AP Capstone - Research Course Syllabus · AP Capstone - Research . Course Syllabus . 2015-2016 . AP Capstone Research is a year-long course. AP Seminar is a pre-requisite. We are

AP Capstone - Research

Course Syllabus

2015-2016

AP Capstone Research is a year-long course. AP Seminar is a pre-requisite. We are dividing

this class into two sections, one dealing with research topics of social studies and the other one

with scientific research topics including having internship in research labs in the nearby medical

schools, research institutes and universities.

I will abide to the AP equity and access policy set by the College Board. I will make equitable

access as guiding principle for the AP programs by dividing all willing and academically

prepared students the opportunity to participate in my AP classes.

Since many of my students have or will have internships in various labs in the nearby medical

center, to make the research methods feasible on the primary research level, I will train the

basic techniques in biotechnology commonly needed in a research lab during cycle1 in addition

to the content of unit one before the students are sent to the various research labs or stay in my

lab if they choose me as their mentor. I will be assigned to a classroom and a lab adjacent to it

and the school provides a safe environment of the lab program. Recommended safety

equipment is available. The lab has a chemical hood, gas/water outlets, water sinks, benches,

fire extinguishers and eye washer. My lab also has dissection tools, PCR machines and a real-

time PCR machine, incubation hood, shakers, water baths, DNA gel and protein gel apparatus,

Western, Southern Transfer apparatus, UV light box, autoclave, in-door green house,

incubators, digital-camera equipped microscope and micropipettes. Lab top computers are

available to all students as provided by the district free of charge.

Throughout the year, students will be provided a timeline curriculum to follow in order to meet all

the learning objectives to be assessed in the required Academic Paper and Presentation and

Oral Defense by the end of April in the second semester.

Big Ideas and Enduring Understandings

Students will follow the AP Capstone Curriculum set by the College Board to develop and apply

discrete skills identified in the learning objectives following the five big ideas also known as

QUEST.

AP Research is not tied to a specific content area. Rather, it emphasizes, and strives for

competency in, core academic skills. Students gain Essential Knowledge (EK) and develop and

apply discrete skills identified in the Learning Objectives (LO’s) of the Enduring Understandings

(EU's) within the following five Big Ideas, represented by the acronym QUEST.

• Question and Explore: EU1.1-1.4

• Understand and Analyze: EU 2.1-2.3

• Evaluate Multiple Perspectives: EU 3.1-3.2

• Synthesize Ideas: EU 4.1-4.5

• Team, Transform, and Transmit: EU5.1-5.4

Formative and Summative Assessments

As a pre-requisite, AP Seminar course helped students move from discussing and analyzing texts

to building an argument through inquiry, the AP Research course continues building upon AP

Seminar skills to form new understandings of a topic selected by the student and deemed

appropriate by me, the teacher. As in the AP Seminar course, students will present their findings in

a written work (in AP Research, the Academic Paper) and through a Presentation and Oral

Defense which will be video-recorded. Unlike AP Seminar, there is no formal group work or final

written exam for AP Research: the AP Research summative assessment is based solely on the

Academic Paper (75%) and the Presentation and Oral Defense (25%) done independently.

The Academic Paper (AP) is an original 4,000 to 5,000 word academic paper that includes these

components: Introduction; Method, Process, or Approach; Results, Product, or Findings;

Discussion, Analysis, and/or Evaluation; Conclusion and Future Directions; and Bibliography.

While the AP Research Teacher and/or a consultant will provide guidance in the development of

this paper, it is the student's own work and clear guidelines regarding the roles of the Teacher and

Consultant will be shared with the student at each step of the process. Students must understand

that plagiarism will NOT be tolerated: any sources used by the student, through direct quotations

and/or paraphrasing, must be properly cited. Failure to do so will result in a ZERO grade for that

component of the course (See "Plagiarism Policy" below).

The research process in AP Research is not simply about collecting evidence or facts and then

piecing them together. Instead, the research process is about inquiry - asking questions and

coming to solutions and conclusions through serious thinking, discussion, and reflection. The

student researcher will seek relevant information in articles, books, and other sources and

develop an informed perspective built upon, but not merely derivative of, the ideas in the

examined material. As a result the research process is recursive, meaning that students will

regularly revisit ideas, seek new information when necessary, and reconsider and refine their

research question, topic, and/or approach. While the Academic Paper and Presentation and Oral

Defense are the assessed manifestations of this process, other products, exhibits, and/or

performances may be used by students to develop their ideas further.

To keep track of this process of inquiry, students are required to keep a digital Process and

Reflection Portfolio (PREP) journal, a formative assessment tool which will be shared with the

AP Research Teacher. The PREP will allow students to document their experiences in the

course. Students can continually use the PREP to chart their engagement with the QUEST

ideas, with special attention paid to:

• Their choice of a research question and what prompted their interest in the topic

• Their research process, including important sources (documents, people, multimedia)

• Analysis of evidence as it becomes available

• Changes in the direction of the project and/or initial assumptions

• Ways in which the students have worked on their own or as part of a larger intellectual community

• Challenges encountered and solutions attempted

To demonstrate these experiences, the PREP may include annotated bibliographic entries of

important sources, conversations with the Teacher and Consultant, personal reflections,

commentary about course assignments and class notes, and any other insights that contribute to

a rich description of the development of the student in the course. As students will be required to

have a one-on-one appointment with their AP Research Teacher each week to discuss their work,

it is hoped that the student will be able to manage his or her time effectively and use these meetings

to continue developing and revising their work throughout the year. In-class, assignments may also

be collected digitally through the PREP.

Upon completion of the Academic Paper, students will be required to plan and deliver a final

summative assessment in the form of a Presentation of their work and an Oral Defense (POD).

The presentation is expected to use various media to support and enhance the student’s report of

key findings, description of the chosen approach and challenges arising from the same, and a

defense of the findings by answering questions posed by a panel of AP Research "experts"

composed of the AP Research teacher and the student's consultant(s).

Inquiry Proposal Form

Prior to engaging ln their research, students will submit to the AP Research Teacher an Inquiry Proposal

Form, which clearly identifies the topic of study, research question, preliminary research, and

methodological and ethical considerations. Only once approval has been granted will the student be

allowed to seek a consulting expert and begin the research process as soon as possible. If the

proposed inquiry requires a more extensive consideration of ethics and potential harm (for example,

involvement of human subjects), approval will not be granted until the Proposal has also passed review by

an Institutional Review Board (IRB).

