2023 Semester 1 Curtin University

2023 Semester 1 Curtin University

NPSC5000

Final Assessment: Research proposal

Due: Sunday, 28th May 2023 (23:59) Grade: Pass/Fail

Pass requirements - you must achieve Meets Expectations or above in all criteria of each part.

Due: Sunday, 28th May 2023 (23:59) Grade: Pass/Fail

Pass requirements - you must achieve Meets Expectations or above in all criteria of each part.

Overview

This assignment is a group assignment with an individual component. There are 3 parts to this assessment:

A group research proposal (one submission from the group)

A group pitch (one submission from the group with all group members participating)

An individual reflection (all group members to submit individual reflections)

The proposal will be on a research topic of your groups choice. You will use a template provided with these instructions. You will use the Challenge Platform to interact with your group and to upload all material.

Purpose

This assignment will require you to complete a proposal that draws together the practical and ethical considerations necessary to undertake a research project in your chosen discipline.

This will benefit you in future research because you will have learnt:

to be aware of, and critically review, previous and existing literature in the area to identify the gaps in knowledge and formulate appropriate research question(s).

to consider the social and ethical implications of your research as applicable to your discipline.

to develop a workable and achievable research methodology that includes a realistic timeline and considers contingency plans to ensure a successful project.

to persuade the assessor that the research or project you have proposed is worthwhile.

This assessment requires you to learn and to work in groups. You will need to work as a team to be successful. Teamwork is highly valued by employers. Well-developed interpersonal skills are listed by employers as being among the top 10 skills sought in university graduates. As such, this assignment will provide you with an opportunity to develop these skills at university.

Your work will be assessed on the group proposal (written presentation), the group pitch (oral presentation), and the individual reflections on the group process.

Although this is a group assessment, a Pass or Fail for this assessment will be determined individually based on the group process assessment (evaluation of team members) and your contribution to the group (as captured using the Challenge Platform).

Part 1: Written proposal (all group members contribute)

A research proposal is a type of science communication that is written to persuade an assessing body that an idea for a science project or engineering design is worthy of investment. It will include a statement of what the idea/problem is, why it is important, and how it will be done. It usually includes a timeline as well as an estimated budget.

You will fairly choose a STEM research topic that is of interest to everyone in the group.

This may be relevant to a common discipline and/or general interest to all in the group. Some interesting ideas may be generated by looking at the 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Your group research proposal should not exceed 1200 words, including in-text citations but excluding the reference list. We suggest that you critically evaluate five (5) primary sources for your literature review. These will form the bulk of your references (but you will possibly include other references due to the critical evaluation of your primary sources). Given the length of this assignment you need to be very selective with your references.

EXAMPLE PROPOSALS are available in the Final Assessment folder on BlackboardWe will provide a template for the proposal with specific headings. This template is modified from the one available at Scribbr.com.

The proposal will be assessed against five criteria (each with sub-criteria).

TO PASS, you need to achieve meets expectations in all criteria.

Introduction and Problem Statement (weight 35%): Consisting of background (literature review) and the statement of the problem. The background will include the critical evaluation of the 5 primary sources, citing relevant literature. The research question (including the main aim) must be clearly stated and linked to a gap in the literature. The significance and innovation of the work should be discussed, (can be demonstrated by compelling relevance to selected SDGs, if used).

Research design and method(s) (weight 15%): Here you should explain your approach to the research and describe exactly what steps you will take to answer your questions. The research should have a purposeful design, appropriate method(s) for the research question at hand, and be achievable within the norms of the discipline.

For the approach and methodology section, you should describe components such as the data gathering process (if applicable), the experimental design and controls, and appropriate methods for the analysis and presentation of the data, such as particular statistical methods. You should make use of the material gained from all the lectures and workshops, as well as your own additional reading to formulate the approach and methodology.

Practical Considerations (weight 10%): Address any potential obstacles, limitations and ethical or practical issues surrounding the undertaking of your proposed research. How will you plan for and deal with problems? This section must include a clear articulation of the research ethics. Appropriate Curtin policies should also be consulted and referred to in your proposal, if they apply. This section must also include a timeline (Research Schedule/Gantt Chart) with contingency plans in place to allow for a successful outcome. (NOTE: The research schedule/Gantt Chart does not count toward the maximum word count).

