App Attribution
Lit-Based Proposal Builder was developed by J. Arawiran with assistance from OpenAI Codex, a GPT-5-based coding assistant (June 2026).
This app is a guided academic thinking tool designed to support the development of research proposals. It assists users in organizing ideas, identifying research problems, aligning research questions with methods, and drafting proposal components. It does not replace adviser feedback, instructor requirements, department policies, institutional guidelines, or official ethics review processes.
Data Privacy and Local Storage
The app saves draft work locally in the user's own browser storage. The developer, instructor, and app do not receive, collect, or store the student's answers through this tool. Draft data is not transmitted to a cloud server by the app. Students should still use the Download Backup feature before changing devices, clearing browser data, or updating the app.
Optional app-experience feedback also remains local until the student downloads and submits an anonymous App Feedback Report. That report excludes student identity and proposal answers.
When the app opens online, it requests only the small same-site version.json file from GitHub Pages to check whether a newer release exists. Proposal answers are not included in that request. If the request fails or the user is offline, the app continues without an update message.
How to Cite This App
Ordinary student use does not require citation. When the app, its workflow, or its scaffolds are discussed in a paper or presentation, an optional citation is:
Arawiran, J. (2026). Lit-Based Proposal Builder (Version loading...) [Computer software].
Reproduced or presented scaffolds and instructional materials should credit J. Arawiran. Adaptation or redistribution requires permission while institutional ownership is being clarified.
Rights and Use
Original app design and instructional scaffolds © 2026 J. Arawiran, subject to applicable institutional policies. Third-party software and institutional materials remain the property of their respective owners.
Ordinary student, teacher, research, and other noncommercial educational use of the app is permitted. When the app, its workflow, or its scaffolds are reproduced or presented, J. Arawiran should be credited.
Commercial use, paid redistribution, inclusion in fee-based products or services, or commercial adaptation requires prior written permission from the applicable rights holder. This is an interim rights notice while institutional ownership is being clarified; it is not a definitive software license.
Third-Party and Institutional Materials
The app includes or relies on PDF.js, JSZip, and an HNU Consent Forms v2-based draft-template workflow. Their respective rights and notices remain with their authors or institutions. The generated ethics forms are drafts and do not replace the current official HNU or institutional ERB forms.
Conceptual and Educational Foundations
The design of this proposal builder draws upon established literature in research methodology, educational research, research ethics, and reflective inquiry. These sources informed the structure and guidance provided by the app. They are not automatically part of a student's proposal references unless they are directly consulted and cited by the student.
Research Methodology Foundations
The proposal-development workflow is informed by widely used approaches to research design and proposal writing, particularly the work of:
- Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. on qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research design.
- Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. on educational research methods and research ethics.
These works informed the app's guidance on problem formulation, purpose statements, research questions, methodological alignment, and proposal structure.
Research Ethics Foundations
The ethical guidance embedded in the app is informed by:
- Philippine Health Research Ethics Board (PHREB) National Ethical Guidelines for Health and Health-Related Research (2022).
- American Educational Research Association (AERA) Code of Ethics.
- British Educational Research Association (BERA) Ethical Guidelines.
- Ethical principles discussed in Creswell and Creswell and in Cohen, Manion, and Morrison.
These sources informed prompts related to informed consent, confidentiality, anonymity, voluntary participation, potential risks and benefits, vulnerable participants, and conflicts of interest.
Degree-Level Readiness and PQF Reference
The app can be used for SHS/basic education research, bachelor's work, master's work, and doctoral work. For SHS/basic education, the app uses PQF Level 3 as a formative reference, looking for structured research tasks, emerging independence, accountability for outputs, and feasible application of foundational research knowledge. For bachelor's, master's, and doctoral work, the app uses the revised Philippine Qualifications Framework domains as a formative guide for degree-level readiness: Responsibility and Autonomy, Knowledge and Understanding, and Skills and Application.
PQF reference used: PQF-NCC Resolution 2026-02. This app provides formative guidance only and does not certify PQF compliance. Verify the latest PQF issuances through official PQF-NCC, DepEd, CHED, TESDA, PRC, or institutional sources.
Research Thinking Philosophy
The app reflects the view that research is a process of refining explanations through evidence, discussion, and revision rather than defending fixed ideas. This perspective is reflected in the Research Thinking Guidelines used in the course and in the design of the A1-A4 proposal-writing scaffolds developed by J. Arawiran.
The app also reflects the perspective articulated by Schwartz, M. A. (2008), The Importance of Stupidity in Scientific Research. This work influenced the treatment of uncertainty, revision, intellectual risk-taking, and the understanding that confusion and incomplete knowledge are normal parts of the research process.
Selected Reference Anchors
- Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide.
- Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research Methods in Education.
- Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches.
- PHREB. (2022). National Ethical Guidelines for Health and Health-Related Research.
- Schwartz, M. A. (2008). The Importance of Stupidity in Scientific Research. Journal of Cell Science, 121, 1771.
- Brookhart, S. M. (2013). Guidance for grading group work. ASCD Educational Leadership.
- CATME. (n.d.). Research and citations for CATME Peer Evaluation. CATME.org.
- Ohland, M. W., et al. (2012). The comprehensive assessment of team member effectiveness: Development of a behaviorally anchored rating scale for self and peer evaluation. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(4), 609-630.
Team Contribution Record
The Team Contribution Record is an original, nonvalidated developmental record informed by literature on individual learning, group-process evidence, and self- and peer evaluation. It does not reproduce the CATME instrument, behavioral anchors, scoring method, or exceptional-condition classifications. Advisers, not the app, analyze and interpret the records.
Use Reminder
Students should treat all generated content as a working draft. Final research decisions, methodological choices, ethical considerations, proposal requirements, and formatting requirements should be reviewed with the adviser, instructor, program head, dean, or other authorized academic personnel.