Plagiarism Policy (p. 49, Course and Exam Description)

A student of team of students who fails to acknowledge through citation, through attribution, by reference, and/or

through acknowledgement in a bibliographic entry of the source or author of any and all information or evidence

taken from the work of someone else will receive a score of zero on that particular component of the AP Seminar

and/or AP Research Performance Assessment Task. (In AP seminar, a team of students that fails to properly

acknowledge sources or authors on the Written Team Report will receive a group score of 0 for that component of the

Team Project and Presentation).

AP Research students will be held to high standards of academic honesty and ethics. Preparing fairly and effectively

for the completion of the paper and presentation tasks requires advanced planning and time management: many

difficulties with plagiarism arise when students leave work to the last minute. Keep track of all sources used so that

he should not procrastinate.

As a safeguard against plagiarism, AP Research work will be regularly submitted to theTurnitin.com to check for

matches.

Fabrication of data, if found and proven, will be dealt with most seriously and will be referred to the administration

for cheating and all policy pertaining to academic probation or suspension will be applied. Cheating in our school

will render a zero in the assignment.

To the best of their ability, teachers will ensure that students understand ethical use and acknowledgment of the

ideas and work of others, as well as the consequences of plagiarism. The student’s individual voice should be

clearly evident, and the ideas of others must be acknowledged, attributed and/or cited.

As for students who will be doing internship off campus, any use or reference of unpublished work or data will

require the laboratory Principal Investigator’s written approval and cited as such in the text of the final report. If

the mentor or consultant is not the Principal Investigator (PI) of the lab, it is the student’s responsibility to obtain

the PI’s approval. Without such documentation, the student cannot use any of the data even they were obtained

by him or her.

Non-AP Assessment

The school follows a dual-curriculum and, as such, must also provide evidence of learning based on local standards

not addressed in the AP Capstone Course and Exam Description (CED). In addition to classroom training of the general

lab techniques used in the lab as mentioned earlier, various in-class assessments (non-AP assessment) will provide

students with varied opportunities (written and verbal) to practice, improve, and display the core academic skills that

are central to the AP Research course. The classroom assessment and its corresponding criteria are intended to help

prepare the student for the AP Research assessment tasks, including the Academic Paper and Presentation with Oral

Defense. The class awarded mark used by the school will be based on the classroom assignments - including

assessment of entries in the student Process and Reflection Portfolio (PREP) - one-on-one interview sessions,

contributions to peer-review sessions, and written assignments.

AP Equity and Access Policy (p. 2, Course and Exam Description)

The College Board strongly encourages educators to make equitable access a guiding principle for their AP'

programs by giving all willing and academically prepared students the opportunity to participate in AP.

We encourage the elimination of barriers that restrict access to AP for students from ethnic, racial, and socioeconomic

groups that have been traditionally underserved. Schools should make every effort to ensure their AP classes reflect

the diversity of their student population The College Board also believes that all students should have access to

academically challenging course work before they enroll in AP classes, which can prepare them for AP success. It is

only through a commitment to equitable preparation and access that true equity and excellence can be achieved.

To help ensure Equity and Access are achieved, AP Capstone students are required to meet minimum academic

standards, but all exam fees will be covered by the school and AP Capstone students will have full use of on-site

computers and Internet access, as well as the support of our library system through which to access on-line databases of

a wide range of peer-reviewed journals.

Course Textbooks and Resources:

• Booth, W. C, Colomb, G. C, Williams, J. M. (2003). The Craft of Research (3rd Ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

• Palmquist, M. (2012). The Bedford Researcher (5th Ed.). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's.

• Leedy P.D. and Ormrod JE (2013) Practical Research Planning and Design. (10th Ed) Pearson.

• AP Capstone Research Course and Exam Description (2015). New York: College Board.

• Various academic papers (philosophical texts, writing guides, peer-reviewed articles) for specific lessons

• Past AP Research Student work (used with permission) for exemplars and discussion pieces

• Johnson J. (2013) Global Issues, Local Arguments Readings for writing (3rd Ed), Pearson.

Overview of Reasoning Processes: (adapted from p. 11, Course and Exam Description)

The AP Capstone program allows students to develop and practice reasoning processes that help them make

intentional, strategic decisions. These reasoning processes are embedded within the following learning objectives:

Situating - being aware of the context of one's own as well as others' perspectives, realizing that individual bias can

lead to unfounded assumptions

Choosing - making intentional and purposeful choices, realizing that choices have both intended and unintended

consequences

Defending - being able to explain and justify personal choices, logic, line or reasoning, and conclusion.

Connecting - seeing similarities within and across disciplines, concepts, and cultures that may at first seem disparate.

Timeline for the Fall and Spring Semester

June (end of AP Seminar Course)

AP Seminar students are introduced to an overview of the AP Research course and asked to collect ideas over the summer to identify topics of interest.

August

Fall semester

Students create and share their digital PREP journal with the teacher; discuss course expectations and the Performance Tasks using sample student papers; choose a topic/issue; carry out preliminary research; begin to develop an annotated bibliography; and finalize their research questions and proposals.

September - October

Students present a preliminary inquiry proposal via a poster presentation(via a single Power Point slide) to their peers for peer review; identify the type of consultant they will need and begin seeking such assistance; finalize and submit their proposals; and reflect on feedback provided.

Proposals may be further refined through presentation at "Meet the Teacher night for parents. Help out with AP Seminar "mock-trial" by acting as mentors for students and "jurists" to evaluate arguments.

October - November

Students complete the background component of their inquiry through annotated bibliographies and finalize the choice and design of their inquiry method, as well as their research question, with careful consideration of ethical issues that may arise. If necessary, they submit a revised version of their proposal for final approval. All proposals should be approved by the teacher no later than November 30.

December - January

Students implement their inquiry plan while engaging in progress and reflection interviews ("one-on-ones") with the AP Research Teacher and/or consultant. Summaries of these sessions and ongoing concerns, insights, research commentary and artifacts should be included in the PREP journal throughout this process. Students should also select and become familiar with a discipline-specific documentation style that matches their planned inquiry. Timelines should be modified as necessary in their PREP journals as the inquiry proceeds.

