Amir Mahdavi Z.

Pages

1. Syllabus for Seminar in ELT

   Syllabus: Research Proposal Development in ELT

   Level: MA in English Language Teaching (ELT) Duration: 16 sessions Course orientation: Research design, proposal writing, departmental review, and approval

   By the end of the semester, students should have produced a defensible MA research proposal, presented it for academic scrutiny, revised it in response to feedback, and completed the departmental procedures required for approval.

   A central principle is that students should begin developing their own research proposals from the first session. Each class should combine targeted instruction with practical work on students’ developing proposals.

   1. Course description

   This course guides MA students in ELT through the process of identifying a researchable problem, reviewing relevant literature, formulating research questions, selecting an appropriate research design, addressing ethical considerations, and writing a coherent research proposal. Particular attention is paid to alignment among the research problem, theoretical or conceptual framework, research questions, methodology, and anticipated contribution.

   The course culminates in a formal proposal presentation, a revised written submission, and completion of the documentation and review procedures required for departmental approval. Approval is subject to the department’s academic requirements and decision-making procedures; completing the course does not automatically guarantee approval.

   2. Course objectives

   The course aims to enable students to:

   • identify a significant, feasible, and original research problem in ELT;
   • critically evaluate relevant empirical studies and synthesize literature rather than merely summarize sources;
   • identify a defensible research gap and establish a clear rationale for the proposed study;
   • formulate research questions and, where appropriate, hypotheses;
   • develop a suitable theoretical or conceptual framework;
   • select and justify an appropriate qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods research design;
   • specify participants, sampling procedures, instruments, data-collection procedures, and methods of analysis;
   • address research ethics, feasibility, access to participants, and limitations;
   • write and defend a coherent research proposal in accordance with academic conventions;
   • revise the proposal in response to supervisory, peer, and departmental feedback and complete the required approval process.

   3. Learning outcomes

   By the end of the course, students will be able to:

   1. Produce a focused and researchable ELT problem statement supported by scholarly evidence.
   2. Construct a critical and logically organized literature review that establishes a research gap.
   3. Develop aligned research questions, a conceptual or theoretical framework, and a methodologically appropriate research design.
   4. Prepare a detailed, feasible, and ethically responsible research methodology.
   5. Write a complete MA research proposal using appropriate academic language, citation practices, and referencing conventions.
   6. Present and defend the proposal before an academic audience.
   7. Respond constructively to reviewers’ comments and submit a revised proposal and the required departmental documentation.
   8. Demonstrate readiness to undertake the proposed research, subject to formal departmental approval and any additional ethics requirements.

   4. Sixteen-session teaching plan

   The schedule below assumes one class per session. The exact departmental submission dates and approval procedures should be incorporated into the schedule at the beginning of the semester.

   Phase I — From research interest to a defensible problem

   Sessions 1–3

   Session 1. Understanding the MA research proposal and departmental requirements

   • The purpose, structure, scope, and expected standard of an MA thesis proposal in ELT.
   • Departmental regulations: proposal format, supervision, research ethics, originality, submission, and approval procedures.
   • Distinguishing a research topic, a research problem, and a viable research proposal.
   • Workshop: Identify potential research areas based on students’ academic interests and ELT experience.
   • Deliverable: Three possible research topics and a preliminary statement of interest.

   Session 2. Identifying a researchable problem and establishing a research gap

   • Problem statements, research significance, and the rationale for a study.
   • Distinguishing a genuine research gap from a simple lack of studies in a particular setting.
   • Identifying conceptual, methodological, contextual, and empirical gaps.
   • Assessing originality, feasibility, relevance to ELT, and access to data.
   • Workshop: Develop a preliminary problem statement supported by initial scholarly sources.
   • Deliverable: A one-page research concept note.

   Session 3. Searching for, evaluating, and managing research literature

   • Searching databases and scholarly indexes, including ERIC, Scopus, and Google Scholar.
   • Developing search terms and documenting a reproducible search strategy.
   • Evaluating source quality, relevance, and methodological rigor.
   • Using reference-management software and AI tools responsibly; checking all references and claims against original sources.
   • Workshop: Build an annotated bibliography and compare relevant empirical studies.
   • Deliverable: An initial bibliography of approximately 10–15 relevant scholarly sources.

   Milestone 1: Topic and problem approval

   The student submits a concept note identifying the proposed topic, research problem, preliminary gap, significance, and feasibility. The instructor provides formative feedback, and students begin narrowing their topics before proceeding.

   Phase II — Building the conceptual and theoretical foundation

   Sessions 4–6

   Session 4. Critical literature review and synthesis

   • Organizing literature thematically, conceptually, chronologically, or methodologically.
   • Comparing findings and research designs across studies.
   • Identifying contradictions, limitations, and unresolved questions.
   • Moving from summary to critical synthesis.
   • Workshop: Develop a literature-review matrix and a preliminary thematic outline.
   • Deliverable: A structured literature-review outline with key supporting studies.

