# Dissertation Proposal: [Working title]

> Research proposal template for a doctoral or master's dissertation, for a
> confirmation review, qualifying examination or admission application. It
> covers the rationale, research questions, literature, conceptual
> framework, methods, analysis plan, ethics, timeline, budget and expected
> contribution. Based on common academic practice; follow your programme's
> proposal guidelines where they differ. Replace every `[bracketed]` value
> and every row marked *Example*.

<!--
Guidance: How to use this template
- Start with section 4 (research questions). Every later section must serve
  those questions; if a method or source does not, cut it.
- Keep the proposal proportionate: 4,000-8,000 words for a doctoral
  confirmation, 1,500-3,000 for an application. Check the limit.
- Reviewers judge feasibility as much as originality. Be specific about
  access to data, sample sizes, skills and time.
- Write the abstract last, once the methods are settled.
-->

## Document control

<!-- Guidance: Identify the proposal and the review it is submitted to. -->

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Candidate | [Full name], student ID [000000] |
| Programme | [PhD in Public Health / MA in Education] |
| Department | [Department, University] |
| Supervisor(s) | [@principal], [@co-supervisor] |
| Review type | [Confirmation of candidature / Qualifying exam / Application] |
| Review panel | [Names, or "to be appointed by the graduate committee"] |
| Word count | [6,200 of 8,000 maximum] |
| Version | [0.1] |
| Status | [Draft / With supervisors / Submitted / Approved / Approved with conditions] |
| Last updated | YYYY-MM-DD |

### Approvals

| Role | Name | Decision | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Principal supervisor | [@name] | [Supports submission] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Review panel chair | [@name] | [Approved / Approved with conditions / Resubmit] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Graduate research committee | [@name] | [Decision] | YYYY-MM-DD |

## Revision history

<!-- Guidance: Record supervisor and panel feedback rounds. -->

| Version | Date | Author | Change summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.1 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@candidate] | First complete draft |
| 0.2 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@candidate] | *Example:* Narrowed RQ2 and replaced survey with interviews after supervisor feedback |
| 1.0 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@candidate] | *Example:* Submitted for confirmation review |

## Contents

<!-- Guidance: Keep aligned with the headings. -->

1. [Title and abstract](#1-title-and-abstract)
2. [Background and rationale](#2-background-and-rationale)
3. [Problem statement and purpose](#3-problem-statement-and-purpose)
4. [Research questions and hypotheses](#4-research-questions-and-hypotheses)
5. [Literature review summary](#5-literature-review-summary)
6. [Conceptual framework](#6-conceptual-framework)
7. [Methodology](#7-methodology)
8. [Data analysis plan](#8-data-analysis-plan)
9. [Ethical considerations](#9-ethical-considerations)
10. [Timeline](#10-timeline)
11. [Resources and budget](#11-resources-and-budget)
12. [Expected contributions](#12-expected-contributions)
13. [Limitations and risks](#13-limitations-and-risks)
14. [References](#14-references)
15. [Appendices](#15-appendices)

## 1. Title and abstract

<!-- Guidance: The title should tell a reviewer the topic, context and approach in one line. The abstract (200-300 words) states the problem, gap, questions, design and expected contribution. -->

**Working title:** [Specific title. *Example:* "Teacher feedback literacy and
student uptake of written feedback in upper-secondary science: a
mixed-methods study."]

**Abstract:** [Problem in one or two sentences. The gap. The aim and research
questions. The design, setting, participants and analysis. The expected
contribution to theory and practice.]

**Keywords:** [4-6 terms]

## 2. Background and rationale

<!-- Guidance: Why this topic, why now, and why it matters to the field and to practice. Use evidence (statistics, policy, prior findings), not opinion. Two to four paragraphs. -->

[Describe the context and the practical or theoretical problem. Show its
scale or consequences with evidence. *Example:* "National inspection reports
for 2022-2024 found that written feedback was rarely acted on by students in
62% of observed science lessons, yet feedback remains the most common form
of teacher assessment practice."]

[Explain the personal or professional motivation briefly if your discipline
expects it, and state why you are positioned to do the work.]

