Module 2
Unit 1
1.3
A 1 – f; 2 – d; 3 – a; 4 – e; 5 – b; 6 – c. B 1 – c; 2 – d; 3 – b; 4 – a.
C 1 – c; 2 – d; 3 – a; 4 – b.
1.9
D hypothesis, recognize, deduce, modify, test, accept, propose, discard, experiment (the order of the task)
Test
A 1 – methodology; 2 – method; 3 – method; 4 – hypotheses; 5 observations; 6 – problem; 7 – hypothesis; 8 variables
B Asking questions, constructing hypothesis, background research, testing hypothesis.
C 1. Make observations. 2. Form hypothesis that explains observations. 3. Perform experiments that test hypothesis (if data contradicts the hypothesis, modify/discard the hypothesis and try again). 4. The hypothesis is now a theory (if data support the hypothesis). 5. Collect relevant data over long period of time (if data contradict the theory – see steps 3, 4). 6. The theory is now a law (if data support the theory).
Unit 2
2.8
A Question A is too broad once you get into the research. Because deregulation may have had impact on safety, costs, passenger fees, ability to comply with government regulations and many other areas of the airline industry, there are too many facets of the question to deal with in depth in one research paper.
Question B is too narrow. It can be answered with simple percentages and cannot be developed into a full research paper.
Question C is the best research question. You may use statistics such as question B would uncover as you answer question C, which is focused enough to allow you to research the question in some depth, yet broad enough to allow you to consider the various effects of deregulation on airline safety.
B This question is researchable. You'd have to sift through a lot of information, both pro and con, valid and invalid, in order to choose the best information to answer the research question and support your own point of
173
view, but the point is that there is at least enough information to sift through.
C Focused RQ: How is glacial melting affecting penguins in Antarctica?
The unfocused research question is so broad that Тt МШuХНЧ’t ЛО КНОquКtОХв answered in a book-length piece, let alone a standard college-level paper. The focused version narrows down to a specific cause (glacial melting), a specific place (Antarctica), and a specific group that is affected (penguins). When in doubt, make a research question as narrow and focused as possible.
Test
A 1 – topic/subject; 2 – objectives; 3 – problems; 4 areas/fields; 5 – gap; 6 – objective.
B Question (1) is too narrow, since it can be answered with a simple statistic. Question (2) is too broad; it implies that the researcher will cover many tactics for reducing juvenile delinquency that could be used throughout the country. Question (3) is good, as it is focused enough to research in some depth
Unit 3
3.2
1 – h, d; 2 – a, i, b; 3 – e, g, f, c.
3.3
B 1 – true; 2 – true; 3 – false; 4 – true.
3.4
1 – B; 2 – C; 3 – A.
3.7
Good hypotheses:
1.This hypothesis is good because it is testable, simple, written as a statement, and establishes the participants (trout), variables (oxygen in water, and numbers of lice), and predicts effect (as oxygen levels go down, the numbers of lice go up).
2.This hypothesis gives a clear indication of what is to be tested (the ability of ladybugs to curb an aphid infestation), is a manageable size for a single experiment, mentions the independent variable (ladybugs) and the dependent variable (number of aphids), and predicts the effect (exposure to ladybugs reduces the number of aphids).
Poor hypotheses:
1.This statement may or may not be true, but it is not a scientific hypothesis. By its very nature, it is not testable. There are no observations that a
174
scientist can make to tell whether or not the hypothesis is correct. This statement is speculation, not a hypothesis.
2. This statement is not 'bite size.' Whether or not something is a 'good natural pesticide' is too vague for a science fair project. There is no clear indication of what will be measured to evaluate the prediction.
3.9 Statement 1
It is testable, but it may be either correct or wrong. If it is true, there are observations that scientists could make that would prove its correctness. But, if it is wrong, there is no test that will prove it. If one of our space probes never finds an inhabited planet, it doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. If we never receive signals from space, that does not prove that the hypothesis is wrong, either. This statement is not falsifiable, so, it can not be a scientific hypothesis.
Statement 2
It is testable: you can pick two objects and drop them. It is falsifiable: if anyone finds two objects that don't hit the ground at the same time and can show that it is not due to air resistance, then he has proven the hypothesis wrong (in practice it is very easy to prove statement 2 wrong). So, it can be a scientific hypothesis. But it is not verifiable, it is impossible to prove it correct. Since it states that any pair of objects behaves in a certain way, in order to prove it correct, all possible combinations of objects that exist (or have ever, or will ever exist) must be tested. This is clearly not possible. As we test it more and more, we can get more and more confident in its truth, but we can never be absolutely sure. Someone could always come up with two objects tomorrow which don't behave exactly as statement 2 says they should, and this would make statement 2 incorrect.
