organisation is evident. For the most part, the writer employs the principles of
paragraphing and presents and sustains a logical sequence but interrelationships may not be evident. The paper may exhibit lapses in register and tone, but shows
fairly precise language use, appropriate word choice and varied sentence structure. The writer uses a consistent voice most of the time and writes idiomatic
English. Although there are occasional lapses in grammar and/or writing mechanics, there is normally no pattern of error re sentence structure/boundary or forms
of usage. The paper conforms to the approved documentation style (but may have a few minor errors re framing or listing).
B+ – Very Good (70-74): consistently demonstrates a high level of competence in all areas of analysis, content, organisation, style, mechanics and
documentation/high in all aspects of the task [GP 3.3]
B – Good (65-69): consistently demonstrates a high level of competence in most areas of analysis, content, organisation, style, mechanics and
documentation /high in most aspects of the task [GP 3.0]

Semester 1, 2022-2023
 B- – Clearly Satisfactory (60-64): consistently demonstrates a clearly satisfactory level of competence in most areas of analysis, content, organisation,
style, mechanics and documentation/ fairly high level in most aspects of the task [GP 2.7]

C+ paper: (55-59) – demonstrates a fairly satisfactory level of competence in fulfilling the task.
The writer establishes a clear purpose but there may be slight shifts in focus or some vagueness in the information presented or some weaknesses in discussion.
Global organisation is evident, but the paper may violate some of the principles of paragraphing or logical sequencing. Unsophisticated vocabulary or
inappropriate word choice (diction) or limited sentence variety or lapses in register and tone may be evident. The paper exhibits some lapses in grammar and
writing mechanics but these occur at an acceptable range and frequency relative to complexity and length. The paper conforms for the most part to the approved
documentation style (but may have some minor errors re framing or listing). [GP 2.3]
C paper: (50-54) – demonstrates at least a minimally acceptable level of competence in all aspects of the task /demonstrates adequate application to achieve
the minimum learning outcomes required for the task.
This paper is characterized by one or more of the following: the writer establishes a purpose but fails to maintain focus and/or the paper shows some evidence of
lack of clarity and depth; although no misinformation is present, the ideas lack evidential support as well as sophistication; the ideas are so ineffectively arranged
that the paper barely meets the minimum requirement of organisation regarding forecasting, paragraphing and logical sequencing; some sections of the paper may
show fluency but others may show inconsistency in diction, tone or sentence variety; although patterns of errors may be present, errors occur at an acceptable
frequency relative to length and the paper demonstrates minimum levels of control over idiomatic expression; there are some lapses in documentation (which may
include cosmetic framing), but the paper demonstrates a clear intent to conform to the approved documentation style by framing the reference to the researched
material to show the writer’s awareness of how to use other people’s words and ideas in-text and by providing a list which gives adequate information for locating
most of the sources used in-text. [GP 2.0]
F paper: (0-49) – does not meet minimum requirements in 1 or more areas of the task assigned /work lacks the minimum required academic standards.
This paper exhibits one or more of the following serious defects: uncertainty about task and audience; failure to address the topic; no clear sense of purpose;
unwarranted assumptions or reliance on folk wisdom and/or lack of evidence to support claims; irrelevant, inadequate or inaccurate information; unsophisticated
ideas; signs of plagiarism; no or insufficient evidence of research; lack of clear order or sense of structure; deficiency regarding forecasting, paragraphing and
logical sequencing; severe weakness regarding word choice and/or register and/or tone and/or voice and/or sentence variety; errors in Standard English usage,
sentence boundary, spelling, punctuation and capitalization that occur at an unacceptable frequency; serious deficiency in citation/documentation (i.e. does not
demonstrate a clear intent to conform to the approved documentation style).
F1 – Unsatisfactory (40-49): demonstrates serious weakness (i.e. below minimally acceptable levels) in 1 or 2 areas [GP 1.7]
F2 – Weak (30-39) demonstrates serious weakness (i.e. below minimally acceptable levels) in 3 or 4 areas [GP 1.3]
F3 – Poor (0-29) demonstrates serious weakness (i.e. below minimally acceptable levels) in more than 4 areas [GP 0]
Note on “patch writing”: There is a thin line between ‘patch writing’ and plagiarism. Small ‘patches’ are usually viewed as poor paraphrasing, but extensive
‘patches’ are usually treated as plagiarism (or unacceptable/inappropriate/unethical use of a source) resulting in a grade of zero for the paper and all its related
components.
Note on “cosmetic framing”: Cosmetic framing is evident when a writer merely goes through the motions to appear to be citing. A writer also engages in cosmetic
framing by failing to differentiate between/among sources or by failing to provide a clear connection between a reference and what is said about it. A typical example
is when a writer cites the editor of an edited collection when the work of a specific contributor in the collection is presented. Another common example is evident
when a writer mentions several sources, but gives only one view or gives a (quoted) view and then cites several sources without indicating the specific source of the
quotation.

Semester 1, 2022-2023