Table 5.
Identification of students' writing weaknesses
| Research proposal grading criteria1 | Percent of students fulfilling criterion2 | Level of Bloom's3 |
|---|---|---|
| Hypothesis and specific aims | ||
| Context (logical development of hypothesis) | 50 | App/Anal |
| Hypothesis | 33 | Synth/Eval |
| Specific aims designed to test hypothesis | 9 | Synth/Eval |
| Background & significance | ||
| Logical introduction of background relevant to topic | 50 | Know/Comp |
| Review of literature identifying gaps in knowledge | 27 | Synth/Eval |
| Broader societal and scientific significance of study | 41 | Know/Comp |
| Preliminary data | ||
| Presentation of pilot study results | 28 | App/Anal |
| Interpretation and relevance of pilot study | 28 | App/Anal |
| Research design | ||
| Overall design (appropriate methods, controls) | 32 | App/Anal |
| Alternate outcomes for proposed study | 23 | App/Anal |
| Limitations of proposed approach | 9 | Synth/Eval |
| Methods | 32 | Know/Comp |
| Presentation | ||
| Overall organization, grammar, style, figures | 14 | None4 |
1Students' research proposals were evaluated according to 12 different criteria as well as overall presentation.
2The percentage of students fulfilling each criterion was determined by dividing the number of students receiving a perfect score on a particular criterion by the total number of students in the class (n = 22).
3The highest level of Bloom's cognitive domain required to successfully complete each criterion. Know/Comp indicates knowledge and comprehension; App/Anal, application and analysis; Synth/Eval, synthesis and evaluation.
4Presentation was not assigned a Bloom's level.