## 3. Problem statement and purpose

<!-- Guidance: One paragraph each. The problem statement ends with what is unknown; the purpose statement says what this study will do about it. -->

**Problem statement.** [What is not known or not working, for whom, and the
consequence of not knowing.]

**Purpose statement.** [*Example:* "The purpose of this study is to explain
how teachers' feedback literacy relates to students' uptake of written
feedback in upper-secondary science classrooms in [region]."]

## 4. Research questions and hypotheses

<!-- Guidance: Two to four questions. Each must be answerable with the data you plan to collect. Hypotheses are needed for confirmatory quantitative questions only. -->

| ID | Research question | Type | Hypothesis (if any) | Data source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RQ1 | *Example:* How do science teachers describe the purpose and form of their written feedback? | Qualitative, descriptive | Not applicable | Teacher interviews |
| RQ2 | *Example:* Is teacher feedback literacy associated with the proportion of feedback comments students act on? | Quantitative, associational | H2: Higher feedback literacy scores predict higher uptake | Teacher survey; coded student work |
| RQ3 | *Example:* What conditions help or hinder student uptake? | Qualitative, explanatory | Not applicable | Student focus groups |
| [RQ4] | [Question] | [Type] | [Hypothesis] | [Source] |

## 5. Literature review summary

<!-- Guidance: A concise, critical synthesis (not the full dissertation chapter). Organise by theme, show where the field agrees and disagrees, and end with the gap. Cite key and recent work. -->

### 5.1 Search approach

[Databases (for example ERIC, Scopus, Web of Science), main search terms, years
covered and inclusion criteria, in two or three sentences.]

### 5.2 Key themes

| Theme | What is established | Debates or weaknesses | Key sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| *Example:* Feedback effects on learning | Feedback has a positive average effect, highly variable in size | Most studies are short laboratory tasks | [Author, Year]; [Author, Year] |
| *Example:* Student feedback uptake | Uptake depends on understanding and motivation | Uptake rarely measured directly | [Author, Year] |
| *Example:* Teacher feedback literacy | Recent construct with emerging measures | Few validated instruments for schools | [Author, Year] |
| [Theme] | [Established] | [Debates] | [Sources] |

### 5.3 Gap addressed by this study

[One paragraph stating precisely what the literature has not done and how the
research questions address it.]

## 6. Conceptual framework

<!-- Guidance: Show the concepts and expected relationships that guide data collection and analysis. Define each concept and link it to theory. A diagram helps reviewers see the logic at once. -->

The framework below shows the concepts examined and the relationships the
study expects to find. Arrows indicate proposed influence, not proven
causation.

```mermaid
flowchart LR
  A["Teacher feedback literacy"] --> B["Feedback design (clarity, timing, actionability)"]
  B --> C["Student understanding of feedback"]
  C --> D["Student uptake of feedback"]
  E["Student motivation and self-regulation"] --> D
  F["School assessment policy"] --> B
  D --> G["Improvement in subsequent work"]
```

| Concept | Definition used | Theoretical source | How it will be observed |
|---|---|---|---|
| *Example:* Feedback literacy (teacher) | Capacity to design feedback that students can understand and act on | [Author, Year] | Survey scale; interview themes |
| *Example:* Uptake | Evidence in a later draft that a feedback comment was acted on | [Author, Year] | Coding of paired drafts |
| [Concept] | [Definition] | [Source] | [Indicator] |

## 7. Methodology

<!-- Guidance: Justify the design, then specify participants, instruments and procedures. Reviewers look for alignment: each RQ to a data source to an analysis. Common mistake: vague sampling ("some teachers") and no plan for access. -->

### 7.1 Research design and paradigm

[Name the design (for example explanatory sequential mixed methods, multiple
case study, longitudinal cohort) and explain why it fits the questions.]

