1000372429

Student No.:
Criteria
Scientific
Reasoning
/

10

You demonstrate
your ability to come
up with a
hypothesis,
determine the
appropriate
methods to test the
hypothesis, and
make predictions.
This includes your
ability to explore
the implications of
the possible results.
Communication
/

10

You demonstrate
your ability to
clearly and
concisely
communicate your
ideas.
Support
/

6.5

10

You demonstrate
your understanding
of how your ideas
fit in with the
broader scientific
community.
Application of
concepts
7.5
/
10
You demonstrate
your understanding
of scientific
concepts.
Errors -1
1 point is deducted
for each error
27

/40

Guidelines *
In the Introduction,
Is the hypothesis testable? Not clear how hypothesis is testable in a non-trivial
way
Is the hypothesis immediately evident?
In the Methods,
Are the methods complete?
Are the methods logical? An individual that is practically blind would perform
better than a non-blind individual in practically any task.
Do the methods test the hypothesis directly?
Are the independent and dependent variables explicitly stated?
Are the independent and dependent variables correct?
Is a control included when necessary?
In the Predictions,
Is the null hypothesis clearly stated?
Does the null hypothesis align with the hypothesis and methods?
Are all possible outcomes included that reject or do not reject the null hypothesis?
In the Discussion,
Are the implications of the null hypothesis being rejected or not rejected fully
discussed?
Is the proposal easy to read and understand?
Is the proposal concise? Some repletion between intro and discussion
Does each paragraph communicate a clear idea? Certain sentences in wrong
paragraph
Does each sentence in a paragraph relate to the main idea?
Are sentences clear and concise? Quite a few grammar and spelling errors
Are words used correctly?
Is first person future tense used when referring to proposed research (i.e., for the
methods)?
Are the methods clearly explained?
In the Introduction and the Discussion,
Is it clear how the proposed research builds on previous research? Not clear how
this would add to previous research since previous work suggest nocturnal activity of
this species
Is the hypothesis well-supported by natural history information and previous
research?
Is all natural history information relevant to the hypothesis?
Is the analysis of the possible results supported by published research?
Is all information from outside sources cited? No
Are at least 2 peer-reviewed journal articles cited?
Is there a thorough explanation of how the trait may affect fitness? Explain how
foraging success might increase fitness. It is an indirect measure so you need to
explain it more
Does the proposal demonstrate an understanding of scientific concepts?
Are scientific concepts explained correctly?

Genus and species names not

correctly formatted
Citations not correctly formatted
Quotations are used

Web pages cited

Proposal goes over the word count
limit

TOTAL GRADE

You did the

following well:
* The list of guidelines is not exhaustive. There could be other features of a Proposal that are not on this list,
which could affect its grade for these criteria.

Student No.:

One issue that I

noticed is:

1000372429
The main issue is the hypothesis and methods to test it. I am not sure how you can
test your hypothesis in a non-trivial way and how it would add to existing research.
Nocturnal animals forage at night and covering the animals eye completely make
the animal practically blind. A blind organism would perform poorly in any task
compared to same animal with any vision. Is there research to suggest that this
species mainly use sense of smell to forage?

To work on this
issue, I
recommend:

* The list of guidelines is not exhaustive. There could be other features of a Proposal that are not on this list,
which could affect its grade for these criteria.