January - February

Students complete their first draft of their literature review and methodology portions of their papers. In so doing, students should understand the methods they did not choose (and why) and how they will use their selected methods to support their inquiry. They should also be completing any original work (interviews, surveys, additional projects, products, or performances) required to support their papers. The second draft should be ready by the end of Feb. Students may also present a poster at "AP Evening" to justify their choices and stimulate discussion about their topics.

February – March

Spring Break

Students write, proof, peer-review, and submit their Academic Papers, ensuring all components are present and meet rubric criteria. Students will then use Turnitin.com to ensure that they have not misattributed and/or plagiarized any pieces of their work. Additional scholarly work used to support the paper (project, product, or performance) will be turned in as well. The third draft is due by March.

March -April

Spring Break

AP Research Teacher scores papers and students deliver their Presentations and Oral Defenses.

March 15 -30: Students complete and finalize their Academic Papers.

April 1- 15: Students prepare, practice, and deliver their Oral Presentations and engage in Oral Defense of their work. Viewing of any additional scholarly work must be arranged by tile student in consultation with tile AP Research Teacher.

• April 15 -30: AP Research Teacher finalizes scores and uploads the results to the College Board.

April- May

AP Research students present their work and discuss the AP Research course with current AP Seminar students; AP Research students begin planning other ways in which to prepare their academic work for presentation in other venues journals, performances, conferences.

May

Multiple AP EOC

Complete AP Exams in other subject areas to qualify for the AP Capstone Diploma. Hand-in a final, curated copy of the PREP journal which articulates moments of insight, challenge, and change experienced in the course.

Late May

Final Exams

Revise (for different audience) and submit scholarly work to journals, conferences, or other academic competitions

End of May Final Exams, Celebration, Commencement

Units of Instruction: Scaffolding and Sequencing the skills and content of the AP Research Course are grouped into units of instructions. The AP research model can be: 1) Disciplinary Focus (Stem inquiries, Performing and Visual arts); 2) Internship (Independent study with a discipline-specific mentor to independent study in research of the student’s choosing; 3) Thematic Survey Linked to AP course (AP research in Biology, Chemistry, Math etc) and General (research methods to be chosen for his/her investigation). Regardless of their models of choosing, these skills will be taught.

Unit One (week 1-3): Introduction to the core skills of AP Research and Review of AP Seminar Skills carried forward into AP Research; Strengthening Self-Directedness and Time Management; Reflection Portfolio.

Learning objective(s)/Essential Knowledge: see footnote

E.K.: 1.1C1; 1.1C2; 1.1C3; 1.1D3; 1.1E1; 1.1E2; 2.181; 2.182; 2.1C1; 2.1C2; 2.2A2; 2.281; 2.282; 2.283; 2.284;

2.285; 2.286; 4.181; 4.182; 4.183; 4.184

L.O.:1.1C; 1.1D; 1.1E; 2.18; 2.1C; 2.2A; 2.28; 4.18

Materials and Tools:

• AP Research Handouts/online resources • Annotated Bibliography • QUEST Rubrics and Plagiarism policies/IRB Questions Formulation Technique (open) • graphic organizers • Mentor agreements • I- search (online) • Sample Student Papers • CRAAP test (online CSU Chico) • PREP journal • Elevator Pitch

Tasks and Assessment:

Formative Assessment

• Self-reflective skills audit • "Ways of Knowing" exercise • "What Type of Researcher Am I?" Choosing Research Methods: qualitative vs quantitative.

Primary or secondary. • Rubric exploration with sample papers (past seminar papers, AP teacher community resources) • Graphic representations of processes • What is an annotated bibliography?

Summative Assessment

• Initial PREP entries • GRAAP test analysis • Scholarly Writing analysis assignment • Annotated bibliography entries

Sources:

Practical Research Planning and Design by Leedy, PD. Part III and IV.

What Type of Researcher Am I Activity adapted from http://www.dissertationrecipes.com/page/3/

http://www.dissertationrecipes.com/page/3/

Palmquist, M. (2012). The Bedford Researcher (4th ed.). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's.

Unit 2 (weeks 4-8) Choosing a topic; Identifying and Refining Research Questions and methods; Seeking and Synthesizing Background Information.

This unit will look at various ways of knowing to help choose, focus, and align a research topic, question, and methods of selecting for and collecting data for analysis.

Learning objective(s)/Essential Knowledge:

E.K.: 1.1E1; 1.1E2; 1.2A1; 1.2A2; 1.2A3; 1.3A1; 1.3A2; 1.3A3; 2.181; 2.182; 4.181; 4.182; 4.183; 4.184; 4.3A1; 4.3A2; 4.3A3; 4.3A4; 4.3A5; 5.1E2; 5.1F1; 5.1F2; 5.3A2; 5.3A3; 5.4A1; 5.481; 5.482

LO.: 1.1E; 1.2A; 1.3A; 1.38; 2.18; 4.18; 4.3A; 5.1E; 5.1F; 5.3A; 5.4A; 5.48


• "A Guide to the Library" • "Source mining" • "Tips for Researching" Style guides for major styles (MLA, APA, Chicago, Elevator Speech, etc) • Annotated Bibliography • LEADS: Identify other’s studies • PowerPoint one-slide "poster" presentations • Socratic Seminar


Formative Assessment

• Cash register story • Library/search skills and tools • Documentation styles identification/selection • Presentation peer-reviews

Summative Assessment

• Annotated bibliography entries using proper citation style • Elevator speech/poster "slide presentation

Sources:

Style Guides:

• APA Style: http://www.apastyle.org/ Chicago Style: http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/home.html • CSE Style: http://www.scientificstyleandformat.org/Home.html • Turabian Style: http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/16/bib1.html • Documentation styles. (2015). Columbia College. http://www.columbiasc.edu/wid/documentation-

styles

http://www.apastyle.org/

http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/home.html

http://www.scientificstyleandformat.org/Home.html

http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/16/bib1.html

http://www.columbiasc.edu/wid/documentation-styles

http://www.columbiasc.edu/wid/documentation-styles

• Palmquis M. (2012). The Bedford Researcher (4th Ed.). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's.

