Assignment - Research Brief
General Guidelines
In groups of 3–4, students will prepare a research brief that includes an original data analysis. The brief must address a clear research question or purpose, present descriptive statistics, and conduct a simple hypothesis test. The findings from the analysis should be visually supported by at least one figure. Students may collect their own data if desired, but for efficiency, the use of publicly available datasets is strongly encouraged. Each group will select their own research topic; however, students are highly encouraged to discuss their chosen topic and dataset with the instructor by April 3 for feedback and guidance.
| Assignments | % of Final Grade | Due Date |
|---|---|---|
|
01 Research Brief Presentation
|
13% | 04/17 |
|
02 Research Brief Report
|
17% | 04/23 |
# Part 1
Research Brief Presentation
- Each team will present their research brief within 13 minutes, followed by a 4-minute Q&A session. The presentation should clearly communicate the team’s research purpose, data analysis, and findings to the audience.
- Teams may present directly from their research brief. Creating a separate slide deck is optional but encouraged for teams wishing to enhance their presentation. Visual aids, such as charts, tables, or figures, are strongly recommended to support key findings and engage the audience.
- The presentation should focus on clarity and accessibility, tailoring language and explanations for a non-expert audience. Teams are encouraged to rehearse together to ensure effective time management, smooth transitions, and a cohesive delivery during the presentation.
Suggested Structure of the Presentation
- Title Slide: Include the research title and names of team members.
- Motivation and Research Purpose: 1–2 slides. Explain the research question, objectives, and the significance of the topic.
- Data and Methods: 2–3 slides. Describe the dataset, variables, unit of analysis, and key analytical approaches.
- Findings/Results: 2–4 slides. Highlight the key results, including at least one figure, and discuss statistical significance where relevant. Answer the research question.
- Discussion/Conclusion: 1 slide. Summarize the implications of the findings, study limitations, and potential future research directions.
- Acknowledgements/References: 1 slide. Cite sources or datasets used in the research.
Evaluation Criteria
- Content and Research Quality (40%): The presentation demonstrates depth and clarity in the research presented, articulating the research purpose, data analysis, and findings effectively. The content aligns with the research brief and effectively answers the research question. Interpretation is accurate, insightful, and connected to research questions.
- Presentation Delivery and Knowledge (25%): The team delivers the presentation confidently and cohesively, demonstrating a clear understanding of the research and data analysis. Responsiveness during the Q&A session reflects thorough preparation and strong knowledge of the material. Strong discussion of key takeaways, implications, and practical significance.
- Audience Engagement and Accessibility (20%): The presentation effectively engages a non-expert audience through clear and concise language, well-designed visuals (e.g., charts, tables, or figures), and a logical flow between sections.
- Professionalism, Respectful Communication, and Time Management (15%): The team adheres to the time limit and uses respectful, inclusive, and professional language throughout. The presentation is polished, well-organized, and demonstrates a high level of professionalism.
| Criteria | Excellent (95%+) | Good (75%+) | Fair (40%+) | Needs Improvement | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Content and Research Quality | Demonstrates depth and clarity in research, effectively addressing the research question and presenting key findings with accurate and insightful interpretation. | Research is clear and aligned with the research question, but some aspects lack depth, not answering the research question completely. Findings are mostly accurate. | Research is somewhat unclear or lacks alignment with the research question. Findings are presented with limited interpretation or accuracy. Lacks visaul representation of the findings. | Fails to address the research question clearly, with inaccurate findings or lack of interpretation. | 40% |
| Presentation Delivery and Knowledge | Team delivers a polished and cohesive presentation with clear understanding of the research. Responds confidently and thoroughly to audience questions. | Team delivers a clear presentation with minor issues in delivery. Responds adequately to audience questions but lacks depth in some responses. | Presentation delivery is uneven or lacks cohesion. Responses to audience questions are incomplete or unclear. | Presentation is poorly delivered and lacks coherence. Responses to audience questions are inadequate or absent. | 25% |
| Audience Engagement and Accessibility | Effectively engages a non-expert audience using clear language, logical flow, and well-designed visuals (e.g., charts, tables). Maintains audience interest throughout. | Engages the audience adequately but lacks strong visuals or logical flow in parts. Some language may be unclear for a non-expert audience. | Limited audience engagement, with unclear language or poorly designed visuals. Logical flow is inconsistent. | Fails to engage the audience, with unclear language, missing or irrelevant visuals, and poor structure. | 20% |
| Professionalism, Respectful Communication, and Time Management | Adheres to the time limit and uses professional, respectful, and inclusive language. Presentation is polished and well-organized. | Language is generally professional but the organization of presentation may lack polish. | Organization is inconsistent and/or poor. Lacks the more than one component of the suggested structure of the presentation above. | Fails to adhere to the time limit or uses unprofessional language. | 15% |
# Part 2
Research Brief Report
The research brief is expected to be 3–6 pages in length, single-spaced, including the reference section.