### 7.2 Setting and participants

| Group | Population | Sampling | Target size | Justification |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| *Example:* Teachers | Science teachers in 12 public upper-secondary schools | Stratified by school type | 120 survey; 16 interviews | Power for r = 0.25 at 80%; interview saturation typical at 12-20 |
| *Example:* Students | Year 11 students of interviewed teachers | Purposive, two classes per teacher | 6 focus groups of 5-6 | Covers high and low uptake classes |
| [Group] | [Population] | [Strategy] | [Size] | [Reason] |

### 7.3 Instruments and data collection

[Describe each instrument, whether it is existing (with validity evidence) or
new (with a development and piloting plan), and the procedure and timing of
data collection.]

| Instrument | Status | Items / format | Validity and reliability evidence | Linked RQ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| *Example:* Teacher Feedback Literacy Scale | Existing, adapted for schools | 24 Likert items, 4 subscales | Published alpha 0.82-0.91; adaptation reviewed by 3 experts | RQ2 |
| *Example:* Uptake coding scheme | New | Each comment coded as acted on, partly acted on or not acted on | Developed in pilot; target kappa >= 0.70 | RQ2 |
| *Example:* Interview guide | New | 12 open questions with probes | Piloted with 2 teachers outside the sample | RQ1 |
| [Instrument] | [Status] | [Format] | [Evidence] | [RQ] |

### 7.4 Access and recruitment

[How you will reach participants, gatekeeper permissions already obtained or
requested, and fallback options if access is refused.]

### 7.5 Pilot study

[Scope, sample and what the pilot will test: instrument clarity, timing,
coding reliability or recruitment rate.] *Example:* "Two teachers and one
class each from a non-participating school will complete the full procedure.
Success criteria: survey completed in under 20 minutes; inter-coder agreement
on uptake of at least 0.70; no question flagged as unclear by more than one
participant. Instruments will be revised before main data collection."

## 8. Data analysis plan

<!-- Guidance: Name the analysis for each research question, the software, and the checks for quality. A table linking RQ, data and analysis is the clearest format. -->

| RQ | Data | Analysis | Software | Quality checks |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RQ1 | Interview transcripts | Reflexive thematic analysis | [NVivo 14] | Coding memo trail; peer debriefing |
| RQ2 | Survey scores; uptake rates | Multilevel regression, students nested in teachers | [R 4.4, lme4] | Assumption checks; ICC reported |
| RQ3 | Focus-group transcripts | Framework analysis | [NVivo 14] | Second coder on 20%, kappa >= 0.70 |
| Integration | All strands | Joint display comparing quantitative and qualitative results | [Spreadsheet] | Discrepancies discussed explicitly |

*Example model for RQ2*, with uptake $Y_{ij}$ for student $i$ of teacher $j$:

$$
Y_{ij} = \gamma_{00} + \gamma_{01}\,\text{FL}_j + u_{0j} + e_{ij}
$$

where $\text{FL}_j$ is the teacher's feedback-literacy score and $u_{0j}$ the
teacher-level random effect.

## 9. Ethical considerations

<!-- Guidance: Identify risks to participants, how consent works (including minors and gatekeepers), confidentiality and data storage. Name the committee you will apply to. -->

| Issue | Risk | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|
| *Example:* Minors as participants | Pressure to take part from teachers | Parental consent plus student assent; recruitment by researcher, not teacher |
| *Example:* Teacher evaluation concerns | Data could be read as performance appraisal | Results reported only in aggregate; no data shared with school leaders |
| *Example:* Data security | Identifiable work samples | Pseudonymise at collection; encrypted university storage; destroy after [5] years |
| [Issue] | [Risk] | [Mitigation] |

Ethics application to: [Committee name], planned submission YYYY-MM-DD.