   Session 5. Theoretical and conceptual frameworks in ELT research

   • The distinction between a theory, a theoretical framework, and a conceptual framework.
   • Selecting a framework that directly informs the research problem and questions.
   • Using constructs and concepts consistently.
   • Linking the framework to data collection and interpretation.
   • Workshop: Explain how a proposed framework will inform the study.
   • Deliverable: A preliminary framework statement and, where useful, a conceptual diagram.

   Session 6. Research aims, objectives, questions, and hypotheses

   • Formulating focused, answerable, and logically connected research questions.
   • Distinguishing research aims, objectives, questions, and hypotheses.
   • Aligning questions with the problem statement, literature review, framework, and intended contribution.
   • Distinguishing exploratory, descriptive, correlational, explanatory, and intervention-oriented questions.
   • Workshop: Peer-review research questions for clarity, scope, and answerability.
   • Deliverable: Revised problem statement, research aim, objectives, and research questions or hypotheses.

   Milestone 2: Conceptual design review

   Students submit a provisional introduction, a literature-review outline, a framework statement, and research questions. The instructor checks their coherence before students commit to a methodology.

   Phase III — Designing a feasible and defensible study

   Sessions 7–10

   Session 7. Research paradigms and methodological choices

   • Positivist, interpretivist, critical, and pragmatic orientations, as relevant to ELT.
   • Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods research.
   • Experimental, quasi-experimental, correlational, survey, case-study, ethnographic, narrative, and other designs.
   • Matching methodological choices to research questions rather than personal preference.
   • Workshop: Justify a proposed design and identify alternative designs.
   • Deliverable: A preliminary research-design rationale.

   Session 8. Participants, sampling, context, and access

   • Defining the research setting and target population.
   • Sampling strategies, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and sample-size justification.
   • Participant recruitment, institutional permissions, gatekeepers, and researcher positionality.
   • Feasibility in schools, universities, language institutes, and online learning environments.
   • Workshop: Draft the setting, participants, sampling, and recruitment sections.
   • Deliverable: A participant and access plan.

   Session 9. Research instruments and data collection

   • Questionnaires, interviews, observations, tests, classroom recordings, learner texts, and document analysis.
   • Instrument selection, adaptation, piloting, validity, reliability, and trustworthiness, as appropriate to the design.
   • Operationalizing constructs and linking each instrument to a research question.
   • Workshop: Construct an instrument-to-question alignment table and draft sample items or interview prompts.
   • Deliverable: A preliminary instrument or data-source plan.

   Session 10. Data analysis and interpretation plans

   • Quantitative analysis: descriptive statistics, inferential tests, assumptions, and effect sizes, as appropriate.
   • Qualitative analysis: coding, thematic analysis, content analysis, and interpretive approaches.
   • Mixed-methods integration when both data types are collected.
   • Linking each research question to the planned analysis and anticipated form of evidence.
   • Workshop: Prepare a research-question/data-source/analysis matrix.
   • Deliverable: A detailed preliminary data-analysis plan.

   Milestone 3: Methodological feasibility review

   Students submit a draft methodology demonstrating that the proposed questions can be answered with the stated participants, instruments, procedures, and analysis. Major design problems should be addressed before the full proposal is drafted.

   Phase IV — Producing and defending the complete proposal

   Sessions 11–16

   Session 11. Research ethics, academic integrity, and feasibility

   • Informed consent, voluntary participation, confidentiality, anonymity, and data protection.
   • Research involving students, minors, teachers, and institutional settings.
   • Power relationships when researchers study their own students or workplaces.
   • Plagiarism, citation accuracy, AI-assisted writing, authorship, and research transparency.
   • Ethics review, institutional permissions, and data-management plans.
   • Workshop: Complete a preliminary ethics checklist and feasibility audit.
   • Deliverable: Ethics and access section, including required permissions and potential risks.

   Session 12. Writing the complete proposal

   • Integrating the introduction, literature review, framework, research questions, and methodology.
   • Writing a concise abstract, appropriate title, rationale, and significance statement.
   • Proposal structure, academic style, cohesion, citation, and referencing.
   • Developing a realistic timeline and identifying resource requirements.
   • Workshop: Assemble the full proposal draft and check alignment across sections.
   • Deliverable: Complete first draft of the proposal.

   Session 13. Peer review and proposal revision

   • Evaluating originality, coherence, methodological rigor, feasibility, and contribution.
   • Identifying inconsistencies between research questions, instruments, and analysis.
   • Giving evidence-based feedback rather than merely correcting language.
   • Workshop: Structured peer review using a departmental-style evaluation rubric.
   • Deliverable: Peer-review report and a revision plan.