Conclusions (weight 10%): Finish the proposal by emphasizing why your proposed project is important (worthwhile, valuable) and what it will contribute to practice or theory.

Structure and style (weight 30%): You must use a formal and consistent scientific writing style, with appropriate syntax, grammar, punctuation, and spelling (see note below regarding use of generative AI in writing). The overall structure should be clearly signposted (use of the template will ensure this), with an identifiable organisation within and fluid connection between paragraphs. References must be integrated into the text using the APA 7th format.

Note: There is no guarantee that any content generated by artificial intelligence is reliable, true, correct, or of sufficient standard to pass an assessment task. It is ARTIFICIAL; YOU are the emerging scientists and engineerstrust yourselves.

The use of generative AI for this assessment is not recommended; however, if you use AI (Artificial Intelligence), you must acknowledge its use in your proposal.

Refer to this resource to learn how to acknowledge generative AI use: APA 7 Referencing.

We absolutely recommend use of other types of writing assistance such as Studiosity (now available as a link on the Blackboard side bar) and/or Grammarly. Curtin (through the student OASIS) provides access to these resources for most students.

Part 2: Group Pitch (all group members contribute)

The second component of the final assessment is a recorded (video) oral group presentation, with appropriate visuals, with the level aimed at a general audience (high school equivalent). Your pitch is in the form of a video that is a maximum of 5 minutes. All group members must participate in the presentation. Each member must appear in the video presentation.

You are aiming to convince the audience of the purpose and importance of your research. Presentation skills will be addressed in the workshop on the 12 May. Instructions on how to prepare a video are available in the Assessment folder.

For a breakdown on effective presenting, please enjoy this TedX video by David J.P. Phillips on How to Avoid Death By PowerpointMore resources:

How to make short 5-minute presentations (NOTE: focus on the tips not the advertising)

Presentation Coach how to present professionally.How to appear in your PowerPointPart 3: Individual Reflection of the Group Process

The group process refers to how you and your group work together to get the written proposal and video pitch done - group members must work together as a team, and each must contribute equitably.

The final component required to successfully complete this assignment is the individual assessment of the process.

Working as a group will enable you to pool your ideas and see problems from different perspectives. You will be able to draw from your collective skills and expertise to write a proposal that has greater depth and breadth than if one of you had proposed the work alone.

Group work also provides you with an opportunity to develop more generic skills such as: organisation, delegation, effective communication, co-operation, leadership as well as following. These are all valuable transferable skills that are highly sought by employers.

The individual reflection of the group process is a module on the Challenge Platform that each member of the group fills in separately. (for example if there are 5 members in your group, there should be 5 individual reflections).

NOTE: Each reflection is invisible to other members of the team and allow each person to honestly reflect on the group dynamics.

The module will begin with a written reflection. You will write as much or as little here as you want but we, as your markers, will use this to provide supporting documentation for your numerical scores of yourself and your group members.

You may look at the reflection module on the Challenge Platform before you start, but keep in mind that if you progress to the next step you will not be able to go back.

Assessment of group process

Group processes that will be evaluated by your peers in this assessment are:

Listening skills

Openness to others ideas

Preparation

Contribution

Leadership

In the Challenge Platform, after the written section, you will then be presented with a survey style template where you will rate each of the above for yourself and your team mates. The numbers are defined in the rubric below.

Highlight the appropriate score for each criterion for each member of your group.

Group members

Be sure to rate yourself Listening Skills Openness to others ideas Preparation Contribution Leadership

0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5

0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5

0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5

0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5

0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5

Appendices follow with Rubrics for each part of the Assessment.

Appendix: Rubrics

Written Proposal Rubric

Presentation Rubric:

Criterion Marks Performance rating descriptor

Absent Limited ability Meets Expectations Proficient Exceeds ExpectionsVisuals 10 Hard to read; confusing or unclear. Achieves purpose of delivering information; some parts may not be clear. Attractively designed and somewhat engaging; very minimal parts may not be clear. Attractively designed, effective and engaging; reinforced presentation; one slide may be unclear. Attractively designed, effective and engaging; clearly adds to presentation; Legible graphs, tables, pictures, objects.

