phd research proposal example oxford

• Graduate School

Oxford PhD Proposal Sample: The Best Proposal

An Oxford PhD proposal sample, like Oxford personal statement examples , should give you an idea of how to structure and write your own PhD proposal, which is a key element of how to get into grad school . Should you pursue a master's or PhD , you should know that, with few exceptions, all graduate programs require that applicants submit a research proposal. It can vary in length (usually between 1,000 and 3,000 words) and must outline your main research goals and methods and demonstrate your facility with the topic. The almost 35,000 applications Oxford received in a recent year should give you some idea of how competitive getting into a master's or PhD program is.

Writing a stellar proposal is important to make your application stand out, so, to that end, this article will show you an expert-approved Oxford PhD proposal sample based on the actual requirements of an Oxford graduate program. 

>> Want us to help you get accepted? Schedule a free initial consultation here <<

Listen to the blog!

Article Contents 11 min read

Oxford phd proposal sample.

PhD Program : DPhil in Migrant Studies

Research Proposal Length: minimum 2000 - maximum 3000 words

To: Matthew J. Gibney, Professor of Politics and Forced Migration

Name: Adrian Toews

Title: Wired and Hungry Masses: Social Media, Migrants and Cultural Bereavement in the Digital Sphere

Proposed Research Topic: Does social media help migrants cross the cultural barriers of their adopted home and succeed in helping them preserve touchstones of their home culture? 

Abstract: The ascendance of social media platforms has increased and, strangely, decreased interconnectedness among disparate groups in society. But, while social media has been implicated, rightly, as a catalyst for the rise of disinformation, hate speech, and other anti-social behaviors, I would argue that its ubiquity and prevalence provide those experiencing cultural bereavement with a more-effective coping mechanism, as social media is able to replicate, in a non-physical space, the culturally specific mechanisms they know and which, prior to digital communications, could not be replicated in new, adopted countries and cultures.

Objective: I want to present social media as an informal networking tool, expressive outlet, and cultural road map with which migrants who are experiencing cultural bereavement can engage for two specific reasons: 1) to assuage the grief that accompanies anyone who has left their homeland as a migrant or refugee, and 2) to help them assimilate into their new identity by giving them a window into the cultural norms and practices of their new country or culture. 

An Oxford PhD proposal sample like this one is only one version of what a proposal can look like, but it should contain at least these basic elements. You should know how to choose a PhD topic at this point in your career, but if you still feel like you need help, then you can hire PhD admission consultants to help you choose your topic and research interests.

Above all, you should know why you want to do a PhD . Answering this question first will be effective in helping you ultimately decide on a program, which can then make it easier for you to write any number of different doctorate-related texts, such as a PhD motivation letter and a statement of intent .

Understanding your true motivations, passions, and research interests is doubly important when pursuing a PhD since you do not want to invest so much time and resources in a subject you are only partially interested in. If you can honestly answer why you want to pursue a PhD, you can then take concrete steps toward defining your research goals and how they can be fulfilled by the program you choose.

Your Oxford PhD proposal should adhere to the requirements set forth by the program you wish to enter. Regardless of your discipline or field, almost all PhD programs at Oxford require that you submit a research proposal of between 2,000 and 3,000 words. 

A statement of intent is another type of essay that applicants are often asked to submit to graduate schools. It involves talking about your past academic experiences and achievements, what you intend to do in graduate school, and why you want to go there. A PhD proposal, on the other hand, contains no personal details or experiences.

Instead, a PhD proposal should be a focused, concrete road map built around a specific research question. In your proposal, you list the theoretical approaches that you are going to use, research methods, past scholarship on the same topic, and other investigative tools to answer this question or present evidence from this research to support your argument. 

A statement of purpose is another common essay that graduate school applicants must submit. The line between a statement of purpose and a statement of intent is a fine one, but the line between a statement of purpose and a PhD proposal is much more prominent, and there is no mistaking the two. So, you should not read over graduate school statement of purpose examples to learn how to write a PhD proposal.

A statement of purpose can also be research-focused, but in an undefined way. A PhD proposal combines theory and practice and requires that you demonstrate your knowledge of proper scientific research, investigative methods, and the existing literature on your topic. 

