Everything is pretty much explained in the attached file on how to do it !
ENVS 2310 Research Paper
INTRODUCTION:
Each student will select a topic and write a short research paper using a Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) approach. LCA involves evaluating the environmental impact of a product through its life cycle, thereby encompassing extraction and processing of raw materials, manufacturing, distribution, use, recycling, and final disposal. LCA is sometimes referred to as “cradle to grave” analysis.
Your topic should involve contrasting two (or more) comparable types of products (or potentially human activities) to assess the most sustainable option. For example, Keurig pods versus filter brew coffee, or cloth versus disposable diapers, etc. Energy generation is possible as a topic, but it is intrinsically an “up-level” to tackle this (more later).
In this assignment, you should write a balanced and quantitative account of the positive and negative consequences of the related human activity/product for both the environment and for human civilization.
“Balanced” means that you will explore the positive and negative aspects of the topic. For an “environmentally negative” activity or product (e.g., the Keurig), the negatives may be exaggerated in the popular news media, which you need to assess; likewise, economic or environmental benefits may be overlooked or downplayed. Similarly, the benefits of an “environmental positive” activity or product (e.g., cloth diapers) may also be exaggerated, while the costs are downplayed.
“Quantitative” means you will use numbers, graphs, charts and other tools in your discussion, not adjectives. Make sure that you consider and discuss each of the steps in the life cycle of the product (material extraction, manufacturing, packaging/transportation, use, and end of life), even though you may find that you can’t always obtain clear quantitative information for every one of the steps.
EVALUATION:
Marks (25% of course) are allotted to the writing & presentation process, as follows:
draft 6%
final essay 7%
presentation 6%
peer-review 3% + 3%
1500 words, 6 pages text double spaced; 10 pt sans serif font; 1” margins
Figures & Tables & References extra
Late submission policy: FINAL ESSAY ONLY: 10% off per day up to 30% off
NO EXTENSIONS for DRAFT
NO EXTENSIONS for PRESENTATIONS and PEER-REVIEW
SCHEDULE:
03-01 Lab: Assignment introduction, topic brainstorming, selection and signup
03-15 Lab: Bring rough 1st draft to the lab for peer review (me, TA + peers, Writing Centre)
03-18 Fri: Draft DUE (Brightspace upload; 11:59 pm) – comments back within 1 week
03-25 Fri: My feedback on your essay available
04-01 Fri: Final Essay DUE (BS upload; 11:59 pm; 10% off per day late; up to 30% off)
04-05 Lec: Student Presentations
04-05 Lab: Student Presentations
04-07 Lec: Backup Slot
DETAILS:
DRAFT PEER-REVIEW (3%):
- bring rough 1st draft to lab for peer review (point-form; costs & benefits; references)
- Participate in Lab Discussion / Q&A / Critique session on 03-15
DRAFT (6%):
- clear point form outlining facts and arguments is fine (using references)
- draft is about organization of ideas rather than the polishing of final language
- minimum 4 pages double spaced,
- 8-12 references
- figures & tables
FINAL ESSAY (7%):
- 1500 words
- 6 pages text double spaced
- 10 pt font (Sans Serif, i.e., without serifs, or extra embellishments like in Times New Roman)
- figures and references are extra as far as page length is concerned
PRESENTATIONS (6%):
- 12 minutes presentation, with slides
- 3 minutes Q&A & transition to next talk
- The marks will be a 50/50 average of my assessment vs. the peer assessment.
PRESENTATION PEER-REVIEW (3%):
- attend all presentations
- formulate 1 written question for each presentation (more if you like)
- provide written feedback for each presentation: most enjoyable, most distracting (see below)
REFERENCING/CITATION STYLE TO USE:
APA-style (used in Education, Psych and Science) for References list (at end of paper, outside of the 6-page count) and in-text citations,
e.g., “The work of Jones et al. (2001) has shown that…”
e.g., “… as has been shown by others (e.g., Jones et al., 2001).”
Find the details here: https://smu.ca/academics/citations-refworks.html#APA
“et al.” is an abbreviation of Latin “et alia”, meaning “and others”. Get the period right!
This is a good time to understand the difference between Latin “i.e.,” and “e.g.,” (“id est” meaning “that is” and “exempli gratia” meaning “for example”), and that they are followed by commas in the text of a formal paper
References represent a cross section of information sources, such as peer-reviewed journal articles, books, “official reports” from governments or “learned societies”, or websites with a date and an author
No more than 1-2 references in a list of 8-12 can be from websites without a date or author (e.g., Wikipedia), news publications (e.g., CBC.ca) or personal communications
FIGURES:
In science, information is very often presented with the use of tables and/or figures. You may include your own summaries of information in tables or figures you create yourself, or use tables and figures from other works, with proper citations, e.g., “Fig. 1 This figure shows something critical to my paper and is a modified version of Fig 6b found in Jones et al., (2001).”
