Excellent Research Report

How to write Excellent Research Report

 Keywords: Guidelines for writing excellent research report; research Abstract ;writing  literature review; Research Topic;  Introduction; research Objectives ;  research Questions ; research Literature review ; research  Methodology/ R-design; research  Samples; research  Tools of Data Collection; research Data Analysis & Result;research Response to Questions ; research Discussion ; research  Conclusion; research  Suggestions; research   Ethics of ;  research Written Report Organization;  research  Citation.

How to write an excellent research report

How to do and write an excellent research report, read Guidelines for writing research.

The researcher developed a 20 points fillable rubric and detail guidelines for the twenty points.

3.5          Guidelines for Evaluation

Scale for Marking:

                                  1 Excellent; 2 Good; 3 Satisfactory; 4 Unsatisfactory; 5 Not included

1.                   Research Topic

Excellent:

                  The topic is researchable (Poticell& Olivarez, 1997).

                  Appropriateness of the research topic (University of Peshawar, 2012).

                   The topic is indispensible part of the education (Gay, 2000).

                  Topic is clear and self-explanatory (Creswell, 1994).

                  Topic is challengeable(Lovitts, 2005).

                  The outcomes of the topic are productive for the well-being of society (Lovitts, 2005).

                  Topic fulfills the criteria of APA manual(APA, 2010).

Good:

                  The topic is workable(Creswell, 1994).

                  The topic is related to the field of Education(University of Peshawar, 2012).

                  The topic will be a good inclusion of knowledge in the field of. Education(Creswell, 1994).

                  The topic fulfills the rules of APA manual (APA, 2010).

Satisfactory:

                  The topic is relevant to the field of study.

                  The study will incorporate new knowledge to the field of study or one of its subcomponents(Creswell, 1994).

                  The topic fulfills the rules of APA manual to some extent (APA, 2010).

Unsatisfactory:

                  The topic is irrelevant to the field of study.

                  Too many research studies already available on the same topic.

                  The topic violates the rules of APA manual (APA, 2010).

2.                   Abstract

Excellent:

                  A very precise abstract of the study.

                  Give clear idea to the reader about the research.

                  Give clear introduction, objectives, method and conclusion of the study (Dirks, 2012).

                  Incorporate sample of the study and how the sample was chosen(Creswell, 1994).

                  Discus the procedure of data collection (Gay, 2000).

                  Analyze data and how the conclusion is drawn from the study (Gay, 2000).

                  Present finding and conclusion of the study(Creswell, 1994).

                  Critically analyze research.

                  Abstract fulfill the rules of APA Manual (APA, 2010).

Good:

                  A good summary of the study, gives reader the basic idea what the research is about.

                  Identify major components of the study; objectives of the study, Sample of the study and how the sample was selected(Dirks, 2012).

                  Present result of the study(Creswell, 1994).

                  Abstract fulfill the rules of APA Manual to Maximum level (APA, 2010).

Satisfactory:

                  Give reader a basic summary of the research.

                  Abstract fulfills the rules of APA Manual to some extent (APA, 2010).

                   Cannot motivate the reader to go through to the whole research.

Unsatisfactory:

                  Abstract is unable to provide a good summary of the research.

                  Ambiguous, unmotivated and unrelated information.

                  Do not follow the rules of APA Manual (APA, 2010).

3.                   Introduction

Excellent:

                  A very detail objectives and impressive Introduction of the topic (Yount, 2006).

                  Gives clear justification for every component of the topic and its subtopics, with clear definitions and references (Gay, 2000).

                  Clearly state the problem of the study and that problem are testable through research (Gay, 2000).

                  Provided the purpose of the investigation (Yount, 2006).

                  Explain the significance of the study and why the study is so important (Gay, 2000).

                  Hypotheses are testable and answerable (Gay, 2000).

                  Limitations and delimitation of the study are clearly stated which could affect the study(Gay, 2000).

                  The researcher followed the guideline of APA Manual (APA, 2010).

Good:

                  Clear introduction of the selected topic with explanation of subtopics(Gay, 2000).

                  Clear statement of the problem(Lovitts, 2005).

                  Significance of the study(Lovitts, 2005).

                  Gives limitations and delimitation of the study, which could affect the study(Gay, 2000).

