Progress Profile Example
Mixed Methods Research Formative Feedback on a Practice Research Presentation
Progress Map 1: Analysis Step Description
Result Comments
Building Explanations
Testing Explanations
Revising Explanations
Critiquing Explanations
Hypothesizes initial explanations for patterns in the data
Gathers evidence that supports the explanations and that calls them into question
Adjusts the explanations to be more consistent with the data
Identifies potential flaws and what data could be collected to further test the explanations
Need more evidence
Current focus
Future step
Future step
Love that you tried out different ways of grouping majors and settled on Holland types. Very compelling to have a strong theoretical justification for your groupings.
It didn’t seem like you had gotten this far in your analysis. The purpose of Interview 2 is described as investigating your initial hypotheses, but the initial hypotheses are presented after you describe Interview 2, and there weren’t any quotes or takeaways from Interview 2.
I didn’t understand what your initial hypotheses about Integrate and Evaluate were attempting to explain.
Progress Map 2: Communication Step Description
Result Comments
Accurate
Sufficient
Efficient
Correctly describes procedures, findings, etc.
Provides all the information the audience needs to understand and evaluate the analysis
Provides only the information the audience needs in a way that makes it easy to digest
Uses error- and distraction-free organization, formatting, word choice, grammar, etc.
Need more evidence
Need more evidence
Current focus
Future step
Nice distinction between pathways and profiles initially. However, in your quantitative analysis, while your table titles say you’re investigating the relationship between Holland types and pathways, your analysis is actually looking at the relationship between Holland types and profiles.
Love the capsule descriptions of research questions and purposes.
The pathway/profile model is lovely and thoughtful, but it’s hard to effective summarize in a presentation. If you do decide to foreground profiles in your analysis, you might consider not talking about the pathways at all.
Excellence in Teaching Day • May 7, 2018
It would help to have a key on the quantitative results slides, reminding us what the letters stand for. I’d like to see (at least some of) your interview questions, to see how they connect to your stated purpose for that interview.
Precise
Consider ways to communicate the content and meaning of the quotes while minimizing the wall of text effect. Dr. Nathaniel J. S. Brown • Boston College
Progress Profile Example
Mixed Methods Research Summative Feedback and Grade on a Final Research Presentation
Progress Map 1: Analysis Step Description
Result Score Comments
Building Explanations
Testing Explanations
Revising Explanations
Critiquing Explanations
Hypothesizes initial explanations for patterns in the data
Gathers evidence that supports the explanations and that calls them into question
Adjusts the explanations to be more consistent with the data
Identifies potential flaws and what data could be collected to further test the explanations
Need more evidence
Current focus
Future step
Future step
2 (out of 3)
0 (out of 3)
1 (out of 3)
1 (out of 3)
I understand how your two hypotheses for C (PULSE develops Create and BC attracts Create) are potential explanations for why C is high. However, I don’t understand how your hypotheses for I and E explain why those are low.
You didn’t present any evidence supporting or disconfirming any of your six hypotheses about why C is high and I and E are low.
You stated which hypothesis in each pair you preferred but didn’t provide evidence to support your choices.
Make sure your discussion of limitations and future directions is tied to further testing your theory. Why might your theory be wrong, and what evidence would you need to collect to determine that?
Progress Map 2: Communication Step Description
Result Score Comments
Accurate
Sufficient
Efficient
Precise
Correctly describes procedures, findings, etc.
Provides all the information the audience needs to understand and evaluate the analysis
Provides only the information the audience needs in a way that makes it easy to digest
Uses error- and distraction-free organization, formatting, word choice, grammar, etc.
Convincingly reached
Need more evidence
Need more evidence
Current focus
4 (out of 4)
2 (out of 3)
2 (out of 3)
1 (out of 3)
Great job revising the tables!
You did a better job explaining the profiles and capitalization, but the audience also needs to know how you decided whether a student fell into a particular profile. What calculation(s) did you do, and what were your cutoffs for inclusion in a particular profile?
Overall, nicely focused.
The way you’re using asterisks in the table is confusing because asterisks have a different standardized meaning with respect to statistical significance.
Having multiple, non-contiguous words highlighted in the quotes made it hard to parse. A single phrase is easier for the audience. Some quotes (particularly the one supporting Hypothesis 2) could benefit from being shorter.
Various typos and small omissions, many of which you noted during the presentation.
Total Score: 13 (out of 25) Grade: 88 (out of 100) Excellence in Teaching Day • May 7, 2018
Dr. Nathaniel J. S. Brown • Boston College
