Project Proposal Feedback #12
Description
Project Proposal Feedback
Score (out of 10 pts)
Score = 10
Feedback:
| Quality | Reasons | |
|---|---|---|
| Research question | Proficient | The question is lacking detail. What defines different NBA 'eras'? Will it be seasons, multiple years? The variables are not motivated - why should the correlation between height and points scored change with time? Is it a proxy measure of changing rules? The project also seems to be lacking in scope as the current version of the question could be answered with three correlation computations. It would be nice to add more layers to the investigation like: Is height the biggest contributor? Are different heights assosciated with different scoring patterns? These are some ways you could dig deeper but feel free to extend your scope in any way you find interesting! Aside: There seems to be formatting issues with two sets of author names and a lot of the instructions remaining in the final proposal draft. You can just keep the information you want us to see in this file. This comment remains for the other sections too. Update: - much better, thank you for motivating the choice of eras! |
| Background | Proficient | The papers that are referenced are well described and seem very relevant. Diverse perspectives of analysis are characterized. I would look at these papers for inspiration to further detail your research question as there is a lot in there. This could be in the form of addressing some limitations the papers had or using some statistics or methods you found interesting. |
| Hypothesis | Excellent | For the stated research question, the hypothesis is very precise and well-motivated. |
| Data | Proficient | The ideal dataset description is great. For the real dataset, the dataset quality is unclear as the source of how the data was collected is not described. There is also a reference to a 'first' dataset but it is the only one that has been cited. Seems to be incomplete. |
| Ethics | Proficient | The entire section has not been attempted |
| Team expectations | Proficient | |
| Timeline | Proficient | Some of the aspects of the timeline is very vague. Like "Refine analysis" and "Developing visualizations". It would be useful to anticipate what kind of revisions might be necessary and what kind of visualizations will be implemented. |
Rubric
Scoring: Out of
- Each Developing =>
$-1$ pts - Each Unsatisfactory/Missing =>
$-2$ pts- until the score is 0
If students address the detailed feedback in a future checkpoint, they will earn these points back.
| Unsatisfactory | Developing | Proficient | Excellent | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 sufficiently | 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. |
PLA Comments
No additional comments.