   Session 14. Proposal presentations and oral defense

   • Presenting the problem, research gap, framework, questions, design, and contribution.
   • Defending methodological choices and responding to critical questions.
   • Explaining feasibility, limitations, and ethical safeguards.
   • Workshop: Formal proposal presentations followed by questions from peers and the instructor.
   • Deliverable: Presentation slides, oral defense, and a record of feedback.

   Session 15. Revision clinic and departmental submission

   • Addressing substantive reviewer comments.
   • Checking the department's required format, title, scope, references, and supporting documents.
   • Completing the proposal submission form and any required supervisor or reviewer documentation.
   • Preparing a response-to-comments document and final compliance checklist.
   • Workshop: Individual consultation and final pre-submission review.
   • Deliverable: Revised proposal and complete departmental submission package.

   Session 16. Departmental review, approval, and resubmission planning

   • Formal presentation or review by the department's designated committee, where its procedures permit this within the semester.
   • Recording the decision and any required revisions.
   • Distinguishing approval, conditional approval, and requests for major revision.
   • Planning the completion of outstanding requirements and the transition to thesis research.
   • Deliverable: Departmental decision or documented submission status, together with the final proposal and any required revision plan.

   5. Assessment and grading

   The assessment system should reward the development of a viable proposal throughout the semester, rather than relying heavily on a final examination. Since departmental approval is a required course objective, submission readiness and responsiveness to academic feedback must be assessed explicitly.

   Assessment component	Weight
   Research concept note and problem statement	10%
   Critical literature review and theoretical/conceptual framework	15%
   Research design and methodology portfolio	15%
   Complete first proposal draft	10%
   Peer review and response to feedback	10%
   Proposal presentation and oral defense	15%
   Final revised proposal and departmental submission package	25%
   Total	100%

   Final proposal assessment criteria

   The final proposal will be evaluated against the following criteria:

   Criterion	Weight
   Significance, clarity, and originality of the research problem	15%
   Quality of the literature review and justification of the research gap	20%
   Theoretical/conceptual framework and alignment of research questions	15%
   Methodological rigor and appropriateness of data analysis	25%
   Ethical considerations and feasibility	10%
   Academic writing, organization, and referencing	10%
   Responsiveness to feedback and completeness of submission documentation	5%
   Total	100%

   The proposal must also satisfy any mandatory departmental requirements, irrespective of its numerical grade.

   6. Requirements for successful completion

   Students are expected to complete the following by the end of the semester:

   • An approved or formally submitted research topic.
   • A clearly articulated research problem and defensible research gap.
   • A critical review of relevant literature and an appropriate theoretical or conceptual framework.
   • Coherent research questions or hypotheses.
   • A justified research design and a detailed methodology.
   • A feasible data-collection and analysis plan.
   • An ethics and permissions plan, including any required ethics application.
   • A complete written proposal conforming to departmental requirements.
   • An oral presentation and defense of the proposal.
   • A revised proposal, a response to feedback, and the required departmental submission documents.
   • Evidence of the departmental decision or the proposal's formal review status.

   Important distinction: Students should be required to complete the approval process, but the instructor cannot guarantee departmental approval. If the department's review schedule extends beyond Session 16, the course should require documented submission, followed by resubmission or approval once the department has issued its decision. Research must not begin before the required permissions and ethics clearances are obtained.

   7. Recommended references

   These sources provide complementary guidance on research design, applied linguistics research, and proposal writing.

   1. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research Methods in Education (8th ed.). Routledge.
   2. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (5th ed.). SAGE.
   3. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methodologies. Oxford University Press.
   4. Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2022). Second Language Research: Methodology and Design (3rd ed.). Routledge.
   5. Paltridge, B., & Phakiti, A. (Eds.). (2015). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics: A Practical Resource. Bloomsbury.
   6. American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). APA.

   Students should also consult recent empirical studies in their chosen ELT research area and the University of Guilan's current thesis proposal, research ethics, and departmental approval guidelines.

   8. Recommended course policy

   The course should operate through continuous proposal development. Students should not be allowed to postpone choosing a topic until the middle or end of the semester. Every student should bring their own developing proposal to workshops, receive feedback, and revise it incrementally.

   A practical way to implement this is to maintain an individual proposal-development file containing each milestone submission, instructor feedback, revision history, and departmental correspondence. This provides evidence of progress and helps identify proposals that are unlikely to be approved before the end of the semester.

   The most important structural decision is to begin departmental requirements and topic approval in Session 1, conduct a methodological feasibility review by Session 10, and reserve the final six sessions for drafting, defense, revision, and formal submission or approval. This makes departmental approval a central organizing goal of the course rather than an administrative task left unti