Guide for Oral Proposal

7/31/2019 Guide for Oral Proposal

1/7

Research Proposal

Mechanics for Oral Proposal

STUDENTS Prepare Chapter 1 to 3

with their Research

RESEARCH

ADVISER

Revision/corrections must

be done by the

ENDORSEMENT BY THE

ADVISER

ENDORSEMENT BY THE

RESEARCH COORDINATOR

DEANS APPROVAL

SCHEDULING OF RESEARCH

PROPOSAL

SUBMISSION OF RESEARCH

PROPOSAL

RESEARCH PROPOSAL

COMPLETION OF NECESSARY

FORM FORREVISED PROPOSAL

SUBMISSION OF RESEARCH

PROPOSAL


2/7

1. The Researchers must see to it that all equipment (LCD, Projector)

necessary for the presentation are requested ahead of time.

2. The Researchers are expected to be at the assigned room 15 minutes

prior to the allotted presentation time.

3. The Researcher will only be given 15 minutes to present their study

using the guide matrix provided by the research committee.

4. The panel of reactors will be allowed to give their reaction, comments

and suggestion after the last presentation.

Revision of the Research Proposal

1. If any of the panel finds any deficiency in the research, the research

coordinator must be informed at least before the oral proposal, the

consensus of the panel will determine whether the scheduled proposal

will push through or be postponed/cancelled, until the necessary

revision is done.

2. Panel should give grades based on the criteria set and approved by the

research committee, failing grade should not be given unless the

researcher/s did not comply with the minimum requirements given by

the committee.

The research may be rejected if the researchers failed to show the

authenticity of their paper and evidence of plagiarism is apparent.


3/7

RESEARCH PROPOSAL EVALUATION FORM

TITLE OF THE STUDY:__________________________________________________________________

PLEASE RATE (TICK THE BOX) ON THE SCALE OF 1-4 WITH

1 UNACCEPTABLE 2- WEAK 3 GOO 4 - EXCELLENT


4/7

A. Introduction of the Proposal 1 2 3 4

1. Does the introductory statement move you, likea funnel, from a general to a specific view ofthe problem of the study?

2. Is the Problem stated clearly, tersely, andobjectively?

3. Is the Problem stated in the proper format(relationship between variables or differencebetween groups)?

4. Does the Purpose clearly state the intention ofthe Study?

5. Does the Purpose break the Problem down intosubsections for analysis?

B. The literature 1 2 3 4

1. Is the Related Literature a true synthesis ofresearched material, rather than a review, orsummary, or report?

2. Are most of the materials footnoted in theRelated Literature section drawn from primary,rather than secondary, sources?

3. Is there an obvious organizational scheme tothe Related Literature section: historical,topical, or related to the hypotheses?

4. Does the Related Literature section give youthe impression that the writer is thoroughlyfamiliar with what is known in the field?

5. Does the Significance of the Study sectionanswer the question So what? (Does itexplain why this particular study is important tothe field? Does it include referenced support forthe study?)

6. Does the Hypothesis state an expected answerto the Problem which has been stated?

7. Is the Hypothesis written in testable form?8. Is the Hypothesis stated appropriately? (Usually

this means as a research, rather than a null,

hypothesis)C. The Method 1 2 3 4

1. Is the studys population clearly defined?2. Is the procedure for sampling (if used) clearly

explained?3. Is the size of the sample(s) stated?4. Is there a clear description of the instrument(s)

that will be used to gather data?5. Are the stated limitations actual limitations to

the study or merely delimitations?6. Are the stated assumptions legitimate in the

context of the proposal, rather than cop

outs for shallow thinking?7. Are the stated definitions legitimate in the

context of the study (operational, unusualconnotation, or restricted meaning) rather thanbeing obvious or commonly used words?

8. Is the research design (if needed) clearlyexplained?

9. the procedures for collecting data clearly statedstep bystep?

10. Do the procedures avoid fuzzy language andword magic?

11. Is there evidence that the researcher hasconsidered potential.

D. The Analysis Ratings 1 2 3 4

. Are he rocedures or anal zin da a clearl


5/7

Over all RecommendationUsing the above ratings this proposal should:a) Accept as is, all answers are 3 or better.b) Accept Subject to identified limited revisions.A: .. .. .. B: .. .. .. C: .. .. .. D: .. .. . E: .. .. ..c) Resubmit following substantial revision

A: .. .. .. B: .. .. .. C: .. .. .. D: .. .. . E: .. .. ..d) Reject

FINAL DEFENSE


6/7


7/7

Guide for Oral Proposal

Documents

Transcript of Guide for Oral Proposal