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.