PLAGIARISM:
We will look for it and address it according to the Syllabus. If you are unsure, ask early.
FINAL ESSAY MARKING RUBRIC:
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
| Description and related quantitative data for each life cycle step (50%) | Little quantitative data provided/steps missing | Weak or superficial analysis (e.g., missing information about some steps); literature selected may not be clearly connected to topic; ideas not well connected | Sound (evidence-based, quantitative) analysis of life cycle steps, but may be lacking some detail or identification of knowledge gaps; literature generally is relevant to the topic; organization generally easy to follow | Strong (i.e., evidence-based, quantitative) analysis and balanced discussion of all 5 life cycle steps (raw materials, manufacturing, transportation, use, end of life); clearly identifies any knowledge gaps; literature selected is relevant and well-integrated; ideas flow logically |
| Discussion of which option is more environmentally sustainable (10%) | Limited to no discussion or conclusions do not follow from rest of the paper | Discussion is hard to follow, with limited consideration of costs or benefits | Generally clear discussion with some consideration of costs or benefits | Clear and logical discussion of which option is more environmentally sustainable (considers costs and benefits) |
| Introduction (10%) | Introduction very limited; difficult to determine what paper is really about; poorly organized. | Gaps in introduction of topic; relevance of topic is not clearly presented; not well organized. | Introduction provides motivation and adequate overview of topic, outlines ‘big picture’ but is missing some detail. | Introduction motivates the examination that follows, discussing competing forces and factors; moves from ‘big picture’ to specific topic; clearly outlines what will be covered in the paper; is engaging/explains why topic matters |
| Conclusions (10%) | Conclusions do not summarize discussion and areas of uncertainty; fail to address main point of the paper. | Some conclusions poorly supported by rest of paper or fail to point out areas of uncertainty. | Conclusions provide adequate summary and partially point out areas of uncertainty, but one or the other fall short. | Conclusions summarize entire paper and are well supported by the rest of paper; link back to introduction; include what has been discussed and point out areas of uncertainty in practice. |
| Spelling, grammar and style (10%) | Frequent spelling and grammar mistakes; lack of flow distracts from content. Verbose without meaning. | More than 5 spelling and grammar mistakes distract from content. | Occasional spelling or grammatical mistake but not very distracting. | No distracting spelling mistakes, grammar “flows”. Style is concise; conveys meaning clearly with fewest words. |
| Length (5%) | Too short: < 3.5 pages | Too short: 3.5 – 4.5 pages | Too short: 4.5 – 5.5 pgs. Too long: repetitive and/or verbose, or squeezed into page limits | 6 ± 0.5 pgs. Font = Sans Serif 10; 1” Margins Double-spaced |
| APA references (5%) | NOT APA style, and/or not enough references, and/or not the right proportions of reference types | Two elements of requested reference properties are missing | One element of requested reference properties is missing | 8-12 APA formatted references used with mixture of sources as requested (peer reviewed, government, no more than 1-2 from websites without a date or author, the news media, or personal comm.) |
FINAL PRESENTATION MARKING RUBRICs:
PRESENTATION FEEDBACK FROM PEERS:
- attend all presentations
- formulate 1 written question for each presentation (more if you like)
- provide written feedback for each presentation: most enjoyable, most distracting (see below)
1 = poor (needs an overhaul) 2 = fair (missing key elements) 3 = average (needs streamlining and practice) 4 = good (needs practice) 5 = excellent (not much to improve) [Double the number for categories out of 10]
Tuesday, April 05, Lecture (12+3 minutes each)
| Instructor | Peers | Average | |
| Delivery & Visual Aids /5 - Volume, eye contact, “movement”, confidence, enthusiasm? - Fonts and figures consistent? - Slide content uncluttered? - If any animation is used, is it helpful or distracting? | |||
| Organization & Timing /5 - Talk has beginning (intro), middle (details), end (summary)? - Speaker uses 12 minutes at even pace? | |||
| Content /10 - “Who, what, when, where, why, how” clearly explained | |||
| Ability to Answer Questions /5 - Fields additional questions with confidence - Exhibits deeper knowledge of topic and issues? - Able to answer questions quantitatively where possible? - Citing relevant sources whenever possible/reasonable? | |||
| TOTAL /25 |
[Student Name] Question: [x 14 of your peers]
Most memorable/interesting:
Most distracting/confusing:
