Project Proposal Feedback

[ShanEllis]

Project Proposal Feedback

Score (out of 9 pts)

Score = 9

Feedback:

	Quality	Reasons
Abstract	NA
Research question	D	The variables were stated clearly. You could consider expand the scope a bit by rewording "correlate" to " what is the relationship between...". The scope now might be a bit narrow, especially if you only consider STEM and non-STEM majors. How about the effects of other variables on the involvement in team sports?
Background	P	The background is proficient related to the current research question. All the variables mentioned in the question are addressed in the section. However, if you decide to include more variables and change the research question, remember to come back and do more background review.
Hypothesis	P	The hypothesis is clear and is backed up by the background. However, consider including more variables.
Data	D	The dataset sounds good. But a detailed description of the variables would be more helpful in this case. Also, make sure you have a wider range of variables so you could expand the scope of the research project.
Ethics	D	The ethics section should focus more on ethical issues rather than discussing confounding factors.
Team expectations	P	Sounds good.
Timeline	P	Sounds good.

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

[Pank1-2]

To address the feedback given, we discussed as a group and decided to adjust and refine our research question to include more variables. Instead of simply studying what type of majors demonstrate a higher level of participation in campus sports, we decided to study how majors, height, and weight impact performance and how this differs across genders. Since we altered our research question, we did more research and also changed our background, hypothesis, data, and ethics. All our edits were added to the checkpoint.