Content 10 Difficult to follow; confusing sequence of information. Articulation could be improved in terms of organisation and clarity. Directed but could be better articulated for clarity. Directed, sources relevant, logical articulation of findings. Detailed - relevant sources; logical and accurate information with no factual errors.

Presentation 10 Difficult to understand Informal language; Reads the text; Sufficiently comprehensible. Comprehensible delivery techniques and academic language. Good delivery techniques and appropriate language suitable for a STEM audience. Excellent delivery techniques and appropriate language suitable for a STEM audience - presentation compelling.

Individual Reflection Rubric:

Criteria Absent (0) Unacceptable (1) Limited Ability (2) Meets Expectations (3) Proficient (4) Exceeds Expectations (5)

Listening Skills Never shows up and never contributes. Doesnt restate what others say when responding; often interrupts; doesnt ask for contributions from others; is readily distracted; often talks with others when another team member speaks. Rarely restates what others say before responding; often interrupts; rarely solicits others contributions; does not make eye contact; sometimes converses with others when another team member is speaking. Sometimes restates what others say before responding; sometimes interrupts; sometimes asks for others contributions; sometimes makes eye contact. Often restates what others say before responding; usually does not interrupt; often solicits others contributions; makes eye contact. Routinely restates what others say before responding; rarely interrupts; frequently solicits others contributions; sustains eye contact.

Openness to others ideas Never shows up and never contributes. Interrupts others articulation of their ideas; makes deprecatory comments and/or gestures. Interrupts others articulation of their ideas; does not comment on the ideas. Sometimes listens to others ideas without interrupting; generally, responds to the ideas. Listens to others ideas without interrupting; responds positively to the ideas even if rejecting. Listens to other ideas without interrupting; responds positively to ideas even if rejecting; asks questions about the ideas.

Preparation Never shows up and never contributes. Typically, does not complete assignments; typically comes to team sessions without necessary documents and materials. Hardly/rarely completes assignments; sometimes comes to team sessions with necessary documents and materials. Sometimes completes assignments; sometimes comes to team sessions with necessary documents and materials. Typically completes assignments; typically comes to team sessions with necessary documents and materials. Always completes assignments; always comes to team sessions with necessary documents and materials; does additional research, reading, writing, designing, implementing.

Contribution Never shows up and never contributes. Rarely contributes; contributions are often peripheral or irrelevant; frequently misses team sessions. Sometimes contributes; quality of contribution is inconsistent. Sometimes contributes; quality of contributions is fair. Usually contributes; quality of contributions is solid. Always contributes; quality of contributions is exceptional.

Leadership Never shows up and never contributes. May volunteer to lead but does not follow through; misses team sessions, does not address outcomes or direction for sessions or projects, team members become anarchical. Resists taking on leadership role; in leading allows uneven contributions from team members, is unclear about outcomes or direction, does not make plans for sessions or projects. Will take lead if group insists; not good at being attentive to each member of the team, sometimes articulates direction for sessions, has some trouble keeping team on schedule. Is willing to lead; in leading is attentive to each member of the team, articulates general direction for each session and each project, attempts to keep team on schedule. Seeks opportunities to lead; in leading is attentive to each member of the team, articulates outcomes for each session and each project, keeps team on schedule, foregrounds collaboration and integration of individual efforts.

EXAMPLE RESEARCH PROPOSAL USING TEMPLATE

Using Machine Learning to locate Meteorite sources on MarsGROUP 0

G.K.Benedix######## Planetary Science

REPLACE THIS WITH STUDENT NAME REPLACE THIS WITH STUDENT ID REPLACE THIS WITH STUDENT COURSE

REPLACE THIS WITH STUDENT NAME REPLACE THIS WITH STUDENT ID REPLACE THIS WITH STUDENT COURSE

REPLACE THIS WITH STUDENT NAME REPLACE THIS WITH STUDENT ID REPLACE THIS WITH STUDENT COURSE

REPLACE THIS WITH STUDENT NAME REPLACE THIS WITH STUDENT ID REPLACE THIS WITH STUDENT COURSE

Xx May 2023

Total word count excluding Gantt Chart, Reference list, and any figures or tables: 1146

