- Provide a framework for studies (It calls for breadths and depth of research, Is not a yes/no question)
- Takes a stance (Allows you to argue some point, Cannot be a recitation of facts or a list)
- Format (It is specific, The wording makes sense)
2. Review the following EQs and tell us if it meets the rule of 3 criteria, and why it does or why it doesn't.
a. What is the best treatment a physical therapist can provide for a leg injury?
I feel like this EQ does a good job of providing a good stance on the topic The only aspect that I believe should be possibly fixed is to specify which type of leg injury so as to provide an even more specific framework for research
b. What is the most effective course of action a bystander can do in a medical emergency?
It's a solid EQ because it takes a very specific stance, but I feel like its a little bit too vague. I'm sure there are many different situation where a bystander should take different courses of action and this might affect the answers. Just specifying what type of medical emergency would make this EQ more solid.
c. What is the most effective way to promote education to socioeconomically disadvantaged teenagers in Los Angeles?
This EQ is pretty solid in the sense that it takes a firm stance and it provides specific framework for research. Its already as specific as it can be unless they decide to specify which sections of L.A. or what gender or heritage are the target students.
d. How can you troubleshoot cellular coverage in a city?
I feel like this EQ is too vague. It should probably be more specific as in to the size of the city. Also, I think that it just might cause problems later on as even if there are different variations on how to trouble shoot the coverage, their solutions might be a little similar to each other.
3. Based on your review of the rule of 3 and your experience with assessing four EQs, please write another draft EQ for your senior project.
What is the best way to successfully run a karate class?
No comments:
Post a Comment