You should include a title page where you list your name, the program you are applying to, and a title for your research project. You should address it to a specific faculty member, who can perhaps, if they agree, show you how to prepare for a thesis defense . The proposal itself should include an abstract, an overview of the existing scholarship on your topic, research questions, methods, and a bibliography listing all your sources. 

The usual length of PhD proposals is between 1,000 and 3,000 words, but your program may have different requirements, which you should always follow. 

There are up to 350 different graduate programs at Oxford, all with their own particular requirements, so the university does not set forth a universal set of requirements for all graduate programs. Many of these programs and their affiliated schools offer students advice on how to write a PhD proposal, but there are few, if any, stated requirements other than the implied ones, which are that you have familiarity with how to conduct graduate-level research and are knowledgeable in the field you are researching. 

A majority of programs do, yes. There are always exceptions, but a fundamental part of pursuing a PhD involves research and investigation, so it is normal for any PhD program to require that applicants write a PhD proposal. 

It is quite possible for your research interests and direction to change during your research, but you should not be discouraged. Graduate programs understand that these things happen, but you should still do your best to reflect the current state of research on your topic and try to anticipate any changes or sudden shifts in direction while you research. 

Want more free tips? Subscribe to our channels for more free and useful content!

Apple Podcasts

Like our blog? Write for us ! >>

Have a question ask our admissions experts below and we'll answer your questions, get started now.

Talk to one of our admissions experts

Our site uses cookies. By using our website, you agree with our cookie policy .

FREE Training Webinar:

How to make your grad school application stand out, (and avoid the top 5 mistakes that get most rejected).

Time Sensitive. Limited Spots Available:

We guarantee you'll get into grad school or your money back.

Swipe up to see a great offer!

• OII >  
• News & Events >  
• News >  

Applying for a DPhil? How to Craft a Great Research Proposal

I’ve just come to the end of my DPhil at the Oxford Internet Institute (OII), so it seems fitting to now offer some advice on applying for one. I am not going to explain how to write or structure a proposal as these vary hugely from person to person and field to field. Instead, I’m going to talk about the three things your proposal must do, irrespective of your field: identify a topic, outline the contribution and discuss the implementation.

To apply for a PhD at the OII, see information about the DPhil in Information, Communication and the Social Sciences and about the DPhil in Social Data Science .

Identify a Topic

First, you need to identify an interesting topic. This might sound easy – surely, we all have an incredibly fascinating and terribly important topic in mind, or else we wouldn’t even consider doing a PhD – but it is actually pretty difficult. Here are three things to bear in mind.

First, is that a good topic should grab the reader’s attention, and seem impactful or interesting almost immediately. This doesn’t mean just latching onto the latest buzzword (big data, the Internet of Things …). It means showing your PhD responds to what other researchers are interested in or a pressing social problem. This often involves showing the timeliness of your work.

Second, is that every PhD has a constant tension between its specificity (i.e. the actual empirical thing you research) and generality (i.e. the wider theories and debates you contribute to). In the proposal, you need to decide how general/specific you want to pitch your work.

Third, how you frame the topic will situate it within a particular discipline or set of academic conversations. The OII is a very interdisciplinary department, but you always need to know which academic audience you are speaking to, even if it is a bit fuzzy or changes over the course of your research.

Outline the Contribution

The second thing you must do is outline the contribution you’ll make. This can be a bit tricky to write as most PhDs (and proposals) have several overlapping ‘contribution-like’ bits. This includes the research questions (RQ), the research aim (RA), the research design (RD) and the research contributions (RC). In my mind, these can be hierarchically organised:

• Your RA outlines what you are trying to do. This should be the most general point and should relate directly to your topic.
• Answering your RQs is how you will achieve the RA. As such, they should be derived from a discussion of the RA in the context of the relevant academic literature. They should be specific, interesting, achievable and (as far as possible) separable. I would have maximum three RQs in your proposal.
• The RD is how you will implement the RQs (more on this below). This is actually a very different part of your proposal – don’t confuse how you will do your research with what you want to do!
• The RCs sit in between the RA and the RQs. Depending upon how you frame your research, you might not need to outline any RCs – but I think they are a useful way of bridging the generality of the RA and the specificity of the RQs.