                  The researcher followed the guideline of APA Manual (APA, 2010).

Satisfactory:

                  Introduction and statement of the problem with justification and significance of the problem, in very simple and acceptable words(Lovitts, 2005).

                  The researcher followed the guideline of APA Manual (APA, 2010).

Unsatisfactory:

                  Vague introduction of the topic(Lovitts, 2005).

                  Poor statement of the problem and justification of the study(Lovitts, 2005).

                  Introduction and its subtopics were loosely formulated(Lovitts, 2005).

                  Ignored the major rules of APA Manual (APA, 2010).

4.                   Objectives

Excellent:

                  Convincing statement of objectives that determines the challenge of the research and its applications (Rice University, 2008).

                  Objectives strongly support the topic (De-Miguel & Mario, 2010).

                  Objectives are helpful in the process of research.

                  Objectives lead to the solution of the research problem.

             

              Good:

                  Objectives and applications are clearly stated, motivated and challenging(Rice University, 2008).

                  Objectives support the topic ultimately or one of its subtopics(De-Miguel & Mario, 2010). 

              Satisfactory:

                  Objectives or applications are partly clear and related to the study(Rice University, 2008).

              Unsatisfactory:

                  Objectives and applications are unclear, and not related to the study.

             

5.                   Research Questions

Excellent:

                  Research questions are clearly stated (Creswell, 1994).

                  Questions are focused and relevant to the study and followed by hypothesis (Duquesne University, 2006).

                  Questions have the direct relationship to the study and concept of the study (Duquesne University, 2006).

                  The research questions have the direct relationship to the objectives or to achieve the objectives of the study (Duquesne University, 2006).

Good:

                  Research questions are clear (Creswell, 1994).

                  Research questions have a direct relationship to the study or one of its sub-fields(Duquesne University, 2006).

Satisfactory:

                  Research questions have a direct relationship to some extent to the study or one of its subfields(Duquesne University, 2006).

             

Unsatisfactory:

                  Research questions are irrelevant and have no relationship to the study or its subfields.

6.                   Literature review

Excellent:

                  Historical background of the study and background of all relevant variables (Gay, 2000).

                  Identifies all relevant major studies (Rice University, 2008).

                  Gives complete abstracts of the studies with critical analysis and their shortcoming, incorporate discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of the previous studies with respect to current study (Gay, 2000).

                  Synthesized and compare the result of different studies (Gay, 2000).

                  Organized least related study first and most related last (Gay, 2000).

                  Latest studies are included in the research(Lovitts, 2005; UoP, 2012).

                  Most sources cited are primary(Lovitts, 2005).

                  Gives a brief summary at the end and discusses the possible implication of the current study (Gay, 2000).

                  The researcher followed the guideline of APA Manual (APA, 2010).

              Good:

                  Has reference to latest major studies(Lovitts, 2005; University of Peshawar, 2012).

                  Discusses them and places them accordingly (Creswell, 1994).

                  Gives complete abstracts of the studies with critical analysis and their shortcoming(Gay, 2000).

                  Follows researcher guideline of APA Manual.

Satisfactory:

                  Cite only few major works or more relevant literature required(Rice University, 2008).

                  Place the research with the context.

                  Provides basic summary of the research.

              Unsatisfactory:

                  Fails to cite major relevant studies or incorporation of previous work needed.

                  Provides vague summary of the research.

7.                   Methodology/ R-design

Excellent:

                  Research design was carefully selected that is best suited for the study (Gay, 2000).

                  Research design was applicable to address hypotheses and research questions (Creswell, 1994; De-Miguel & Mario, 2010). 

                  Provides detail procedure of method used for data collection and data analysis (Dirks, 2012).

                  Provides description of the subjects and variables(Lovitts, 2005).

                  Describes population, sample, instrument, design and procedure (Gay, 2000).

                  Procedure of sample selection is clearly described (Gay, 2000).

                  Appropriate tools were used to conduct the study (Gay, 2000).

                  The researcher used valid, reliable and verifiable research methods(Lovitts, 2005;De-Miguel & Mario, 2010).

                  The researcher followed the guideline of APA manual in methodology section (APA, 2010).