IntroductionBackground and identification of knowledge gap

Planetary science is the study of the planets and moons in our solar system and the processes that formed them. Understanding the geological history of another world has an importance of its own, but there is a larger significance beyond that. Our solar system shows us the many different pathways geological bodies can evolve along over time and therefore provides a template for understanding planet formation and evolution not just here, but throughout the universe. If we understand habitable zones in our solar system, we can apply that knowledge across the galaxy.

To truly uncover history, we need to unravel time (or, in this case, age). Geologists study the planets, moons, asteroids, and comets in our solar system, using image datasets of a surface from which a geologic map is constructed, including surface age information. We determine ages for worlds that we have never visited by counting craters (number and size) on their surfaces. The more craters, the older the surface. To determine a precise age we need to know the impact rate: how it varies for different planets; how it has changed over time. Ideally, if we have returned samples from a planetary body as we have for the Moon we can calibrate our crater count age against a radioisotope age for a rock.

The technique of counting craters to date planetary surfaces was invented in the early 1960s ((Baldwin, 1965; W K Hartmann, 1964; Shoemaker et al., 1963; Shoemaker & Hackman, 1962)). For decades, image resolutions were km/pixel, and, then, 100s m/pixel, but there has been no change in how that data is processed to derive ages for surfaces. The default method remains counting craters by hand, effectively limiting us to craters >1km of which there are ~385,000 on Mars (Robbins & Hynek, 2012). Today there are datasets at 30 cm/pixel for Mars, which allow discrimination of craters down to 10m across. Because crater size frequency distribution follows a power law, we know there must be 10s of millions of these craters on Mars. If we could measure all of them, we could have age maps at ultimate resolution.

Research question

The aim of the proposed research is to identify the craters from which the Martian meteorites were ejected.

Research design and method(s)Finding these sources will be accomplished using new machine learning techniques combined with an understanding of chronologies determined by radiometric and remote sensing methods.

Automated crater detection: We developed and validated a machine learning solution(Benedix et al., 2020) to the automated crater detection and counting problem, involving a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN). We can use this Crater Detection Algorithm (CDA), trained to the highest resolution imagery available to identify the source craters of Martian meteorites using the clues found in the rocks and left on the surface of Mars.

Geochronology methods: Ages of individual geologic features and specimens can be determined as absolute (this rock is 4.5 billion years old and this one is 600 million years old) or relative (this lava flow is younger than that valley). The two can be combined to present a very rich history of a planet. Human interaction with other planetary surfaces is limited (primarily) to remotely sensed imagery that needs to be interpreted.

Absolute ages are determined by radioisotope systems. Different radiometric dating systems provide information about different events in the history of a rock. Examples of measurable ages include a crystallisation age (the time an igneous rock cooled below a specific temperature after formation), a reheating age (perhaps when a nearby impact raised the temperature of the surrounding rocks above the reset temperature), and an ejection age (the age when the impact that formed the crater and launched the meteorite formed). These ages are routinely determined for meteorites known to be from Mars.

Relative ages of planets can be determined by looking at surface imagery. Based on cross cutting relationships or the principle of superposition, events can be placed in order. If there are flat lying layers, we can assume that the ones on the bottom were there before the ones on the top, while a fault line might cause an offset of the layers, indicating it formed later.

The age of a surface can be estimated through analysis of the number and sizes of craters on a surface. This estimate works because of theoretical modeling(William K Hartmann & Neukum, 2001) which supports average impact rates over a long time. But it needs calibration. The current age calibration for Mars is based on the lunar calibration (from Apollo) modified by dynamical arguments (William K Hartmann, 2005; William K Hartmann & Neukum, 2001; Neukum et al., 2001) - the known distribution of asteroids, and Mars position and mass. If an absolute external age can be accurately attributed to a surface (as happened with the Moon when Apollo and Luna samples were returned and radioisotopically dated(Stffler & Ryder, 2001)) then the crater counting timeline can be calibrated with confidence, providing absolute age information for a variety of features. An independent calibration for Mars would be extremely valuable.

