Present and defend a final research proposal

A proposal presentation must not pretend the study is finished

• The materials team is ready to present its revised plan. A tempting opening is “Our better labels improved sorting.” That would be false: the main task has not run. The team can defend the question and method without announcing invented findings.
• This original GAC033-aligned lesson completes the proposal sequence. Defend means explain and justify choices with evidence and acknowledge limitations. It does not mean reject every question or turn a small plan into a universal claim.

Build one argument across the slides

• Use six moves: problem and purpose, verified background, research question, method and ethics, planned analysis and limits, next approval/action. Keep the proposal's version label visible so the audience knows which draft it is discussing.
• For a four-minute rehearsal, allow 30 seconds for purpose, 45 for background and question, 90 for method and ethics, 45 for analysis and limits, and 30 for next steps. Rehearse with a clock; a crowded slide should be simplified rather than read at double speed.

Show the outcome rule without fabricating results

• Present the blank analysis structure: group A successes/participants and group B successes/participants. Explain that completely correct means all four placements match the fixed key within two minutes. Leave result cells blank or label any teaching numbers as illustrative, not collected.
• Keep sources attached to claims, using actual verified references in a real presentation. The invented cards from unit 5.5 are reasoning exercises only. If the literature section remains incomplete, say so and identify it as work needed before approval.

{callout:example} “We propose 12 volunteers per layout, assigned by shuffled slips. Our primary measure is a completely correct four-item sheet. We have not collected the main data. The teacher will review the information script and final materials before participant work begins.” {/callout}

Answer why this method, not just what it is

• Asked “Why not use a preference survey?”, the team replies: “Our question concerns accuracy, so we need a task outcome. Preference could be interesting, but it would not answer the primary question.” Asked “Why not test both layouts on everyone?”, it explains the possible practice effect from repeated exposure.
• Asked whether 24 volunteers represent every student, the team says no. The study is a small local comparison, and assignment does not make the sample representative. A clear limit improves the answer; it does not invalidate every possible use of the study.

{callout:warn} Do not answer “we will prove B is best” or imply that a positive audience response grants permission. The study remains conditional on the required approval and final procedure checks. {/callout}

Share speaking work and listen to questions

• Each speaker owns a section and understands how it links with the others. A handover can say, “Now that the outcome is defined, Arun will explain how we keep instructions the same.” Do not allocate work only by who speaks most confidently; provide rehearsal and cue support.
• During questions, one person records the issue while another answers. If you do not know, state what must be checked and who will check it. Do not let two teammates offer contradictory confident answers to a requirement that remains unresolved.

Submit a coherent final package

• Keep the labelled proposal, verified source record, task versions and fixed key, information script, action plan and peer-response log. Identify approval status separately from document completion. A polished package may still be awaiting approval.
• Rehearse the presentation and three questions. Self-check: no invented data, question-method alignment, truthful sources, voluntary participation, clear analysis and limits, realistic next steps. After feedback, log the revision and recheck all linked sections before submitting the final candidate.

{callout:key} Present the rationale for planned research, defend choices with evidence, state what remains untested and keep document readiness separate from permission to collect data. {/callout}