3.12
A 1 – A, B, D; 2 – F; 3 – C, E.
3.14
B 1. This is a field experiment since nothing but the interest rate in manipulated, with all activities occurring in the normal and natural work environment. Hopefully, all four branches chosen would be more or less compatible in size, number of depositors, deposit patterns, and the like, so that the interest savings relationships are not influenced by some third factors. But it is possible that some other factors might affect the findings (for example, the number of retirees in the areas). The researcher may not have been aware of this fact while setting up the experiment.
175
2.This is a field study where the researcher has merely taken the balances in various types of accounts and correlated them to the changes in interest rates. Research here is done in a noncontrived setting with no interference with the normal work routine.
3.This is a lab experiment. The researcher has created an artificial laboratory environment and has manipulated the interest rates for savings. She has also chosen subjects with similar backgrounds and exposure to financial matters (business students). If the researcher finds that the savings by the four groups increase progressively, keeping in step with the increasing rates of interest, she would be able to establish a cause and effect relationship between interest and the disposition to save. In this lab experiment with the contrived settings, the researcher interference has been maximal, inasmuch as the setting is difficult, the independent variable has been manipulated, and most external contaminating factors such as age and experience have been controlled.
3.20
A a – digital scale (mass); b – thermometer (temperature of air, liquids or gases); c – meter stick (distance, length); d – protractor (angles); e – ruler (distance); f – hygrometer-thermometer (both relative humidity and temperature).
B 1 – a; 2 – e; 3 – c; 4 – i; 5 – f; 6 – g; 7 – j; 8 – h; 9 – d; 10 - b.
C 1 – a, f; 2 – b, g; 3 – d; 4 – c, h; 5 – g, i.
Test
A1 – hypotheses; 2 – variables; 3 – theories; 4 – validate.
B1. DV – the speed of a roller coaster; IV – the shape of the car. 2. DV – speed; IV – the size of a motor.
C1 – hypothesis; 2 – research question.
D1 – all of the above; 2 – numerical data; 3 – all of the above; 4 – focus on the significance of observations made rather than numerical data; 5 – if eating fewer calories causes weight loss and calorie consumption is lowered, then weight loss will occur.
ERQ. Is the performance of system x an improvement on system y? Example hypothesis. System x is faster than system y, and/or System x is
more reliable than system y, etc.
Variables. Performance will need to be further defined – is it speed, reliability, processing power, etc? Otherwise you will not know how to proceed with measuring these concepts.
176
Module 3
Unit 1
1.2
C 1 – tertiary literature; 2 – primary literature; 3 - tertiary literature; 4 – tertiary literature; 5 – primary literature; 6 – secondary or tertiary literature; 7 – primary literature; 8 – secondary literature; 9 – primary literature.
1.3
A 1 – d; 2 – c; 3 – a; 4 – e; 5 – b.
1.6
A 1 – literature review; 2 – data collection; 3 – data analysis; 4 – disseminating information.
1.8
C 1 – (a) scientific communication; 2 – (b) technical writing, (c) peers; 3 –
(d) writing about science, (e) general; 4 – (f) science writing; 5 – (g) scientific writing.
1.9
Sample 1: good use of personal pronouns – НШОsЧ’t НОtrКМt ПrШЦ tСО sМi- ence, just makes the sentences concise.
Sample 2: poor use of personal pronouns – too much emphasis on the writer rather than the point of the lab; also too informal.
Sample 3: needless inflating the writing in length and complexity, many unnecessary words (given below in bold).
As discussed, the second reaction is really the end result of a very large number of reactions. It is also worth emphasizing that the reactions do not represent a closed system, as r appears to be produced out of thin air. In reality, it is created from other chemical species within the cell, but we have chosen here not to model at such a fine level of detail. One detail not included here that may be worth considering is the reversible nature of the binding of RNAP to the promoter region. It is also worth noting that these two reactions form a simple linear chain, whereby the product of the first reaction is the reactant for the second.
Sample 4: long sentences are understandable, no unnecessary words or phrases.
1.12
C 1 – d; 2 – e; 3 – f; 4 – h; 5 – c; 6 – g; 7 – a; 8 – c.
1.13
A γ→4→β→5→6→7→8→1
The field of strategy has grown rapidly in the last twenty years, reflecting increased levels of academic interest in the subject. Numerous research studies have focused on topics as varied as managing strategic change, the
177