Let me give an example from my PhD. The RA was ‘to understand the nature and dynamics of Islamophobic hate speech amongst followers of UK political parties on Twitter’. One of the RQs was: ‘what is the conceptual basis of Islamophobia?’. Answering this RQ enabled me to make a conceptual contribution. I also had an RQ which related to creating a supervised machine learning classifier for Islamophobic hate speech. This constituted a methodological contribution. But I then had three RQs which linked to theory (including, ‘To what extent do Islamist terrorist attacks drive Islamophobic hate speech amongst followers of UK political parties on Twitter?’). I aggregated the work for the three theory-driven RQs into a single theoretical contribution. This meant that in my work I had:

• 1 RA, which was addressed by:
• 5 RQs, which lead to :
• 3 RCs to the topic

This structure is not right for everyone, and I certainly didn’t have it worked out when I wrote my proposal. But, however you phrase it, you need to articulate your PhD’s contribution to academic research.

Many types of contributions can be made – so far, I’ve talked about theory, concepts and methods. You can also make data contributions (for instance, sharing a newly created dataset open source), practitioner contributions (for instance, developing a new software tool), policy contributions (engaging directly with thinktanks, NGOs and governments to produce reports and host workshops), and many others. However – and this is something I learnt the hard way – not all contributions are equal , and the main contribution of most PhDs is theoretical . Now, from anthropology to socio-physics what constitutes a ‘theory’ is open to huge debate, so theoretical contributions vary a lot, even within just one department. But whatever theory, or theoretical framework, you are contributing towards, you need to make sure it is justified.

The Implementation

The final thing to work out is how you will implement your research. The biggest problem that I’ve encountered when advising people on PhD proposals is that they do not start from the Research Aim but from a particular method or dataset. This might reflect how they actually came up with their PhD idea but it is topsy-turvy: your research design (comprising the method, dataset and epistemology) should be informed by what you are trying to achieve – by the research aim – and not the other way around.

You need to show three things here. First, that the research is feasible within the amount of time you have. Usually, less is more! Academia is about making small incremental steps, so even a modest project might be enough. Second, that you can do the research. Your proposal will be seriously undermined if it seems unrealistic – for instance, if you want to get a data sharing agreement from a website you have never contacted, or to conduct elite interviews with senior government figures you have never met. Third, that you are aware of the limitations of your preferred method and have (even if only very briefly) considered other options.

Now, this doesn’t mean that you need to have every detail worked out – indeed, you are best off showing some flexibility in your design. It also doesn’t mean that you can’t explore new methods (in fact, during my PhD, I transitioned from qualitative to quantitative research). It just means that you have to demonstrate that you are capable, intellectually and practically, of doing the work. View the research design as an opportunity to say: “Look, you know this interesting topic I want to study, and the awfully important contribution(s) I want to make? Well, I can actually do it “.

If you can explain this then you’re in a good place:

• How your research design enables you to realise the research aim
• How you are capable of implementing it (or at least of learning to implement it), and
• What the benefits and limitations are.

Final remarks

The three things I have discussed here – topic, contribution and implementation – should be in your mind every time you write a proposal. If you can concisely, precisely, compellingly and fully explain all three, then you have set yourself up for a successful application. The only other advice I have is be honest! The people who read your proposal will be able to sense confusion, blagging, and falsehoods. Good proposals don’t try to hide all of their limitations and problems, but address them directly.

Best of luck!

Bertram Vidgen

Former Research Associate

Bertram Vidgen's research focuses on far-right extremism in online contexts. An alumnus of the OII DPhil programme, he is engaged in ongoing collaborative research as a member of the Public Policy Programme at the Turing Institute.

• Privacy Overview
• Strictly Necessary Cookies
• Google Analytics

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

• moove_gdrp_popup -  a cookie that saves your preferences for cookie settings. Without this cookie, the screen offering you cookie options will appear on every page you visit.

This cookie remains on your computer for 365 days, but you can adjust your preferences at any time by clicking on the "Cookie settings" link in the website footer.

Please note that if you visit the Oxford University website, any cookies you accept there will appear on our site here too, this being a subdomain. To control them, you must change your cookie preferences on the main University website.

This website uses Google Tags and Google Analytics to collect anonymised information such as the number of visitors to the site, and the most popular pages. Keeping these cookies enabled helps the OII improve our website.

Enabling this option will allow cookies from:

• Google Analytics - tracking visits to the ox.ac.uk and oii.ox.ac.uk domains

These cookies will remain on your website for 365 days, but you can edit your cookie preferences at any time via the "Cookie Settings" button in the website footer.

