Project Proposal Feedback

[ShanEllis]

Project Proposal Feedback

Score (out of 9 pts)

Score = 9

Feedback:

	Quality	Reasons
Abstract	NA
Research question	D	Good just be a bit more specific. E.g., What part of the world are you interested in? How is "get a job" defined? (e.g.; within 6 months of graduation)
Background	P
Hypothesis	P
Data	D	Ideal data set could be more clearly described, it is somewhat tricky so i'll try to help a bit. You'd ideally have two datasets , one where the observations are people with bachelors degrees, and another where the observations are job listing / result of the listing. Something like "For all new Bachelors graduates across the united states, we want whether or not they landed a job in IT within X months of graduation. We'd want this data over... [add time frames]. We may also want to have data to answer WHY we observe what we find in the former part. For example, are all jobs going to masters students? If so we want [this data]. Are there less jobs all around? If so we want [this data]".
Team expectations	P
Timeline	P

Rubric

	Unsatisfactory	Developing	Proficient	Excellent
Abstract	The abstract is confusing or fails to offer important details about the issue, variables, context, or methods of the project.	The abstract lacks relevance or fails to offer appropriate details about the issue, variables, context, or methods of the project.	The abstract is relevant, offering details about the research project.	The abstract is informative, succinct, and clear. It offers specific details about the educational issue, variables, context, and proposed methods of the study.
Research question	The research issue remains unclear. The research purpose, questions, hypotheses, definitions variables, and controls are still largely undefined, or when they are poorly formed, ambiguous, or not logically connected to the description of the problem. Unclear connections to the literature.	The research issue is identified, but the statement is too broad or fails to establish the importance of the problem. The research purpose, questions, hypotheses, definitions or variables, and controls are poorly formed, ambiguous, or not logically connected to the description of the problem. Unclear connections to the literature.	Identifies a relevant research issue. Research questions are succinctly stated, connected to the research issue, and supported by the literature. Variables and controls have been identified and described. Connections are established with the literature.	Presents a significant research problem. Articulates clear, reasonable research questions given the purpose, design, and methods of the project. All variables and controls have been appropriately defined. Proposals are clearly supported by the research and theoretical literature. All elements are mutually supportive.
Background	Did not have at least 2 reliable and relevant sources. Or relevant sources were not used in relevant ways	A key component was not connected to the research literature. Selected literature was from unreliable sources. Literary supports were vague or ambiguous.	Key research components were connected to relevant, reliable theoretical and research literature.	The narrative integrates critical and logical details from the peer-reviewed theoretical and research literature. Each key research component is grounded in the literature. Attention is given to different perspectives, threats to validity, and opinion vs. evidence.
Hypothesis	Lacks most details; vague or interpretable in different ways. Or seems completely unrealistic.	A key detail to understand the hypothesis or the rationale behind it was not described well enough	The hypothesis is clear. All elements needed to understand the rationale were described in sufficient detail	The hypothesis and its rationale were described succinctly and with clarity about how they are connected to each other
Data	Did not describe ideal dataset fully AND does not include at least one reference to an external source of data.	Either does not describe the ideal dataset fully AND does not include at least one reference to an external source of data that could be used to answer the proposed question.	Ideal dataset(s) well-described and includes everything needed for answering question(s) posed. Includes at least one reference to a source of data that would be needed to fully answer the question proposed.	Ideal dataset(s) well-described and includes everything needed for answering question(s) posed. Includes references to all sources of data that would be needed to fully answer the question proposed. The details of the descriptions also make it clear how they support the needs of the project and discuss the differences betweeen the ideal and real datasets.
Ethics	No effort or just says we have no ethical concerns	Minimal ethical section; probably just talks about data privacy and no unintended consequences discussion. Ethical concerns raised seem irrelevant.	The ethical concerns described are appropriate and sufficient.	Ethical concerns are described clearly and succinctly. This was clearly a thorough and nuanced approach to the issues
Team expectations	Lack of expectations	The list of expectations feels incomplete and perfunctory	It feels like the list of expectations is complete and seems appropriate	The list clearly was the subject of a thoughtful approach and already indicates a well-working team
Timeline	Lack of timeline. Or timeline is completely unrealistic	The timeline feels incomplete and perfunctory. The timeline feels either too fast or too slow for the progress you expect a group can make	It feels like the timeline is complete and appropriate. it can likely be completed as is in the available amount of time	The timeline was clearly the subject of a thoughtful approach and indicates that the team has a detailed plan that seems appropriate and completeable in the allotted time.

Scoring: Out of 9 points

• Each Developing => -0.75 pts
• Each Unsatisfactory/Missing => -1.5 pts
  • until the score is 0

If students address the detailed feedback in a future checkpoint, they will earn these points back.

Comments

[charvishukla]

Hi,

We figured we wanted to pivot from our research question, so the one presented in our Data Checkpoint 1 is completely different. We have tried to incorporate the suggestions provided here such as making our research question and hypothesis more specific. We also provided a very elaborate description of the important variables and columns from the dataset so that our data was more clearly described. We are still using two separate datasets for the updated research question.

Thank you for the valuable feedback!

[charvishukla]

Hello,

We modified the research question again based on the new feedback given. We tried to phrase it so that it was not way too specific, leaving very little room for any data analysis. This time, we also ensured that all metrics are (hopefully) properly defined and the time and location is specific.

Please let us know if we need any further modifications. Thank you for the valuable feedback and time!

_PS: I wasn't sure which issue to comment on, so I will just do it on both _