BQAERLA: a formula for (most)
hypothesis-driven research
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Background
Question
Approach
Experiment
Results
Literal Interpretation
Author Interpretation
Background
• Summary of what is currently known about the
subject/topic/protein/gene/process/etc.
• Sets up the Big Question and the smaller questions
that are current in the field and specific for the study
Question(s)
• subdivided into The Big Question and smaller
subquestions
• The Big Question is one that drives research in the
field as a whole
• subquestions drive individual studies (papers) and
individual experiments
Approach
• The Approach lays out in a general sense how the
question will be addressed
• It does not encompass experimental details
Experiment and Results
• The Experiment includes the relevant detail
needed to understand scope
• Results are usually
figures/pictures/graphs/tables/etc. Results do not
encompass any interpretation (comparative or
judgemental, etc.)
What’s the difference between
Literal and Author Interpretations?
• Literal interpretations are simple, logical
extensions of the Results (they are also known as
Conclusions)
• Author interpretations put the Literal
interpretations into the context of the Big Question
and often include some speculation and/or more
questions
Biol-311L Cell Biology Techniques
Oral Presentation Instructions
Prepare a 10-12 minute presentation using PowerPoint.
You will present your PowerPoint to a group of
colleagues at one of the presentation sessions (date and time TBA, see BlackBoard). This presentation is physically due by email or on
some sort of disk (floppy, CD or ZIP) three hours before the start of the session. The order of presentations will be determined at the
beginning of the session, so be prepared to go first. If you made the presentation on a home/personal computer, then you should try it
on a college computer prior to submitting it.
Consider the following:
What Background information needs to be understood?
What cellular processes and what are the Big Questions about the cellular process?
What gene/protein are you talking about?
What is known about this protein?
Does it have any interesting domains?
What are their molecular/biochemical functions?
Does it have relatives (paralogues or orthologues) and what do they do?
How are the biochemical functions and cellular role required by the tissue and whole organism?
What is not known?
Questions?
The focus of the presentation is one to three figures worth of primary data. The data that you present may be your own RNAi
experiment or published data about your C. elegans gene or a homologue. Data that provides insight into some significant aspect of
the biology of the gene/protein is required.
What are the Approaches being employed to answer the Questions?
Is there an hypothesis (what is the proposed answer to the questions)?
What is the Experiment being presented? How did you (or someone else) generate the Result?
What is the Result(s)?
What is the Literal interpretation of the Result? What can be concluded?
What is/are the Author's or your interpretations of the Result?
What might be done next?
Biol-311 Cell Biology Techniques
Evaluation of Oral Presentations
Background (10)
< Adequate
not cl ear or im plied ,
mistakes in conte nt
Question (5)
lacking
Approach (5)
as above
Experiment (5)
glossing over det ail
factu al mis takes
Result (5)
glossing over data,
factu al mis takes
Literal
Interpretation (5)
lacking or too
simplist ic
Author's
Interpretation (5)
mistakes in
identi fic ation or
lacking
Average
concise and precise
description of wh at
is currently known
made obvious and
linked to
background (what is
not known?)
made obvious and
compared to
alter natives
compl etely and
precisely explained
with rele vant
techn ical detail
define /explain what
figures depi ct
including s cales,
axes and a ll other
releva nt elements
explain and ide ntify
the con clusion
identify how t he
data mo ve the field
forward, eval uate
authorΥs bias
Outstanding
'hook' provided with
releva nt and
adequate detail
as above with
description of the
significa nce and
releva nce
links Background to
Question,
compa red to other
possibilit ies
as above with
compl ete
understanding of
caveats
as above with
accur ate, rele vant
detail and mention of
shortcomings
separate li teral from
author in terpretation
and cri tic ally
evalu ate both
as all of the above
2004 Cohort
4.700
4.600
4.500
4.400
4.300
4.200
Series1
4.100
4.000
3.900
3.800
3.700
1
2
3
4
5
6
2005 Cohort
4.900
4.800
4.700
4.600
4.500
4.400
Series1
4.300
4.200
4.100
4.000
3.900
3.800
1
2
3
4
5
6
Peer Evaluation (2004 cohort)
4.800
4.750
4.700
4.650
4.600
Series1
4.550
4.500
4.450
4.400
4.350
1
2
3
4
5
6
The “Formula”
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Background
Question
Approach
Experiment
Results
Literal Interpretation
Author Interpretation
The “Formula”
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Background
Question
Approach
Experiment
Results
Literal Interpretation
Author Interpretation
Sections of a
research paper
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and
Methods
Results
Discussion
The “Formula”
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Background
Question
Approach
Experiment
Results
Literal Interpretation
Author Interpretation
Sections of a
research paper
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and
Methods
Results
Discussion
The “Formula”
•
•
•
•
•
Background
Question
Approach
Experiment
Justification
The reasons a proposed
experiment is important,
necessary, logical,
interesting, etc.
Sections of a
research proposal
Background
Specific Aims
The “Formula”
•
•
•
•
•
Background
Question
Approach
Experiment
Justification
The reasons a proposed
experiment is important,
necessary, logical,
interesting, etc.
Sections of a
research proposal
Background
Specific Aims