Please enable Strictly Necessary Cookies first so that we can save your preferences!

Guidelines to Writing a Research Proposal

All Doctor of Philosophy (DPhil) students must write an acceptable research proposal.

This has a clear and explicit purpose:

• it makes certain that you have a worthwhile research project - you have a good grasp of the relevant literature and the major issues, and that your methodology is sound;
• it will show that you have the competence and work-plan to complete the research;
• it includes sufficient information for us to evaluate the proposed study; and
• we can be certain we have the right staff expertise to supervise you.

All research proposals must address the question of what you plan to accomplish and why you want to and how you are going to do it.

A research proposal is usually around 2,500 words long although there is no upper or lower limit to this.

In preparing a research proposal, the first thing that you have to do is to decide what it really is that you want to know more about. The questions that you want to research have to viable as a research project and lead to the creation of new knowledge and understanding.

Your research proposal should include a section on each of the following areas:

Ethical considerations

You will need to give consideration to issues of power and confidentiality. You should read any appropriate ethical guidelines and ask yourself how/whether you project follows these. [All research students at Oxford University are required (before they commence fieldwork) to complete the Central University Research Ethics Committee (CUREC) checklist and obtain permission to undertake any fieldwork].

Time scales

It is important that you map out a reasonable schedule of your work so that you can monitor your own progress and manage your project effectively. Start with your intended finishing date and do not underestimate the amount of time that it takes to finalise your drafts into a finished product.

Dissemination

A key indicator of the work of much research is whether it is of publishable quality. You might like to give some consideration at this stage as to what sorts of things might be publishable and where you would like them to appear. This is especially important if you wish to pursue a career as an academic in a UK university.

When you have completed all of this then get other people, your peers as well as those more experienced than you, to read it and comment. This will help you to revise the proposal before you submit it. You can also make contact with departmental staff whose research interests are in a similar area to those you intend to undertake. They would be happy to give you advice and to discuss possible supervision.

Statement of purpose and research proposal

What documents are required, who to contact if you have questions.

• What should the documents contain?

All courses require you to submit a statement of purpose (sometimes called a 'personal statement') or a research proposal. Some courses require both.

The How to apply section of the relevant  course page will state which of these documents are required, the specifications and the criteria by which they will be assessed.

There is one slot on the ‘Supporting Documents’ tab of the application form for documents of this category. If your course requires both a statement of purpose (or personal statement) and a research proposal, you should submit them within the same document with a clear subheading for each, unless specifically stated otherwise in the How to apply section of the course page.

For courses that require a piece of written work, please note that your research proposal or personal statement does not fulfil this requirement.

If your statement of purpose or research proposal significantly exceeds the permitted length stated on the relevant course page, it will be removed from your application and your application will be considered incomplete and is unlikely to be assessed by the academic department. If you submit an unnecessary statement of purpose or research proposal, it will be removed from your application. 

If you have questions about the permitted content and length of your statement of purpose (personal statement) or research proposal, contact the relevant academic department using the contact details on the relevant course page.

What should the document contain?

Your statement of purpose or research proposal must be entirely your own work. Departments may screen your statement of purpose or research proposal using plagiarism-detection software. For more information, consult our guidance on plagiarism as well as the guidance on the use of artificial intelligence tools within this Application Guide.

Visit our How-to guides for advice on writing a personal statement and writing a research proposal .

Application form

After starting an application via the course page , you can save your progress and continue it later: 

Continue your application

• Courses A-Z
• How-to guides: How to write a personal statement
• How-to guides: How to write a research proposal

Can't find what you're looking for?

If you have a query about graduate admissions at Oxford, we're here to help:

Ask a question

Privacy Policy

Postgraduate Applicant Privacy Policy

• Resources Research Proposals --> Industrial Updates Webinar - Research Meet
• Countries-Served
• Add-on-services

Text particle

feel free to change the value of the variable "message"

Research Proposal Sample- Oxford University

The purpose of the research proposal is to demonstrate that the research you wish to undertake is significant, necessary and feasible, that you will be able to make an original contribution to the field, and that the project can be completed within the normal time period. Some general guidelines and advice on structuring your research proposal are provided below. Research proposal should be between 1,000 and 3,000 words depending on the programme (excluding the reference list/bibliography).

Title sheet

The research proposal title sheet should include your name, the degree program to which you are applying and your research proposal title.