Developing Research Questions PowerPoint presentation

Unit 3 (weeks 9-13) Finalize Research Proposal and Plan; Plagiarism

This unit will assist students in their planning and completion of a formal research proposal and plan to be completed, revised (if necessary), and submitted by the November 30 deadline. We will also be discussing plagiarism in this unit to ensure that students are planning and collecting initial information with full-credit for their sources in mind.

Leaning objective(s)/Essential Knowledge:

E.K.: 1.1C2; 1.1E2; 1.481; 1.482; 1.4B3; 1.484; 1.485; 1.486; 1.487; 1.486; 1.489; 1.401; 1.403; 5.4A1; 5.4B1;

5.482

LO.: 1.1C: 1.1E: 1.48: 1.4D: 5.4A: 5.48


• Socratic Seminar • Inquiry Proposal form and exemplars • Plagiarism policy • "Giving Credit Where Credit is Due: A Guide to Avoiding Plagiarism" • Citation examples/scenarios


Formative

• Revisit Plagiarism policies and instruction: is this plagiarism? • Re-writing sample student proposals • Peer-reviewing student proposals • One-on-One interviews with students/PREP journal entries

Summative

• Plagiarism and academic property scenarios • Inquiry Proposal form submitted

Sources:

• Palmquist M. (2012). Avoiding Plagiarism. In The Bedford Researcher, 4th Ed. (pp. 120-134). New York: Bedford/St. Martin's.

• Sample student work

Unit 4 (weeks 14-16) Methods and Mentor Interaction; Aligning Study Design; Engaging with Discipline-specific Consultants

This unit will focus on students developing their methods in consultation with the AP Research teacher and consultant to ensure alignment between question type and collection methods. We will also revisit ethics requirements of selected methods to ensure that proper guidelines are followed in all cases.


EK: 1-1D1; 1.481; 1.482; 1-483; 1-484; 1-485; 1.486; 1.487; 1-488; 1-489; 1-4810; 1.4C1; 1.4C2; 1.4C3; 1-4D1; 1-4D2; 1-4D3

LO.: 1-1D; 1.48; 1.4C; 1-4D; 4.18


• Annotated Bibliography of Methods • Poster Presentation and Peer Review • IRQ check list • PREP journal entries and commentary • Online File Access and Feedback (Google docs, Dropbox) • Email or video chat • Rubric review • Compliments and suggestions • Mentored Research in the lab


Formative

• One-on-One interviews • Excerpt samples: alignment exercise • Peer-review: aligning and articulating rationale for chosen method

Summative

• Justification for selected inquiry method • Data Collection/lab book documentation.

Sources:

• Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., & Williams, J. M. (2011). The craft of research (3rd Ed.), pp. 84-99. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

• Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2013). Practical research: Planning and design (10th Ed.) Pearson Press. • Christensen LB, Johnson RB and Turner (2014) LA Research Methods Design and Analysis (12th ED) Pearson

Press.

Unit 5 (weeks 17-20) Complete Literature Review and Conduct Research; Analyzing and Evaluating Findings

This unit will continue focusing on alignment of method with the literature currently available on the topic and see the students forming complete drafts of their literature review component of their final papers. Revisions may be necessary throughout as new sources provide new insights, but at some point the students will need to know when they have collected enough data and are ready to focus on collecting data that addresses identified gaps on the literature review.


E.K.: 1.401; 1.402; 1.403; 2.181; 2.182; 2.1C1; 2.1C2; 22A1; 22A2; 2.2A3; 2.281; 2.282; 2.283; 2.284, 2285; 2.286; 2.2C2; 2.2C3; 2.201; 3.1A1; 3.1A2; 3.1A3; 3.2A1; 3.2A2; 4.4A1; 4.5A1

LO.: 1.40: 2.18; 2.1C; 2.2A; 2.28; 2.2C; 2.20; 3.1A; 3.2A; 4.4A; 4.5A


• Socratic Seminar • Literature Review exemplars • Previous work on alignment • "Constructing Meaning" template • "They Say, I Say" template


Formative

• Student samples/exemplars analyzed with templates • PREP entries (annotated bibliographies with additional commentary) • Transitions between source analyses: building a lit review.

Summative

• Complete draft form of literature review submitted

Sources:

• Graff, G., & Berkenstein, C. (2007). They say, I say the moves that matter in academic writing. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.

• Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J, E. (2010). Practical research: Planning and design (10th Ed.).

Unit 6 (weeks 21-25) Complete Research and Conduct Peer-Review; Showcasing Scholarly Work; Defending Inquiry Results.

This unit will focus on students independently completing their own research and conducting in both formal and informal peer-review opportunities to revise their writing and ensure communication is clear and consistent. Students will also begin planning their oral presentations as they develop conclusions from their inquiries.

Learning objective(s)/Essential Knowledge (All of the previous and the following):

E.K.: 2.3A1; 2.381; 4.1A1: 4.1A2; 4.1A3: 4.1A4; 4.1A5: 4.1A6; 4.1A7; 4.1A8: 4.1A9; 4.1A10: 4.1A11; 4.1A12; 4.2A1;

4.2A2; 4.2A3; 4.281; 5.1A1[R]; 5.1A2; 5.181; 5.162; 5.183; 5.164; 5.1C1; 5.1C2; 5.1C3; 5.101; 5.102; 5.1E1;

5.1E2; 5.1E3; 5.111; 5.1F2

LO.: 1.4C; 2.3A; 2.36; 4.1A; 4.2A; 4.26; 5.1A[RJ; 5.16; 5.1C; 5.10; 5.1E; 5.1F

Materials and Tools

• Socratic Seminar • PREP journal entries • Graphic organizers • One-on-One interviews • Presentation tips • The oral defense questions


Formative

• Peer-review personalities video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBuq4qgRhCc) and sheet • Graphic organizer for peer-review process • One-0n-One interviews concerning findings

Summative

• Peer-review assessment (assessing the reviewer)

Sources:

• http://peerreview.cis.unimelb.edu.au/resources-3/teaching-resources-2/

• http://techspeaking.denison.edu/Technically_Speaking/Delivery.html

• https://www.gvsu.edu/ours/oral-presentation-tips-30.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBuq4qgRhCc)

http://peerreview.cis.unimelb.edu.au/resources-3/teaching-resources-2/

Weeks 26-28 AP Research Course Assessment (teacher hands-off)

Timeline and Overview: (Learning Objectives and Essential Knowledge carried over from previous Unit).

1. Academic Paper (AP) • Weight: 75% of AP Research score. • Recommended completion date: mid-March • The paper includes the following: (1) Introduction; (2) Method, Process, or Approach; (3) Results, Product,

or Findings; (4) Discussion, Analysis, and/or Evaluation; (5) Conclusion and Future Directions; and (6) Bibliography.

• Task Overview. Students design, plan, and implement a yearlong, in-depth study or investigation in an area of personal interest through a chosen or designed inquiry method and develop a well- reasoned argument based on the evidence collected in an academic paper of 4,000-5,000 words. Throughout the inquiry process, students communicate regularly with their teacher and, when appropriate, consult with an internal or external expert.

2. Presentation and Oral Defense (POD) • Weight: 25% of the AP Research score. • Recommended Completion Date: early April.

The POD includes the following: Individual Multimedia Presentation; and Oral Defense.

Task Overview.

As a culmination of their research, students deliver (using appropriate media) a 15 - 20 minute presentation about their research design, approach, and findings to a panel of three evaluators. Students whose academic paper is accompanied by an additional piece of scholarly work (e.g., performance, exhibit, and product) must arrange for the teacher and panelists to view this work prior to the presentation and oral defense.

After the presentation, each student defends his or her argument/aesthetic rationale or design choices, inquiry process, use of evidence or discipline-specific information, analysis, evaluation, and conclusions through oral responses to three or four questions posed by the oral defense panel. Three of these questions must be chosen from the oral defense question list, which is provided to students in advance (but the specific questions will NOT be shared with the students in advance).

Foot note: EU LO and EK extracted from “AP Capstone Research Curriculum Framework”

(EU 1.1 continued) LO 1.1C: Identifying a topic of inquiry.

EK 1.1C1: Topics of inquiry may come from personal interest, passion for a discipline/field, desire to better understand a topic, or desire to address an issue in the world.

EK 1.1C2: The inquiry process involves exploring the knowledge base associated with the topic of interest, including a variety of perspectives, and adjusting the scope of the topic to the parameters, requirements, and resources available for the project.

EK 1.1C3: Inquiry allows for the discovery of connections that can increase curiosity or understanding and lead to further questions.

EK 1.1D1: Scholars explore, explain, and create.

EK 1.1D2: The purpose of scholarly inquiry is to address various kinds of problems (e.g., practical, theoretical, interpretive, aesthetic) and/or corroborate, challenge, or extend an existing idea.

EK 1.1D3: Scholarly inquiry should be situated within a broader understanding of the scholarly community and of importance and relevance to that community.

LO 1.1D: Articulating the purpose and significance of the scholarly inquiry.

(EU 1.1 continued) LO 1.1E: Developing and revising a focused research question/project goal.

EK 1.1E1: A research question/project goal emerges from the scholar’s purpose (i.e., to explore, explain, and create).

EK 1.1E2: A research question/project goal often requires multiple revisions to ensure it is appropriate in terms of scope and feasibility (time, resources).

EU 1.2: Strengthening understanding of a concept or issue requires questioning existing ideas, using what is known to discover what is not known, and making connections to prior knowledge.

EK 1.2A2: A variety of strategies (e.g., brainstorming, concept mapping, prewriting, exploration of space, drafting) can be used to illustrate, organize, and connect ideas.

EK 1.2A3: Inquiry confirms or challenges one’s existing understandings, assumptions, beliefs, and/or knowledge.

LO 1.3A: Accessing and managing information using effective strategies. EK 1.3A1: Information

used to address a problem may come from various secondary sources (e.g., articles, other studies, analyses, reports) and/or primary sources (e.g., original texts and works, material culture, or personally collected data such as from experiments, surveys, questionnaires, interviews, observations, personal narratives). (Essential knowledge statements continue)

Enduring Understandings (Students will understand that ... )

Learning Objectives (Students will be skilled at ... )

Essential Knowledge (Students will know that ... )

LO 1.2A: Retrieving, questioning, organizing, and using prior knowledge about a topic.

EK 1.2A1: Understandin not only through collec information but also fro variety of other factors experience, external so cultural context, as s um

EU 1.3: The investigative process is aided by the effective organization, management, and selection of resources and information. Appropriate technologies and tools enable the scholar to become more efficient, productive, and credible.




(EU 1.4 continued) LO 1.4B: Designing, planning, and implementing a scholarly inquiry.

EK 1.4B1: Methods for data collection, analysis, innovation, and/or interpretation should be aligned with the research question/project goal.

EK 1.4B2: Methods of inquiry may include research methods (e.g., qualitative, quantitative, or mixed) or artistic processes (e.g., generating, conceptualizing, testing, and then refining aesthetic approaches).

EK 1.4B3: Throughout the process of determining scope and feasibility, the scholar may, where appropriate, adjust the course of inquiry and/or develop different tools, methods, and processes.

EK 1.4B4: Artistic processes can include elements of research methods as well as the exploration and shaping/reshaping of media and form through activities such as workshopping, storyboarding, composing, choreographing, staging, and model-making. (Essential knowledge statements continue)

(EU 1.3 continued)

(LO 1.3A continued)

(continued)

EK 1.3A2: Online databases (e.g., EBSCO, ProQuest, JSTOR, Google Scholar) and libraries catalog and house secondary and some primary sources.

EK 1.3A3: Advanced search tools, Boolean logic, and key words allow scholars to refine, focus, and/or limit their searches based on a variety of factors (e.g., date, peer-review status, type of publication).

EK 1.3A4: Consulting the bibliographies of other sources may provide additional ideas or resources.

EK 1.3A5: Social media may be used as a potential source of information, but an understanding of its limitations is necessary to maintain credibility.

EK 1.3A6: Software (e.g., Microsoft Word, EndNote) and online tools (e.g., citation generators, WorldCat) are used by scholars to manage and catalog sources and produce bibliographies.

EK 1.3A7: Software and online tools (e.g., SurveyMonkey, SPSS) can be used to survey participants and analyze large data sets.

(EU 1.4 continued)

(LO 1.4B continued)

(continued)

EK 1.4B5: Based on the research question or project goal, methods of data or information collection may be qualitative (e.g., openended survey questions, interviews, observational notes, interpretation of texts); may be quantitative (e.g., precise measurements, modeling, using structured and validated data collection instruments and procedures); or could include a combination of both qualitative and quantitative (mixed)

EK 1.4B6: Scholars analyze data or information in a variety of ways appropriate to the inquiry.