Good:

                  Research design was good(Lovitts, 2005).

                  Appropriate tools were used to conduct the study (Gay, 2000).

                  Procedure of sample selection is clearly described (Gay, 2000).

                  The researcher used a valid method for the study(Lovitts, 2005;De-Miguel & Mario, 2010).

                   The researcher understands the need and requirement of his topic and research question(Lovitts, 2005).

                  The researcher followed the guideline of APA manual in methodology section (APA, 2010).

Satisfactory:

                  The researcher used a satisfactory research design(Lovitts, 2005).

                  Lot of space available for improvement.

                  Better tools could have been used to achieve better result(Lovitts, 2005).

Unsatisfactory:

                  Research design is not suitable for this study, with lot of flaws and errors and out of context.

8.                   Samples

Excellent:

                  The researcher gives the description of the entire population (Yount, 2006).

                  The researcher uses representative sample of the target population (Gay, 2000).

                  Samples are randomly selected according to the requirements of the desired study (APA, 2012; Yount, 2006).

                  Gives detail step by step description how the sample is selected (Yount, 2006).

                  The researcher followed the APA guideline during sample selection (APA, 2010).

Good:

                  Used appropriate sample for the study (Creswell, 1994).

                  Sample was selected randomly according to the desired study(Yount, 2006).

                  The researcher followed the APA guideline during sample selection (APA, 2010).

Satisfactory:

                  Selected sample was up to the APA’s acceptable level and representative of the required target Population.

Unsatisfactory:

                  Selected sample size did not fulfill the criteria of APA’s manual 6th edition and nor is it a representative sample of the population.

9.                   Tools of Data Collection

Excellent:

                  Researcher selected the best appropriate tool for data collection that fulfills the requirements of the study to optimum level (Yount, 2006).

                  The researcher explained the procedure of data collection and the tool and selected how he will collect data with that tool (Yount, 2006).

                  The researcher followed the APA manual guidelines for data collection and the tool of data collection (APA, 2010).

Good:

                  The researcher used good tool for data collection (Creswell, 1994).

                  The researcher explains the procedure of data collection (Creswell, 1994).

Satisfactory:

                  The researcher used acceptable tool for data collection (Creswell, 1994).

Unsatisfactory:

                  The researcher used improper tool for data collection.

10.               Focus on Research Problem

Excellent:

                  Focus on the research problem and its arguments (IR University of Japan, 2002).

                   Arguments are clear and related to the study problem (IR University of Japan, 2002).

                  Establish clear relationship between research questions and results of the study (IR University of Japan, 2002).

                  For every statement in the study there is an argument and answer to the question (IR University of Japan, 2002).

Good:

                  The researcher kept focus on the research problem(IR University of Japan, 2002).

                  Gave good arguments and counter arguments during his research(IR University of Japan, 2002).

Satisfactory:

                  The researcher kept focus on the research problem but some time the researcher lost his focus and incorporated material which was not necessary for the study.

Unsatisfactory:

                  The researcher never focused on his research problem and discussed irrelevant questions in his research.

11.               Data Analysis & Result

Excellent:

                  The researcher gave a comprehensive summary of the collected data (Creswell, 1994).

                  Result calculated, executed carefully and presented comprehensively with clarity (Gay, 2000; University of Peshawar, 2012).

                  Used Statistical analyses to answer research questions and hypotheses (Yount, 2006;Lovitts, 2005).

                  All necessary groups and tables were taken into consideration (Gay, 2000; Lovitts, 2005).

                  All possible concept and themes were derived from the data(Lovitts, 2005).

                  The researcher clearly analyzed the data and linked it to the overt hypotheses and the questions asked in statement of the problem (University of Victoria, 2002).

Good:

                  Provides a comprehensive summary of the collected data (Creswell, 1994).

                  Result calculated and presented clearly(Lovitts, 2005).

                  Used required tools for data analysis(Lovitts, 2005; Creswell, 1994).

                  All necessary groups and tables were taken into consideration(Gay, 2000; Lovitts, 2005).

                  Maximum concept and themes were derived from the data(Rice University, 2008).

Satisfactory: 

                  Minimum result calculated and presented with some slight oversight during presentation(Rice University, 2008).