## 10. Timeline

<!-- Guidance: Show the whole project with realistic durations and dependencies. Include ethics approval, pilots, analysis and writing, and buffer time. -->

The plan below shows a *sample* three-year schedule. Replace dates and
durations with your own.

```mermaid
gantt
  title Dissertation timeline
  dateFormat YYYY-MM-DD
  section Preparation
  Proposal and confirmation   :p1, 2026-01-05, 90d
  Ethics approval             :p2, after p1, 60d
  Pilot study                 :p3, after p2, 45d
  section Data collection
  Teacher survey and interviews :d1, after p3, 120d
  Student focus groups          :d2, after d1, 60d
  section Analysis and writing
  Analysis                    :a1, after d2, 150d
  Writing chapters            :w1, after a1, 180d
  Full draft review           :w2, after w1, 60d
  Submission                  :milestone, after w2, 0d
```

## 11. Resources and budget

<!-- Guidance: List what you need and how it will be funded. Reviewers check that the plan is affordable and that equipment, software and training are available. -->

| Item | Purpose | Quantity | Unit cost | Total | Funding source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| *Example:* Transcription | Interview and focus-group transcripts | 30 hours of audio | [$90/h] | [$2,700] | Departmental research fund |
| *Example:* Travel to schools | Data collection visits | 40 trips | [$25] | [$1,000] | Departmental research fund |
| *Example:* Participant thank-you vouchers | Teacher interviews | 16 | [$20] | [$320] | Student research grant |
| *Example:* Software licence | Qualitative analysis | 1 | [$0, university licence] | [$0] | University |
| **Total** | | | | **[$4,020]** | |

Other resources: [supervision hours, training courses, statistical
consulting, equipment or archives you need access to].

## 12. Expected contributions

<!-- Guidance: State the contribution to theory, method and practice in specific, modest terms. -->

| Type | Expected contribution |
|---|---|
| Theory | *Example:* Tests whether teacher feedback literacy explains variation in student uptake in school settings |
| Method | *Example:* A coding scheme for measuring uptake from paired drafts |
| Practice | *Example:* Evidence-based guidance for school feedback policies |
| [Type] | [Contribution] |

Planned outputs: [journal articles, conference presentations, a practitioner
summary, open data and code].

## 13. Limitations and risks

<!-- Guidance: Distinguish design limitations (accepted and explained) from project risks (which need a mitigation and a fallback). -->

**Limitations of the design.** [*Example:* The correlational design cannot
establish that feedback literacy causes uptake; self-report measures may be
affected by social desirability.]

| ID | Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation and fallback |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R-01 | *Example:* Fewer than 120 teachers respond | Medium | High | Recruit from two additional districts; analyse at reduced power and report minimum detectable effect |
| R-02 | *Example:* Ethics approval delayed | Medium | Medium | Submit early; begin literature chapter during review |
| R-03 | [Risk] | [L/M/H] | [L/M/H] | [Mitigation] |

## 14. References

<!-- Guidance: Use the citation style of your programme. Include only works cited in the proposal. -->

[List references in the required style.]

- *Example (APA 7):* [Author, A. A.] ([2022]). [Title of article].
  *[Journal]*, *[47]*([3]), [321-338]. https://doi.org/[10.xxxx/xxxxx]
- [Reference]

## 15. Appendices

<!-- Guidance: Attach the material reviewers need to judge feasibility. Keep each appendix referenced from the main text. -->

| Appendix | Content |
|---|---|
| A | [Draft survey instrument or interview guide] |
| B | [Participant information sheet and consent forms] |
| C | [Letters of support or gatekeeper permission] |
| D | [Data management plan] |
| E | [Training plan: courses and skills to be acquired] |

### Self-review before submission

Ask your supervisor, or a peer, to check the proposal against these
questions, which review panels commonly use.

- [ ] Is the problem important and the gap clearly stated with evidence?
- [ ] Are the research questions specific, answerable and few?
- [ ] Does every research question map to a data source and an analysis?
- [ ] Is the sample justified, and is access to it credible?
- [ ] Are the instruments valid for this population, or is there a plan to test them?
- [ ] Are ethical risks identified with concrete mitigations?
- [ ] Is the timeline realistic, with buffers for approval and recruitment?
- [ ] Is the expected contribution stated modestly and precisely?
- [ ] Is the proposal within the word limit and consistently referenced?

## Standard and licence note

Based on common academic practice for dissertation and thesis proposals in
the social and health sciences. Programme and institutional requirements
take precedence over this template. Original text written for this
collection; example content is illustrative. Template licence: MIT.