Exploring the challenges that math teachers face in implementing the revised curriculum and Introduction: nee…

Exploring the challenges that math teachers face in implementing the revised curriculum and

Introduction: needs substantial improvement

The introduction must clearly introduce the topic, define key concepts, explain the contextual background, state the significance of the study, and lead logically to the research problem.

The current introduction is too brief and informal and does not adequately situate the study.

2. Academic writing style: unsatisfactory

The manuscript reads as conversational rather than scholarly. Expressions such as “It's tough for them,” “It's about time,” “We're helping to deepen our understanding,” and “This study is excited to focus…” are inappropriate for academic writing.

Recommendation: Use formal, objective academic language throughout. For example, replace “It's tough for them” with “Mathematics teachers continue to experience significant challenges in implementing the revised curriculum.”

3. Evidence and referencing: insufficient

Numerous factual claims are unsupported by citation (e.g., “The proposal looks at why curriculum implementation matters so much…,” “The curriculum ties directly into Vision 2030,” “The training provided simply wasn't enough”).

Recommendation: Provide appropriate citations for almost every factual statement and ensure claims are supported by relevant literature or data.

4.Literature review: missing

A comprehensive literature review is required. The proposal must critically review relevant studies, identify prevailing findings, and position the proposed study within the existing scholarship.

5. Objectives: incorrectly phrased

The current wording (“This study pursues several goals…”) does not constitute clear research objectives.

Recommendation: State specific, measurable research objectives beginning with action verbs (e.g., “to investigate,” “to determine,” “to assess,” “to compare”).

6. Research gap: needs stronger justification

The assertion that “urban schools have not been studied” is unsubstantiated.

Recommendation: Demonstrate the gap by citing how many studies exist, where they were conducted, and which aspects they did not address.

7. Delimitations and wording: informal language

Phrases such as “our school” and “We will be investigating…” are informal and imprecise.

Recommendation: Use neutral, formal phrasing (e.g., “the selected school”; “The study will investigate…”).

8. References: require careful correction

The reference list contains inconsistent spacing, incomplete formatting, broken author names, and inconsistent application of APA style.

Recommendation: Revise the reference list to conform to a single, consistent citation style (preferably APA, if required by the faculty) and verify every entry for completeness and accuracy.

9. Formatting and presentation: inconsistent

The document exhibits extra spaces, random numbering, broken paragraphs, inconsistent font/spacing, and retained template instructions (e.g., “(NB: Choose your applicable qualification only)”) on the cover page.

Recommendation: Correct all formatting inconsistencies and remove template instructions prior to resubmission.

10. Methodology: absent

The research methodology section is missing in its entirety and must be developed.

Recommendation: Provide a full methodology that details the research design, population and sample, instruments, data collection procedures, and data analysis plan.

Tags: opportunity