EK 1.4B7: Scholars identify reasons for choosing a sample of information, a population, or artifacts and understand the limits of the inferences or conclusions made based on the sample chosen.

EK 1.4B8: Descriptive or inferential statistics can be used to display and/or analyze data.

EK 1.4B9: Scholars often organize and categorize (or code) data/information to identify patterns or themes.

EK 1.4B10: Scholars can combine qualitative and quantitative data/information to triangulate and corroborate trends, patterns, correlations, and/or themes.




(EU 1.4 continued) LO 1.4C: Demonstrating perseverance through setting goals, managing time, and working independently on a long-term project.

EK 1.4C1: Scholars carefully plan methods of inquiry, analysis, and other feasible research activities, taking into account deadlines, priorities, risks, setbacks, and the availability of others.

EK 1.4C2: Scholars learn that setbacks are inevitable; they need to focus on the essential goals of the inquiry or project and be prepared to try alternate approaches or look to other disciplines in order to achieve them.

EK 1.4C3: Experts in the field may provide guidance and/or discipline-specific knowledge or perspective. Scholars must understand how to seek advice while maintaining self-sufficiency.

EK 1.4D1: Scholars have ethical and moral responsibilities when they conduct research.

EK 1.4D2: There are laws, rules, and guidelines that govern the conduct of researchers, in particular when studies involve humans and animals. Accordingly, scholars gain approval to conduct research with humans through an Institutional Review Board (IRB).

EK 1.4D3: There are copyright and patent laws and guidelines that govern the use and reproduction of others’ instruments, work, personal information, and intellectual property.

LO 1.4D: Employing ethical research practices.

(EU 2.1 continued) LO 2.1B: Summarizing and explaining a text’s main idea or aim while avoiding faulty generalizations and oversimplification.

EK 2.1B1: The main idea of an argument is often expressed in the thesis statement, claim, or conclusion, or implied throughout a work.

EK 2.1C1: Authors use reasons to support their arguments. The line of reasoning is composed of one or more claims justified through evidence.

EK 2.1C2: A lack of understanding of the complexities of an argument (tone, implications, limitations, nuance, context) can lead to oversimplification and/or generalization.

EU 2.2: Authors choose evidence to shape and support their arguments. Individuals evaluate the line of reasoning and evidence to determine to what extent they believe or accept an argument.

EK 2.2A1: Inductive reasoning uses specific observations and/or data points to identify trends, make generalizations, and draw conclusions. Deductive reasoning uses broad facts or generalizations to generate additional, more specific conclusions about a phenomenon.

EK 2.2A2: An argument’s line of reasoning is organized based on the argument’s purpose (e.g., to show causality, to define, to propose a solution, to lead to a conclusion). (Essential knowledge statements continue)

EK 2.1B2 : Artistic works (e.g., painting, film, music, dance) convey a perspective. Analysis of a work’s context, subject, structure, style, and aesthetic is critical to understanding its aims.

LO 2.1C : Summarizing and explaining the reasoning of an argument.

LO 2.2A: Identifying, explaining, and analyzing the logic and line of reasoning of an argument.




(EU 2.2 continued) (LO 2.2A continued) (continued)

EK 2.2A3: Effective arguments acknowledge other arguments and/or respond to them with counterarguments (e.g., concession, refutation, rebuttal).

LO 2.2B: Describing and analyzing the relevance and credibility of evidence used to support an argument, taking context into consideration.

EK 2.2B1: An argument’s context (time and purpose) and situation (in relation to other arguments) inform its interpretation.

EK 2.2B2: Writers use qualitative and/or quantitative evidence (e.g., facts, data, observations, predictions, analogies, explanations, opinions) to support their claims. Evidence has varying degrees of validity.

EK 2.2B3: Authors strategically include evidence to support their claims.

EK 2.2B4: Writers appeal to (or possibly manipulate) readers through a variety of strategies and techniques (e.g., language, authority, qualifiers, fallacies, emphasis).

EK 2.2B5: Evidence may be used to identify and explain relationships (comparative, causal, or correlational) and/or patterns and trends.

EK 2.2B6: Credibility is compromised when authors fail to acknowledge and/or consider the limitations of their conclusions, opposing views or perspectives, and/or their own biases.




(EU 2.2 continued) LO 2.2C: Evaluating the validity of an argument.

EK 2.2C1: An argument is valid when there is logical alignment between the line of reasoning and the conclusion.

EK 2.2C2: Validity is most often achieved when the presented evidence is aligned with the conclusions. The strength of an argument depends upon an author acknowledging and/or considering the limitations of his or her conclusions, opposing views or perspectives, and/or his or her own biases.

EK 2.2C3: Conclusions are contextual and their validity must be affirmed, qualified, or refuted.

EK 2.2D1: Scholars analyze and evaluate others’ studies and artistic works in terms of internal coherence and alignment of the purposes, goals, and methods of inquiry.

EU 2.3: Arguments have implications and consequences.

EK 2.3A1: The implications and consequences of arguments may be intended or unintended.

LO 2.2D: Evaluating and critiquing others’ inquiries, studies, artistic works, and/or perspectives.

LO 2.3A: Connecting an argument to broader issues by examining the implications of the author’s claim.

LO 2.3B: Evaluating potential resolutions, conclusions, or solutions to problems or issues raised by an argument.

EK 2.3B1: Arguments are significant and have real-world impact because they can influence behavior (e.g., call one to action, suggest logical next steps).

EU 4.1: Scholarly works convey perspectives and demonstrate effective reasoning that have been selected for the intended audience, purpose, and situation.

EK 4.1A1: Effective arguments use reason and evidence to convey a perspective, point of view, or some version of the truth that is stated or implied in the thesis and/or conclusion.

EK 4.1A2: Effective arguments are supported and unified by carefully chosen and connected claims, reasons, and evidence.

EK 4.1A3: Qualifiers place limits on how far a claim may be carried. Effective arguments acknowledge these limits, increasing credibility by reducing overgeneralization or oversimplification.

EK 4.1A4: Effective arguments may acknowledge other arguments and/or respond to them with counterarguments (e.g., concession, refutation, rebuttal). (Essential knowledge statements continue)

LO 4.1A: Formulating a complex and well-reasoned argument.

