LAE 7735 – E-TRIP 1

English Teacher Ed Research Proposal (E-TRIP)

Purpose:
As an English education researcher, much of the work you do will depend on writing research proposals:
when you apply for grants, publish articles, apply to conferences, or pitch your ideas to administrators,
colleagues, or school partners, you must be able to convey the urgency of the issue, situate your work in
previous research, describe and justify your methods, and suggest the significance of potential
contributions. In this project, you will practice writing a proposal for an English teacher education
research project.

Process:
During the last part of the semester, we will work together to develop the major sections of the
proposal genre (these sections are recognizable to English education researchers and will likely be
similar to expectations you find in journals, conference CFPs, etc.). The sections are:
• Problem Statement
• Literature Review & Research Questions
• Theoretical Framework
• Methodology
• Anticipated Contributions/Significance

Rubric
Criteria/Score 4 3 2 1 0
Purpose
Sources
Study Design
Contributions
Conventions

Purpose of the Study (Problem Statement, Literature Review, & Research Question(s))
30% of Project Proposal Grade
4 – This proposal formulates a clear, appropriate purpose for the author’s research project, derived
from a clear, well-supported, and complex analysis of the contributions and limitations of
relevant scholarly articles.
3 – This proposal formulates a clear, appropriate purpose for the author’s research project, derived
from a clear and well-supported analysis of the contributions and limitations of relevant scholarly
articles.
2 – This proposal formulates a clear, appropriate purpose for the author’s research project, and
presents a clear and well-supported analysis of the contributions and limitations of previously
published scholarly articles. However, this proposal does not make explicit how the purpose for
the study is derived from those articles.
1 – This proposal formulates a vague or inappropriate purpose for the author’s research project, and
a vague or poorly supported analysis of the contributions and limitations of previously published
scholarly articles, which may not all be relevant to this study. Additionally, this proposal may not
make explicit how the purpose for the study is derived from those articles.
0 – This proposal does not formulate a purpose for the author’s research project.



 LAE 7735 – E-TRIP 2

Sources (Literature Review)

20% of Project Proposal Grade
4 – This proposal includes a literature review that analyzes relevant scholarly articles, summarizing and
evaluating those previous studies in order to justify the focus and the approach to the problem.
3 – This proposal includes a literature review that analyzes relevant scholarly articles, summarizing and
evaluating those previous studies in order to justify the focus or the approach to the problem.
2 – This proposal includes a literature review that analyzes relevant scholarly articles, summarizing
those previous studies in order to justify the focus or the approach to the problem.
1 – This proposal includes a literature review that analyzes scholarly articles, summarizing
those previous studies but not fully justifying the focus or the approach to the problem.
0 – This proposal does not include a literature review.

Study Design
35% of Project Proposal Grade
4 – This proposal presents a clear, detailed, and well-justified plan for the author’s research project.
Methodological decisions related to site selection, participant selection, data sources, data-collection
procedures, and data-analysis procedures are thoroughly explained. The author’s research project is
purposeful and feasible.
3 – This proposal presents a clear and well-justified plan for the author’s research project, yet lacks
some detail. Methodological decisions related to site selection, participant selection, data sources, data-
collection procedures, and data-analysis procedures are, for the most part, explained. The author’s research
project is purposeful and feasible.
2 – This proposal presents a clear but poorly justified plan for the author’s research project.
Methodological decisions related to site selection, participant selection, data sources, data-collection
procedures, and data-analysis procedures are described but not explicitly connected to the purpose of the
study (research question(s)). Thus, the author’s research project, though feasible, does not seem to be
purposeful.
1 – This proposal presents a vague and poorly justified plan for the author’s research project.
Some methodological decisions related to site selection, participant selection, data sources, data-collection
procedures, and data-analysis procedures are neither described nor explained. Thus, the author’s research
project does not seem to be either feasible or purposeful.
0 – This proposal does not present a study design for the author’s research project.

Anticipated Contributions of the Study
10% of Project Proposal Grade
4 – This proposal offers a clear and complex analysis of the anticipated contributions and limitations of
the author’s research project.
3 – This proposal offers a clear analysis of the anticipated contributions and limitations of the author’s
research project.
2 – This proposal offers a clear analysis of the anticipated contributions of the author’s research project,
but does not address the study’s limitations.
1 – This proposal offers a vague or poorly developed analysis of the anticipated contributions and
limitations of the author’s research project.
0 – This proposal does not offer an analysis of the anticipated contributions and limitations of the
author’s research project.

Formatting/Sentence-Level Language Conventions:
5% of Project Proposal Grade
4 – This proposal meets all of the formatting requirements: at least 10 double-spaced pages (not
including an APA cover page and references), Times New Roman, 12-point font, 1-inch margins,
APA style, file format: .doc, .docx, .pdf. This proposal’s use of sentence-level language conventions
(e.g., grammar, spelling, punctuation) does not detract from the reading experience and enhances it.
 LAE 7735 – E-TRIP 3

3 – This proposal meets all of the formatting requirements, except for a few APA errors. This proposal’s
use of sentence-level language conventions (e.g., grammar, spelling, punctuation) somewhat detracts
from the reading experience.
2 – This proposal meets all of the formatting requirements, except for many APA errors. This proposal’s
use of sentence-level language conventions (e.g., grammar, spelling, punctuation) frequently detracts
from the reading experience.
1 – This proposal does not meet the required minimum page count. This proposal’s use of sentence-level
language conventions (e.g., grammar, spelling, punctuation) makes it nearly impossible to read.
0 – There is no proposal.