                  Used required tools for data analysis(Lovitts, 2005; Creswell, 1994).

                  Necessary groups and tables were taken into consideration(Gay, 2000; Lovitts, 2005).

Unsatisfactory:

                  Minimal results calculated and presented with major errors in analysis and interpretation.

                  Poor selection of tools for data collection.

                  All the tables were not taken into consideration. Presented Poor explanation of the tables and poor arguments.

 12.         Response to Questions

Excellent:

                  Comprehensive answers that demonstrates deep knowledge of the research scholar in his field (Rice University, 2008; Lovitts, 2005).

                  Used statistical analyses to answer research questions and hypotheses in Discussion section (Duquesne University, 2006; Lovitts, 2005).

                  Every question and hypothesis was answered in the light of results and data analyses (Rice University, 2008; Lovitts, 2005).

                  In discussion section the researcher provided comprehensive answers to the questions which were raised in the introduction section (Duquesne University, 2006; Lovitts, 2005).

Good:

                  Knowledgeable answers that demonstrate deep knowledge of the research scholar in his field (Rice University, 2008).

                  In discussion section the researcher answered the questions which were raised in introduction section demonstrating understanding of the issues, which were directly relevant to study(Rice University, 2008; Lovitts, 2005).

Satisfactory:

                  Some questions were answered during the study (Creswell, 1994).

                  Answers exposed tiny gaps in understanding of the study(Rice University, 2008).

Unsatisfactory:

                  Answers exposed substantial gaps in understanding thesis work.

13.          Discussion

Excellent:

                  Gives a comprehensive overview of the finding of the study (Dirks, 2012).

                  Explains and interprets result clearly for the reader, with arguments by testing hypotheses (Gay, 2000).

                  The researcher evaluated and interpreted the possible implication with respect to his research hypotheses and drew conclusion (APA, 2010; Gay, 2000).

                  Provides enough information about the result and possible alternative explanation for the outcome of the analyses which are beyond the expectation of the researcher (Lovitts, 2005; Creswell, 1994).

                  The researcher linked his own work and the work of other researchers reviewed in the literature review process by agreement or disagreement with the result of test of hypotheses (Gay, 2000;Lovitts, 2005).

                  The researcher provided comprehensive answers to the questions which were raised in the introduction section (Duquesne University, 2006; Lovitts, 2005).

                  The researcher critically analyzed his own work and explains the limitation of his study (APA, 2010; Lovitts, 2005).

                  The researcher takes possible threats and biasness into account during the study (APA, 2010; Dirks, 2012).

                  Provides suggestion for future research (Dirks, 2012; Lovitts, 2005).

Good:

                  Interpret all the result clearly with arguments link to review of literature (Lovitts, 2005).

                  The researcher linked his own work and the work of other researchers reviewed in the literature review process by agreement or disagreement with the result of test of hypotheses (Lovitts, 2005).

                  The researcher identified the short coming in his own research (Lovitts, 2005).

                  The researcher takes possible threats and biasness into account during the study.

                  Suggested future work area (Lovitts, 2005).

Satisfactory:

                  The researchers explained maximum result with relation to other studies and interpret with some minor arguments (Lovitts, 2005).

                  The researcher identified the short coming in his own research (Lovitts, 2005).

                  Suggested future work area (Lovitts, 2005).

Unsatisfactory:

                  The researchers explained very few results without any link and interpretation of those results.

14.               Conclusion

Excellent:

                  Summarized the major finding of the study (Ruiying& Allison, 2003;Lovitts, 2005).

                  In the conclusion section the researcher gives answer to the experiment, clearly state the hypothesis of the study i.e. wrong or right and relate to the research studies in literature review (Duquesne University, 2006;Lovitts, 2005).

                  Conclusions were clearly based on the result of the study (Creswell, 1994; Lovitts, 2005).

                  Major conclusions were drawn from the study which is an excellent inclusion in the knowledge in the field of study (Creswell, 1994; Lovitts, 2005).

                  All the possible implications of the study discussed, bringing out not only the advantages arising from the study but also gives limitations of the work (Ruiying& Allison 2003; Duquesne University, 2006).

                  Discuss and compare the implications of current research with the research studies which were most related in the literature review findings (Duquesne University, 2006).

