The Research Project That Grew Too Large
Kenji is preparing his Japanese research project on regional dialects. His original plan was a 6-minute presentation comparing three dialects. Two weeks before the due date he tells his teacher he now wants to cover six dialects, add a video interview, and submit a 12-minute presentation. He has completed about 40% of the original plan. His class has 22 students, and the teacher has already approved 21 other proposals against the same outline, which specifies a maximum presentation length and a required focus on one clearly defined topic. Kenji argues that 'more content shows more depth' and that the extra interview is 'primary research'. The teacher must respond before the deadline and consider what feedback to give and how to record the outcome.
1. Should the teacher approve the expanded scope? Justify your decision against the assessment conditions.
Read the worked answer
The teacher should not approve the expansion, and should explain why in terms of the conditions rather than personal preference.
- Length limit. The outline sets a maximum presentation length. A 12-minute presentation breaches it, and the criteria cannot fairly reward content delivered outside the permitted format.
- Focus requirement. The outline requires one clearly defined topic. Six dialects spread thinly is less clearly defined than three compared in depth; breadth is not the same as depth.
- Comparability. Twenty-one other students were approved against the same conditions. Approving a doubled scope would make Kenji's task different from everyone else's and complicate moderation.
- Time risk. With two weeks left and 40% done, tripling the scope makes completion unlikely, which risks a weaker outcome than the original plan.
The teacher should redirect Kenji: keep three dialects, use the interview as supporting evidence within the existing time, and deepen analysis rather than adding topics. Depth is demonstrated by analysis and evaluation, not by volume.
2. How should the teacher give this feedback so that Kenji understands the reasoning and can still improve?
Read the worked answer
The feedback should be specific, criteria-referenced, and forward-looking.
- Acknowledge the strength. The interview idea is genuinely valuable primary research; the teacher should say so and show how to fit it in.
- Name the constraint. State plainly which conditions are breached (maximum length, single defined focus) and why they exist - fairness and comparability.
- Show the trade-off. Explain that six dialects would reduce analytical depth per dialect, whereas three allow comparison of features, speakers, and context - which is what the criteria reward.
- Give a concrete plan. E.g. keep three dialects, use a 60–90 second excerpt of the interview as evidence, and spend the remaining time on analysis of variation.
- Set a checkpoint. Agree a date (e.g. one week before submission) to review progress so the plan stays on track.
Feedback framed around criteria and fairness is more likely to be accepted than a bare 'no', and it keeps the student's own research initiative intact.
3. If Kenji insists on submitting the 12-minute presentation, how should the teacher record and manage the outcome?
Read the worked answer
The teacher should apply the outline consistently and document the decision.
- Apply the stated penalty or limit. If the outline specifies a maximum length, work submitted beyond it is assessed only on the permitted portion, or the stated consequence is applied. The teacher must not improvise a penalty not in the outline.
- Inform the student in writing before submission, so Kenji can still choose to trim the presentation.
- Document the advice given - the earlier feedback, the deadline, and the student's response - so an external moderator can see the process was fair and transparent.
- Avoid retrospective changes. The teacher should not alter criteria for one student, nor let the extra content influence marks beyond the permitted format.
The underlying judgement: consistency of conditions protects validity. Recording the reasoning is as important as the decision itself.