Chimpanzee research site at Fongoli

Posted: January 20th, 2023

Type your answers in complete sentences after each question. Make sure you support your answers with specific information from the film. Do NOT simply lift quotes directly from the film, use your own words. Answers should be single-spaced. Your entire completed assignment (including the questions) should total no less than 750 words. Questions in the assignment will be processed through the Turnitin plagiarism and grammar checker. Must be original work.
Please watch this YouTube video and answer the questions below:

At the chimpanzee research site at Fongoli, in Senegal, what two behaviors were of interest to researchers studying cultural variation in wild chimpanzee behavior?
What is likely the primary mechanism by which apes acquire culture and “know how” knowledge in group situations?
What is the evidence presented for cultural transmission among apes?
Why are bonobos perhaps more cooperative than chimpanzees?
What do the scenes between the ape mother and her baby suggest?
What “emotional issue” do apes seem to exhibit that might affect their ability to cooperate effectively with each other?
Compare the evidence for impulse control in children with impulse control in chimps. What is significant about the similarities or differences?
What is the effect of replacing numerical symbols for food in Sally Boysen’s numerical competency experiments with chimpanzees?
What signal used by humans is understood by dogs, but not apes? Why?
Explain “triadic awareness”, described in the film as “the triangle”, and how it might be behind the cognitive difference between humans and apes.
There are other small mental gaps that create large differences in how advanced humans are compared to chimps. What are these small differences?
Describe two things that chimps/apes can do that were described in the film that surprised you and why they surprised you.

Rubric for Research Paper

 
 
Outstanding – 20pts
Good  – 15pts
Fair – 10pts
Unacceptable – 5pts

 
Outline
 
Excellent section headings, indicative of a steady “flow” to the overall paper. Topics and subtopics clearly indicated.
Professional looking.
Good section headings, indicative to a steady “flow” to the overall paper. Topics clearly indicated, could use more subtopics.
 
Fair section headings, indicative that the paper has “flow”. Topics and subtopics not clearly indicated. Unclear organization of thoughts.
 
Disorganized appearance.
Relevant topics missing or incorrect, paper has no indicative “flow”.
Not professional.

Abstract
 
Highly informative, complete and easy to understand. Appropriate vocabulary is used.
Abstract makes you want to read the paper.
Informative, complete and understandable. Appropriate vocabulary is used.
Somewhat informative and understandable.
 
Not very informative or understandable.
 

Structure
 
Thesis is clear, easy to find, and appropriate to the assignment.
Thesis is supported by the rest of the paper.
Paper contains a “roadmap” for the reader.
There is a logical “flow” to the topics/arguments. Conclusion follows clearly from the arguments presented.
Thesis is clear and appropriate.   Thesis fairly well supported.
Paper is fairly well organized.
Conclusion follows from the rest of the paper.
Thesis is fairly clear.
Inconsistent support for thesis. Paper weakly organized. Conclusion is acceptable.
Thesis unclear and/or inappropriate.
Thesis not supported.
Paper is not organized. Conclusion doesn’t follow from the rest of the paper.

Research
 
The evidence comes from a wide variety of valid sources. The bibliography is complete and reflects appropriate sources.
 
The evidence comes from the minimum valid sources. The bibliography is complete.
Valid sources are inconsistently used.  The bibliography contains minor formatting errors.
 
Multiple sources cited  incorrectly.
Bibliography missing.
 

Critical
Thinki
 
ng
Arguments are pertinent to the topic.
Arguments are logical, supported with evidence. The key arguments have been made – no major points have been left out.
Arguments are
pertinent to the topic.   Arguments are fairly logical and reasonably supported.
Most key arguments have been made.
Arguments are not consistently pertinent, logical, or supported. Few key arguments have been made.
Arguments not pertinent. Arguments rarely, if at
all, logical and supported.
Almost no key arguments have been made.