Good:

                  Summarized the major finding of the study(Ruiying& Allison, 2003;Lovitts, 2005).

                  Major conclusions were drawn from the results; conclusions were linked to hypothesis and also provide the limitation of the study (Creswell, 1994; Lovitts, 2005).

                  Conclusions were clearly based on the result of the study (Creswell, 1994; Lovitts, 2005).

                  All the possible implications of the study discussed, bringing out not only the advantages arising from the study but also given limitations of the work (Creswell, 1994; Lovitts, 2005).

Satisfactory:

                  Summarized some findings of the study(Ruiying& Allison, 2003;Lovitts, 2005).

                  Conclusions were clearly based on the result of the study (Creswell, 1994; Lovitts, 2005).

                  Major conclusions were drawn from the result (Creswell, 1994; Lovitts, 2005).

Unsatisfactory:

                  Gives an unstructured, poor and loosely formulated Summary of the finding.

                  The researcher ignores all major conclusions and did not provide any discussion about his hypothesis or statement of the study. 

15.               Suggestions

Excellent:

                  The researcher gives suggestions in the light of the conclusion drawn from the study (Duquesne University, 2006).

                  The researcher incorporated necessary suggestions that have a direct relationship to the study and could help in the improvement and suggest remedies to the problem (Creswell, 1994).

                  The researcher explained what area need future work and what are the issues (Creswell, 1994).

                  Also suggested what area required further research (Lovitts, 2005).

Good:

                  Suggestion were good and if act upon, it would be helpful to the solution toward the problem (Creswell, 1994).

                  The researcher gives recommendations in the light of finding of the study (Creswell, 1994).

                  The researcher suggested what area required further research (Lovitts, 2005).

Satisfactory:

                  The researcher gives recommendation which could help in the solving of the problem (Lovitts, 2005).

Unsatisfactory:

                  No recommendations given or the recommendations which presented are not related to the existing problem.

16.               Ethics of Research

Excellent:

                  The researcher considered ethical issues seriously, protected confidentiality and human rights of the respondents and target population(Gay, 2000; Hammersley&Traianou, 2011).

                  The researcher contributed accurate scientific knowledge and protected the copyrights of others (used citation for others work) (Gay, 2000;Hammersley&Traianou, 2011).

                  Avoided unnecessary material to save the time of the reader (Hammersley&Traianou, 2011).

                  The researcher followed the APA guideline (APA, 2010).

Good:

                  The researcher carefully handled ethical issues in his research (Hammersley&Traianou, 2011).

                  Tried to contribute accurate knowledge to the field of study(Gay, 2000;Hammersley&Traianou, 2011).

                  Used citation for every work he incorporated in his research(Gay, 2000;Hammersley&Traianou, 2011).

Satisfactory:

                  The researcher protected the confidentiality of the respondents(Gay, 2000;Hammersley&Traianou, 2011).

                  The researcher incorporated new knowledge through his research to some extent(Gay, 2000;Hammersley&Traianou, 2011).

                  Incorporated material which could be avoided to save the time of the reader.

Unsatisfactory:

                  The researcher ignored ethical consideration in his research.

                  Did not acknowledge the work of others, minimum citation was used.

                  Unnecessary data were incorporated in the research which wasted the time of the reader.

17.          Proposed Research:

Excellent:

                  Well thought out study to achieve innovative results and objectives (Rice University, 2008).

                  Presented original research work (University of Peshawar, 2012).

                  The study is helpful in the developments of that particular field(Rice University, 2008).

                  The study presented a clear theoretical or conceptual framework that impels the focus of the study (Duquesne University, 2006).

                  Good overall plan, with good objectives and area of the study, provided a clear theoretical concept related to the study(Rice University, 2008;Duquesne University, 2006).

                  The researcher has a clear and strong point of view (Lovitts, 2005).

              Good:

                  Good overall plan, with good objectives and area of the study, provided a clear theoretical concept related to the study(Rice University, 2008;Duquesne University, 2006).

                  The study is helpful in the developments of that particular field(Rice University, 2008).

                  The researcher has a clear and strong point of view(Lovitts, 2005).

Satisfactory:

                  Research provides a substantial amount of knowledge to the proposed problem but needs some further development (Rice University, 2008).