Components of the Research Brief Report
- Title and Introduction: Include a title and the names of all team members. The introduction outlines the research question, objectives, and hypothesis. Provide an explanation of the significance of the research topic and its importance.
- Data and Methods: Provide a detailed description of the dataset, specifying the source, unit of analysis, and key variables. Include at least one descriptive statistics table or figure to summarize the data. Screenshots of tables are not accepted; all tables are to be created directly within the report.
- Results: Present the findings from the hypothesis test, accompanied by at least one figure to support the results. Clearly indicate the statistical significance of the hypothesis test.
- Discussion: Discuss the implications of the findings, identify any limitations of the study, and suggest potential directions for future research.
- References: Provide a complete list of all cited studies at the end of the report. Use a consistent citation style, and avoid using footnotes for references.
Evaluation Criteria
- Research Purpose and Clarity (20%): The methods are rigorous and appropriate, with a clear and thorough description of the dataset, analytical approach, and key variables. The findings are presented accurately and clearly, including the identification and interpretation of statistical significance. The datasets, units of analysis, and scope are explicitly identified.
- Methods and Analysis (30\%): The methods are rigorous and appropriate, with a clear and thorough description of the dataset, analytical approach, and key variables. The findings are presented accurately and clearly, including the identification and interpretation of statistical significance. The datasets, units of analysis, and scope are explicitly identified.
- Professionalism and Organization (20%): The report demonstrates professionalism and is well-structured, with logical organization, clear headings, and a coherent flow of content. Adherence to guidelines—such as page length (3–6 pages, single-spaced), proper formatting of tables and figures, and inclusion of all required components (e.g., title, team members, references, tables, and figures)—is evaluated.
- Writing Quality (15%): The writing is clear, precise, and easy to read. Grammar, sentence structure, and vocabulary are appropriate for an academic audience. The report avoids unnecessary jargon and maintains a concise and accessible style.
- Visual Components (10%): Tables, figures, and other visuals are well-designed, clearly labeled, and enhance the understanding of the content. Screenshots of tables are not allowed, and all visuals must align with the analysis and findings.
- References and Citations (5%): The references section is accurate, consistent, and complete. Citations follow a consistent style and include appropriate and relevant sources. Footnotes are not used for references.
| Criteria | Excellent (95%+) | Good (75%+) | Fair (40%+) | Needs Improvement | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Research Purpose and Clarity | Clearly establishes a relevant and meaningful research purpose, question, and hypothesis. | Research purpose and question are clear but lack some detail or relevance. | Research purpose and question are somewhat unclear or not well-framed. | Research purpose and question are unclear or irrelevant. | 20% |
| Methods and Analysis | Rigorous and appropriate methods; detailed and clear description of dataset, variables, and analytical approach. | Methods are mostly appropriate but lack some detail or depth in description. | Methods and analysis are somewhat unclear or lack rigor. | Methods are inappropriate or poorly described; major flaws in analysis. | 30% |
| Professionalism and Organization | Well-structured, logically organized, clear headings, and adheres to guidelines (e.g., page length, formatting). | Mostly well-structured with minor issues in organization or adherence to guidelines. | Structure and organization are somewhat unclear; guidelines are partially followed. | Poorly organized, does not adhere to guidelines, or lacks clarity. | 20% |
| Writing Quality | Clear, precise, free of errors; writing style is accessible and suitable for an academic audience. | Writing is clear with minor errors; mostly suitable for the audience. | Writing has noticeable errors and lacks clarity; somewhat unsuitable for the audience. | Writing is unclear, contains many errors, or is unsuitable for the audience. | 15% |
| Visual Components | Tables, figures, and visuals are well-designed, labeled, and enhance understanding. | Visuals are appropriate and labeled but could be better designed or more relevant. | Visuals are present but poorly designed or labeled, with limited enhancement to understanding. | Visuals are missing, poorly executed, or do not align with the analysis. | 10% |
| References and Citations | Accurate, consistent, and complete; follows a coherent citation style. | References are mostly accurate and consistent with minor errors in style. | References are somewhat inconsistent or incomplete; noticeable issues with citation style. | References are inaccurate, incomplete, or inconsistent; does not follow a recognized citation style. | 5% |