(EU 4.1 continued)

(LO 4.1A continued)

(continued)

EK 4.1A5: The line of reasoning is a clear, logical path leading the audience through the reasons to a conclusion.

EK 4.1A6: The logic and reasoning of an argument may be deductive (claim followed by evidence) or inductive (evidence leads to a conclusion).

EK 4.1A7: A line of reasoning is organized based on the argument’s purpose (e.g., to show causality, to evaluate, to define, to propose a solution).

EK 4.1A8: Claims and supporting evidence are arranged (e.g., spatially, chronologically, order of importance) to convey reasoning and relationship (e.g., comparative, causal, correlational).

EK 4.1A9: The same argument may be organized, arranged, or supported in multiple ways depending on audience and context.

EK 4.1A10: Whether developing an argument or conceptualizing an idea or work of art, scholars thoughtfully choose and implement a process aligned with the inquiry or project goal.

EK 4.1A11: An aesthetic rationale is an argument in that it is a reasoned articulation of specific formal and stylistic choices made in the course of devising the artistic work. (Essential knowledge statements continue)

(EU 4.1 continued) (LO 4.1A continued ) (continued)

EK 4.1A12: Artists need to articulate their choices, even when those choices deliberately or inadvertently result in ambiguity or lack of clarity.

LO 4.1B: Selecting and consistently applying an appropriate disciplinary or interdisciplinary approach to form a scholarly argument or aesthetic rationale.

EK 4.1B1: Each discipline has its own conventions and ways of knowing, questioning, and communicating.

EK 4.1B2: Scholars apply disciplinespecific terminology in the analysis of scholarly works.

EK 4.1B3: The different disciplines and associated ways of knowing and valuing information are discovered in part through engaging with disciplinespecific foundational texts and works.

EK 4.1B4: Disciplines may be broadly or narrowly defined. Disciplines can intersect or be combined to provide new understandings or perspectives.

LO 4.2A: Interpreting, using, and synthesizing qualitative and/or quantitative data/information from various perspectives and sources (e.g., primary, secondary, print, nonprint) to develop and support an argument.

EK 4.2A1: Evidence can be collected from print and nonprint sources (e.g., libraries, museums, archives), experts, or data gathered in the field (e.g., interviews, questionnaires, observations).

EK 4.2A2: Evidence is used to support the claims and reasoning of an argument. Compelling evidence is sufficient, accurate, relevant, current, and credible to support the conclusion. (Essential knowledge statements continue)




EU 4.2: Scholars responsibly and purposefully engage with the evidence to develop a compelling argument or aesthetic rationale.


EK 4.2A3: Evidence is chosen based on purpose (e.g., to align an argument with authority; to define a concept, illustrate a process, or clarify a statement; to set a mood; to provide an example; to amplify or qualify a point).

LO 4.2B: Providing insightful and cogent commentary that links evidence with claims.

EK 4.2B1: Commentary connects the chosen evidence to the claim through interpretation or inference, identifying patterns, describing trends, and/or explaining relationships (e.g., comparative, causal, correlational).

EU 4.3: Responsible participation in the scholarly community requires acknowledging and respecting the prior findings and contributions of others.

EK 4.3A1: Plagiarism is a serious offense that occurs when a person presents another’s ideas or words as his or her own. Plagiarism may be avoided by acknowledging sources thoroughly and accurately.

EK 4.3A2: Source material should be introduced, integrated, or embedded into the text of an argument.

EK 4.3A3: Quoted and paraphrased material must be properly attributed, credited, and cited following a style manual. Quoting is using the exact words of others; paraphrasing is restating an idea in one’s own words.

EK 4.3A4: Academic disciplines use specific style guides for citing and attributing sources (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago, AMA). (Essential knowledge statements continue)




LO 4.3A: Attributing knowledge and ideas accurately and ethically, using an appropriate citation style.

EU 5.1: How a perspective or argument is presented affects how people interpret or react to it. The same perspective or argument may be developed or presented differently depending on audience, purpose, and context. LO 5.1A[S]: Planning, producing,

and presenting a cohesive argument, considering audience, context, and purpose, and using appropriate media (e.g., essay, poster, oral presentation, documentary, research report/thesis).

LO 5.1A[R]: Planning and producing a cohesive academic paper, considering audience, context, and purpose.

EK 5.1A1[S]: An argument may include the following elements:

• Introduction: engages the audience by providing background and/or context

• Thesis: conveys the main idea of an argument

• Reasons, evidence, and commentary: provide support for the argument

• Counterargument, concession, refutation, and rebuttal: acknowledge and/or respond to opposing arguments

(EK 5.1A1[S] continues)


EK 4.3A5: Appropriation in works of art has potential legal and ethical implications that scholars need to consider (e.g., scholars must credit works that are used in visual/audio sampling, parody, choreography).

EU 4.4: Forming one’s own perspective and reaching new understandings involve innovative thinking and synthesis of existing knowledge with personally generated evidence.

LO 4.4A: Extending an idea, question, process, or product to innovate or create new understandings.

EK 4.4A1: Innovative solutions and arguments identify and challenge assumptions, acknowledge the importance of content, imagine and explore alternatives, and engage in reflective skepticism.

EU 4.5: Arguments, choices, and solutions present intended and unintended opportunities, consequences, and implications.

LO 4.5A: Offering resolutions, conclusions, and/or solutions based on evidence as well as considering consequences and implications.

EK 4.5A1: When making choices and proposing solutions, the advantages and disadvantages of the options should be weighed against the goal within its context.




(EU 5.1 continued)

(LO 5.1A continued)

(EK 5.1A1[S] continued)

• Conclusion: synthesizes reasoning, considers possible implications for the future, and ties back to the introduction

• Bibliography: identifies works cited

EK 5.1A1[R]: Inquiries result in conclusions that can be presented in different formats and that typically have the following elements:

• Introduction: provides background and contextualizes the research question/project goal, reviews previous work in the field related to the research question/project goal, and identifies the gap in the current field of knowledge to be addressed

• Method, process, or approach: explains and provides justification for the chosen method, process, or approach

• Results, Product, or Findings: presents the results, product, evidence, or findings

• Discussion, Analysis, and/or Evaluation: interprets the significance of the results, product, or findings; explores connections to original research question/project goal; discusses the implications and limitations of the research or creative work

• Conclusion and Future Directions: reflects on the process and how this project could impact the field; discusses possible next steps

• Bibliography: provides a complete list of sources cited and consulted in the appropriate disciplinary style

(Essential knowledge statements continue)





EK 5.1A2: Coherence is achieved when the elements and ideas in an argument flow logically and smoothly. Transitions are used to move the audience from one element or idea to another by illustrating the relationship between the elements or ideas.