                  Acceptable study with good objectives, area of the study, and provides a clear theoretical concept related to the study(Rice University, 2008;Duquesne University, 2006).

              Unsatisfactory:

                  Vague outline of present and future work, with major flaws and ambiguity in the overall research(Rice University, 2008).

18.              Written Report Organization

Excellent:

                  Systematic progression of thought in each section (Yount, 2006).

                  Organization of figures and illustration of main points, topic clearly explained in introduction (Rice University, 2008).

                  Presentation of chapter titles, headings, and subheading of dissertation (University of Peshawar, 2012).

                  All sections systemically arranged and placed on their right place(Rice University, 2008).

                  The researcher used APA Format for the entire document.

Good:

                  Well-arranged research with some minor adjustments(Rice University, 2008).

                  Maximum sections of the research are arranged and presented with systematic order(Rice University, 2008).

                  Presentation of chapter titles, headings, and subheading of dissertation (University of Peshawar, 2012).

Satisfactory:

                  Presentation of some material was not in systematic order(Rice University, 2008).

                   Some statements were not presented adequately (Rice University, 2008).

                   Overall research was organized and acceptable according to APA (APA, 2010).

Unsatisfactory:

                  Repetition of material.

                  Poor tabulation and presentation of tables and figures, difficult to understand for the reader.

19.               Quality of Report Writing

              Excellent:

                  Ideas stated clearly, straightforward and fluently (Gay, 2000;Rice university, 2008).

                  The rules of grammar, spelling and style were applied suitably (Yount, 2006;Rice University, 2008).

                  Correctness of language (University of Peshawar, 2012).

                  Well organized arguments and counter arguments(Gay, 2000).

                  The researcher was objective during report writing (Gay, 2000).

                  The researcher followed the guideline of APA Manual in entire report writing (APA, 2010).

Good:

                  Ideas presented fluently(Gay, 2000;Rice university, 2008).

                  The rules of grammar followed, Minimum spelling mistakes(Yount, 2006;Rice University, 2008).

                  The researcher was objective during report writing (Gay, 2000).

                  The researcher followed the guidelines of APA Manual in entire report writing (APA, 2010).

Satisfactory:

                  The dissertation is readable and used acceptable language to present the study(University of Peshawar, 2012).

                  Some parts are difficult to understand, limited typing and grammatical errors(Yount, 2006;Rice University, 2008).

                  The researcher followed the guidelines of APA Manual with some minor mistakes. 

Unsatisfactory:

                  No sequence in thoughts, maximum parts are difficult to understand.

                  Full of grammatical and spelling errors.

                  Research is ambiguous and scribbled. 

20.               Citation:

Excellent:

                  Excellent citations used in all section of the report (Beile, et al, 2004; Soler-Monreal& Gil-Salom, 2011).

                  The researcher followed the guidelines of APA manual in entire report writing.

                  The researcher has full command over the APA manual (APA, 2010).

                  The researcher reported all sources alphabetically by authors’ last name (Gay, 2000;Beile, et al, 2004; Soler-Monreal& Gil-Salom, 2011).

                  Sources reported in text also reported in the reference section (Gay, 2000; Beile, et al, 2004; Soler-Monreal& Gil-Salom, 2011).

                  Primary sources reported in reference section (Gay, 2000; Beile, et al, 2004; Soler-Monreal& Gil-Salom, 2011).

                  Latest studies were cited (University of Peshawar, 2012).

Good:

                  The researcher used good citation skill during his report writing (Beile, et al, 2004; Soler-Monreal& Gil-Salom, 2011).

                  Primary sources reported in reference section (Beile, et al, 2004; Soler-Monreal& Gil-Salom, 2011).

                  Sources reported in text also reported in the reference section (Beile, et al, 2004; Soler-Monreal& Gil-Salom, 2011).

Satisfactory:

                  The researcher used citation to acceptable level with some minor mistakes (Beile, et al, 2004; Soler-Monreal& Gil-Salom, 2011).

                  Sources reported in text are also reported in the reference section (Beile, et al, 2004; Soler-Monreal& Gil-Salom, 2011).

Unsatisfactory:

                  The researcher made major mistakes during citation in text and in the end in the reference section.