RESEARCH METHODS AND ETHICS

Essay Assignment 2 Review (13 November 2017)

Marks (Make the selection; THEN add the marks):

Very Weak Weak Fair Good Excellent

- Is the research topic clearly described?
- Is hypothesis well explained and
constructed?
0.0 0.5 1.5 2.0 3.0
- Is hypothesis clearly falsifiable?
- Does hypothesis sound novel?
- Does hypothesis sound important?

- Are predictions well explained?

- Are predictions completely support the
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
hypothesis or is there any missing prediction
to be included?

- Are testing methods well explained?

- Is it clear which methodology actions
(literature survey, analytical derivation,
computer simulation, etc.) will be used.
- Do testing methods sound unbiased from
0.0 0.5 1.5 2.0 3.0
the perspective of the researcher and
subjects (if any)?
- Do testing methods sound rigorous and
controlled?
- Do testing methods sound repeatable?

- Are predicted analysis procedures well

explained?
- Is there indications on what will be done if
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
the hypothesis is falsified?
- Do analysis plans and revision tactics sound
strong and confident?

TOTAL (OUT OF 10): 8.0

See Next Page

RME,EE, EAR2, v.1 Page 1 of 2

 Comments (Mandatory): Justify your marks; give feedbacks about what should be done to make
the essay better.
 Hypothesis could be given as a full statement rather than the title of the thesis. What is
the hypothesis in your thesis and what makes it important?
 How the phase change in the light gives the information on the sound waves in your
design?
 Some grammar errors are present; writer should be more careful.
 Analysis procedures are somewhat weak and in the case of falsification, there is no clue
on what will be done.
 Tests and the details of them are given, however, what are the criterions on the
verification of the proper operation of the device? Do you decide on it by intuition or by
the predefined specs? If any, what are those specs?

RME,EE, EAR2, v.1 Page 2 of 2