EK 5.1B1: A writer expresses tone or attitude about a topic through word choice, sentence structure, and imagery.

EK 5.1B2: Effective sentences create variety, emphasis, and interest through structure, agreement of elements, placement of modifiers, and consistency of tense.

EK 5.1B3: Precision in word choice reduces confusion, wordiness, and redundancy.

EK 5.1B4: Spelling and grammar errors detract from credibility.

LO 5.1C: Communicating information using effective techniques of design.

EK 5.1C1: Effective organizational and design elements (e.g., headings, layout, illustrations, pull quotes, captions, lists) may aid in audience engagement and understanding by calling attention to important information and/or creating emotional responses in the audience. Ineffective use or overuse of these elements disrupts audience engagement and understanding. (Essential knowledge statements continue)

LO 5.1B: Adhering to established conventions of grammar, usage, style, and mechanics.




(EU 5.1 continued) (LO 5.1C continued) (continued)

EK 5.1C2: Data and other information can be graphically (e.g., infographics, graphs, tables,

o aid audience understanding and

tion.

EK 5.1D1: Arguments can be adapted by strategically selecting and emphasizing information considering audience, medium, and purpose.

EK 5.1D2: Scholars should articulate their choices and content in a language that is not disciplinespecific to communicate effectively to nonexperts or people outside the discipline.

EK 5.1C3: Effective communication requires choosing appropriate media according to context, purpose, and audience.

LO 5.1D: Adapting an argument for context, purpose, and/or audience.

EK 5.1E1: Speakers vary elements of delivery (e.g., volume, tempo, movement, eye contact, vocal variety, energy) emphasize information, convey tone, and engage their audience.

EK 5.1E2: Scholars present, perform, and/or produce their work in multiple ways. This may take discipline-specific forms (e.g., portfolios, exhibits, performances, showcases, premieres, posters), but may also cross disciplinary boundaries. (Essential knowledge statements continue)




(EU 5.1 continued) (LO 5.1E continued) (continued)

EK 5.1E3: Scholars present, perform, and/or produce their completed work after multiple revisions or rehearsals (e.g., responding to audience feedback, self-critique of recorded performance) and polishing.

LO 5.1F: Defending inquiry choices and final product with clarity, consistency, and conviction.

EK 5.1F1: Scholars effectively articulate the rationale for inquiry choices in relation to the completed work. EK 5.1F2: Scholars engage thoughtfully with their audiences’ critiques and questions.

LO 5.1E: Engaging an audience by employing effective techniques of delivery or performance.

EU 5.2: Teams are most effective when they draw on the diverse perspectives, skills, and backgrounds of team members to address complex, openended problems.

EK 5.2A1: Knowing and communicating one’s strengths and challenges to a group allows one’s contributions to be more effective.

EK 5.2B1: Teams are built around tasks. Low-risk teambuilding activities and simulations enhance a team’s performance.

EK 5.2B2: Teams function at their best when they understand the diversity of their social–cultural perspectives, talents, and skills.

EK 5.2B3: Teams function at their best when they practice effective interpersonal communication, consensus building, conflict resolution, and negotiation.

EK 5.2B4: Effective teams consider the use of online collaborative tools.




LO 5.2A: Providing individual contributions to overall collaborative effort to accomplish a task or a goal.

LO 5.2B: Fostering constructive team climate, resolving conflicts, and facilitating the contributions of all team members to address complex, openended problems.

EU 5.3: Reflection increases learning, self-awareness, and personal growth through identification and evaluation of personal conclusions and their implications.

LO 5.3A: Reflecting on and revising their own writing, thinking, and creative processes.

EK 5.3A1: Reflection is an ongoing and recursive process in inquiry, often leading to changes in understanding. Strategies for reflection may include journal writing, self-questioning, drawing, exploration of space, and/or guided contemplation.

EK 5.3A2: Learning requires practice through an iterative process of thinking/rethinking, vision/revision, and writing/rewriting.

EK 5.3A3: Scholars are mindful of the rationale behind the chosen method for data collection, information gathering, analysis, production, and presentation.

EK 5.3A4: Scholars reflect on how the inquiry process helped them deepen their understanding, make important connections, and develop greater self-direction.

EK 5.3B1: Reflective contributors acknowledge the impact of their actions on the outcome of the group’s efforts, noting the reasons for such actions, assumptions made, and whether or not such actions and assumptions hindered or helped the achievement of the group’s goals.

LO 5.3C: Reflecting on the larger significance of engaging in the overall inquiry process and producing a completed scholarly work.

EK 5.3C1: Reflective scholars explore potential future directions for their inquiries and the development of their own scholarship or bodies of work. (Essential knowledge statements continue)




LO 5.3B: Reflecting on personal contributions to overall collaborative effort.

(EU 5.3 continued) (LO 5.3C continued) (continued)

EK 5.3C2: Reflective scholars acknowledge how their inquiry processes and resulting works can be transformational for their own and others’ understanding as well as for their personal identities as scholars.

EU 5.4: Scholars perform, present and/or produce their work within a larger community. Throughout the inquiry process, scholars interact with and benefit from the scholarly community through thoughtful engagement with the opinions and critiques of others.

LO 5.4A: Engaging in peer review to provide constructive responses to one another’s work, appropriate to the stage of a project’s

development. work.

EK 5.4A1: Peer review should be based on guidelines and defined criteria appropriate to the work.

EK 5.4B1: Peer review is an effective way for scholars to strengthen their critical eye as well as strengthen their own work.

EK 5.4B2: Communities of scholars produce, present, and perform effectively when participants actively seek and provide feedback.

LO 5.4B: Engaging in peer review to receive and consider responses to their

Documents

AP Capstone - Research Course Syllabus · AP Capstone - Research . Course Syllabus . 2015-2016 . AP Capstone Research is a year-long course. AP Seminar is a pre-requisite. We are