Using the distribution of small craters identified by the CDA, we found the most likely areas that fit each criteria of impact age and surface age, narrowing the field down from ~70,000 possible craters to 20. Each of these craters and surrounding areas will be examined using all available remote sensing data (Christensen et al., 2009) to determine topography, composition, gravitation, and age.

Practical ConsiderationsEthical implications

The research carried out here has no human or animal considerations. All data are generated by computers and validated using statistically robust methods.

Economic and national security benefits

The advanced computational tool we have developed can now be easily applied to existing image datasets for any planet. Although this is clearly a pure research application, we are exploring collaborations in geoscience (mapping and mineral exploration), pattern recognition in security applications, and statistical analysis in health sciences are possibilities.

Social benefits

There is substantial interest amongst members of the public in planetary science in general (NASA has 35M followers on Twitter), and in Mars in particular (Mars Science Laboratory has 4M followers on Twitter); exploration of the planet, its history, and the potential for life, ranks high on the list of research areas that generate significant public interest. This is an opportunity for raising interest and participation in science and technology among students and the wider community, promoting STEM topics.

Timeline:

The proposed research question can be answered over the course of about 1 year of full time research as shown in the Gantt chart in table 1.

Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 1. Timeline showing estimate of time for each part of the research project.

Months

2 4 6 8 10 12

Source Craters of Meteorites Collate literature data for meteorites Analyse CDA distribution maps Narrow number of candidate source craters using absolute and relative ages of surface and meteorites Determine age of source craters Match to other dataset Prepare and submit publication ConclusionsWe have meteorites from Mars but no surface context for them. By pinpointing the craters which are the launch sites for these meteorites we can complement and calibrate our surface age map with context and compositional information, by tying new nanoscale meteorite ages to an outcrop. Achieving this would be like free sample-return from Mars.

REFERENCES

Baldwin, R. B. (1965). Mars: An Estimate of the Age of Its Surface. Science, 149(3691), 1498 1499. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.149.3691.1498Benedix, G. K., Lagain, A., Chai, K., Meka, S., Anderson, S., Norman, C., Bland, P. A., Paxman, J., Towner, M. C. & Tan, T. (2020). Deriving Surface Ages on Mars Using Automated Crater Counting. Earth and Space Science, 7(3). https://doi.org/10.1029/2019ea001005Christensen, P.R., Engle, E., Anwar, S., Dickenshied, S., Noss, D., Gorelick, N, and Weiss-Malik, M. (2009) JMARS A Planetary GIS. American Geophysical Union [Conference], San Francisco, CA. Dec 2009.

Hartmann, W K. (1964). On the distribution of lunar crater diameters (p. 197 207). https://tinyurl.com/y4o3a3z3Hartmann, William K. (2005). Martian cratering 8: Isochron refinement and the chronology of Mars. Icarus, 174(2), 294 320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2004.11.023Hartmann, William K & Neukum, G. (2001). Cratering Chronology and the Evolution of Mars. Space Science Reviews, 96(1), 165 194. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1011945222010Neukum, G., Ivanov, B. A. & Hartmann, W. K. (2001). Cratering Records in the Inner Solar System in Relation to the Lunar Reference System (Vol. 12, p. 55 86). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1035-0_3Robbins, S. J. & Hynek, B. M. (2012). A new global database of Mars impact craters 1 km: 1. Database creation, properties, and parameters. Journal of Geophysical Research, 117(E), E05004 n/a. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011je003966Shoemaker, E. M. & Hackman, R. J. (1962). Stratigraphic Basis for a Lunar Time Scale. IN: THE MOON, 14, 289 300.

Shoemaker, E. M., Hackman, R. J. & Eggleton, R. E. (1963). Interplanetary correlation of geologic time. Advances in Astronomical Sciences, 8, 70 89.

Stffler, D. & Ryder, G. (2001). Stratigraphy and Isotope Ages of Lunar Geologic Units: Chronological Standard for the Inner Solar System (Vol. 12, p. 9 54). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1035-0_2