Topic statement

The topic statement of the research proposal should establish the general subject area you will be working in and how your topic relates to it. Explain briefly why your topic is significant and what contribution your research will make to the field.

Research aims

The aim of the research proposal should set out the specific aims of your research and, if appropriate to your discipline, the main research questions.

Review of the literature

Literature review in the research proposal should provide a brief review of the significant literature and current research in your field to place your own proposed research in context and to establish its potential contribution to the field.

Study design / theoretical orientation

Outline the theoretical approaches taken in your topic and indicate which approach or approaches you propose to use in your research and why you plan to do so.

Research methods

Briefly describe your proposed research methods, including the type of information and sources to be used, the main research methods to be employed, any resources needed and any ethical or safety issues identified.

Tentative chapter outline

You may wish to include a tentative chapter outline if available at this stage.

References/Bibliography

List all publications cited in your research proposal using a suitable academic referencing system. (Not included in the 3,000 word count.)

Beginning research students are often anxious about page count of the research proposal. Again, the number of pages depends on the project. But as a guide, since the research proposal is to be between 500 and 2000 words, we may suggest 1.5 pages for introduction, 2.5 pages for methodology, 3.5 pages for literature review and 1.5 for the rest. But, as you are free to merge different sections such numbers may be more distractive than helpful.

Remediation of Misconceptions about Chemical Equilibrium:  a CAI Strategy

Introduction

Teachers and researchers have noted that students continue to hold onto naïve ideas about natural phenomena even after they have been instructed on them. These naïve ideas are in marked contrast with scientific conceptions and have been called misconceptions (Osborne & Wittrock, 1985). Misconceptions have been shown to be very resistant to change and many students complete their schooling while still clinging to these misconceptions. They may use the scientific explanations in examinations, but in their beliefs the misconceptions linger on (Novak, 1988). 

The crucial role misconceptions play in impeding concept learning is well established.  Many studies continue to document misconceptions in various science topics. However, very few explanatory studies have been conducted to investigate the nature of conceptual change and stability. Practical instructional strategies based on conceptual change theories have not been fully researched and their curriculum implications remain in the realm of the unknown. 

The purpose of this study is twofold. First, to develop a computer‐assisted instructional (CAI) strategy based on a model of conceptual change to challenge previously identified misconceptions in a topic which is generally found to be difficult to learn. Second, to determine the effectiveness of the developed strategy in a sample of 500 Year‐12 students who have misconceptions in that area. The topic area chosen is chemical equilibrium– an area in which earlier researchers have identified 14 different misconceptions. (Hackling & Garnett, 1985). 

Chemistry at school level. Non‐traditional methods of remediating misconceptions, especially the use of CAI, have not been pursued. This study, therefore, may suggest useful ways of teaching this topic. Additionally, the study may contribute towards improving the way students are taught and curriculum materials are produced.

More specifically, the research questions of the study are the following:

What misconceptions are held about chemical equilibrium by Year‐12 chemistry students across Western Australia? What are the challenges in developing a CAI package to address the misconceptions in chemical equilibrium? What features are judged by the students as most effective? To what extent are misconceptions of chemical equilibrium changed by working through the CAI package? How does the incidence of misconceptions about chemical equilibrium compare with previous studies? What are the views of chemistry teachers on the utility of such a CAI package?

Proposed Methodology

In this study, I propose to use a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods to gather data. The incidences of misconceptions are more amenable to data collection by quantitative methods.  Participant observation, interviews and reflection are more suited when the data need to be richer, as for example, in the case of attitudes to use the CAI package.  

The subjects for this study will be Year‐12 students in Western Australia studying for the School Board examinations. My plan is to sample all schools where there are Year‐12 students and computer laboratories. 

Pencil and paper tests and an interview instrument developed by Hackling and Garnett (1985) will be used in pretest and posttest phases of the research. An interview instrument will be developed for the teachers, piloted and used.

Instruments

CAI PackageThe CAI package will be developed to address each misconception identified by Hackling and Garnett (1985). The nature of the misconception will be analyzed to identify the chemical propositions misunderstood by the students. Then the strategy of Posner et al. (1982) would be implemented to bring about the conceptual change. 

Procedure Students will be exposed to traditional instruction in chemical equilibrium and then tested to identify misconceptions. Students will then work through CAI package. A post test will be administered. The data from these will be triangulated by interviews with students and teachers. Control groups may be used. 

