Research Proposal

STUDENTS Prepare Chapter 1 to 3 with their Research Instrument Revision/corrections must be done by the researchers ENDORSEMENT BY THE ADVISER RESEARCH ADVISER

ENDORSEMENT BY THE RESEARCH COORDINATOR

DEANS APPROVAL

SCHEDULING OF RESEARCH PROPOSAL

SUBMISSION OF RESEARCH PROPOSAL

RESEARCH PROPOSAL EXAMINATION

COMPLETION OF NECESSARY FORM FORREVISED PROPOSAL

SUBMISSION OF RESEARCH PROPOSAL Mechanics for Oral Proposal

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. research committee, failing grade should not be given unless the researcher/s did not comply with the minimum requirements given by the committee.

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

The research may be rejected if the researchers failed to show the authenticity of their paper and evidence of plagiarism is apparent.

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

A.

Introduction of the Proposal

1. Does the introductory statement move you, like a funnel, from a general to a specific view of the problem of the study? 2. Is the Problem stated clearly, tersely, and objectively? 3. Is the Problem stated in the proper format (relationship between variables or difference between groups)? 4. Does the Purpose clearly state the intention of the Study? 5. Does the Purpose break the Problem down into subsections for analysis? B. The literature 1. Is the Related Literature a true synthesis of researched material, rather than a review, or summary, or report? 2. Are most of the materials footnoted in the Related Literature section drawn from primary, rather than secondary, sources? 3. Is there an obvious organizational scheme to the Related Literature section: historical, topical, or related to the hypotheses? 4. Does the Related Literature section give you the impression that the writer is thoroughly familiar with what is known in the field? 5. Does the Significance of the Study section answer the question So what? (Does it explain why this particular study is important to the field? Does it include referenced support for the study?) 6. Does the Hypothesis state an expected answer to 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. 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, unusual connotation, or restricted meaning) rather than being obvious or commonly used words? 8. Is the research design (if needed) clearly explained? 9. the procedures for collecting data clearly stated step bystep? 10. Do the procedures avoid fuzzy language and word magic? 11. Is there evidence that the researcher has considered potential. D. The Analysis Ratings

Over all Recommendation Using 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