Data analysis

The data will be analyzed by statistical packages, interviews transcribed, and coded to obtain the outcomes. 

Limitations and delimitations

Issues with the study include the validity of generalization given that a particular topic is used. Further, the novelty effect and visuals may make the material easier to recall. 

Literature Review

In the past two decades researchers have found out that by the time students meet scientific explanations of natural phenomena in the classroom, they have already developed their own naïve explanations of these phenomena. Further, these preconceptions are often at odds with scientific explanations, resistant to change and impede the acquisition of scientifically correct conceptions (Cosgrove & Osborne, 1985).  Researchers have catalogued these misconceptions in many topics of science, found their nature and acquisition, persistence and change (Posner, Strike, Hewson & Gertzog, 1982; Osborne and Witrock , 1985).

White (1988) defines concept as a collection of memory elements that together can be grouped under a label and the pattern of the links between the elements (p.24).  Concepts that differ from scientifically correct ones have been variously called misconceptions, preconceptions and alternate conceptions (Pines & Leith, 1981). Novak (1988) noted that misconceptions are learnt very early in life from daily experiences. Hashweh (1986) has given explanations for the persistence of misconceptions.

Misconceptions about chemical equilibrium are found to be common in high school students (Hackling and Garnett, 1985). In particular, Camacho and Good (1989) and Hackling and Garnett (1985) have found over 14 misconceptions in chemistry students.  Because misconceptions are highly resistant to change, they are likely to persist into adulthood unless successful intervention strategies occur. According to Posner, et. al. (1982) there are four important conditions for conceptual change: (1) there must be dissatisfaction with the existing misconception as result of accumulated store of unsolved puzzles and anomalies;  (2) a new conception must be intelligible to the student; (3) a new conception must appear initially plausible and (4) a new conception should lead to new insights and discoveries.  

Hashweh (1986) proposed a model of conceptual change which stressed the conflict between misconception and scientific conception within the cognitive structure itself. Van Hise (1988) suggested a method of engendering conceptual change based on three steps: (1) provide opportunities to make student ideas explicit and give them opportunities to test those ideas; (2) confront them with situations where their misconceptions cannot be used as explanation, (3) help them accommodate the new conception by providing opportunities to test them and experience their fruitfulness. 

Several researchers have suggested the use of computers in conceptual change instruction (Reif, 1987). The unique capabilities of computers can be exploited to implement instructional strategies impossible with other teaching methods. They include the capability to show time‐dependent processes, dynamic graphics and maintain records of student activity on the package. They can also focus on particular misconceptions depending on student. Thus, it seems very plausible that a computer package especially developed to teach chemical equilibrium can effect conceptual change in students using them.  Time Table for Completing the Thesis

1. Camacho, M. & Good, R. (1989). Problem solving and chemical equilibrium: successful versus unsuccessful performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 3,  251 – 272.

2. Cosgrove, M. & Osborne, R. (1985). Lesson frameworks for changing children’s ideas.  In Osborne, R, & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in Science. Auckland: Heinemann.

3. Hackling, M.W. & Garnett, P. (1985). Misconceptions of chemical equilibrium. European Journal of Science Education, 7, 2,  205–214. 

4. Hashweh, M. (1986). Toward an explanation of conceptual change. European Journal of Science Education,  8, 3,  229–249.

5. Novak, J.D. (1988). Learning science and the science of learning. Studies in Science Education, 67, 15. 77–101.

6. Osborne, R. & Wittrock, M. (1985). The generative learning model and its implications for science education. Studies in Science Education, 12, 59–87.

7. Pines, A.L. & Leith, S. (1981). What is concept learning? Theory, recent research and some teaching suggestions. The Australian Science Teachers Journal, 27, 3, 15–20.

8. Posner, G., Strike, K. Hewson, P. & Gertzog, W. (1982). Accommodation of a science conception: toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 2, 211–227.

9. Reif, F. (1987). Instructional design, cognition and technology: applications to the teaching of science concepts, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 4,  309–324.

10. Van Hise, Y. (1988). Student misconceptions in mechanics: an international problem?  The Physics Teacher, November, 1988, 498–502. White, R. (1988). Learning science. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd. 

https://www.conted.ox.ac.uk/about/writing-your-research-proposal

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.