how to write a rationale for science research investigation

• Affiliate Program

• UNITED STATES
• 台灣 (TAIWAN)
• TÜRKIYE (TURKEY)
• Academic Editing Services
• - Research Paper
• - Journal Manuscript
• - Dissertation
• - College & University Assignments
• Admissions Editing Services
• - Application Essay
• - Personal Statement
• - Recommendation Letter
• - Cover Letter
• - CV/Resume
• Business Editing Services
• - Business Documents
• - Report & Brochure
• - Website & Blog
• Writer Editing Services
• - Script & Screenplay
• Our Editors
• Client Reviews
• Editing & Proofreading Prices
• Wordvice Points
• Partner Discount
• Plagiarism Checker
• APA Citation Generator
• MLA Citation Generator
• Chicago Citation Generator
• Vancouver Citation Generator
• - APA Style
• - MLA Style
• - Chicago Style
• - Vancouver Style
• Writing & Editing Guide
• Academic Resources
• Admissions Resources

How to Write the Rationale of the Study in Research (Examples)

What is the Rationale of the Study?

The rationale of the study is the justification for taking on a given study. It explains the reason the study was conducted or should be conducted. This means the study rationale should explain to the reader or examiner why the study is/was necessary. It is also sometimes called the “purpose” or “justification” of a study. While this is not difficult to grasp in itself, you might wonder how the rationale of the study is different from your research question or from the statement of the problem of your study, and how it fits into the rest of your thesis or research paper. 

The rationale of the study links the background of the study to your specific research question and justifies the need for the latter on the basis of the former. In brief, you first provide and discuss existing data on the topic, and then you tell the reader, based on the background evidence you just presented, where you identified gaps or issues and why you think it is important to address those. The problem statement, lastly, is the formulation of the specific research question you choose to investigate, following logically from your rationale, and the approach you are planning to use to do that.

Table of Contents:

How to write a rationale for a research paper , how do you justify the need for a research study.

• Study Rationale Example: Where Does It Go In Your Paper?

The basis for writing a research rationale is preliminary data or a clear description of an observation. If you are doing basic/theoretical research, then a literature review will help you identify gaps in current knowledge. In applied/practical research, you base your rationale on an existing issue with a certain process (e.g., vaccine proof registration) or practice (e.g., patient treatment) that is well documented and needs to be addressed. By presenting the reader with earlier evidence or observations, you can (and have to) convince them that you are not just repeating what other people have already done or said and that your ideas are not coming out of thin air. 

Once you have explained where you are coming from, you should justify the need for doing additional research–this is essentially the rationale of your study. Finally, when you have convinced the reader of the purpose of your work, you can end your introduction section with the statement of the problem of your research that contains clear aims and objectives and also briefly describes (and justifies) your methodological approach. 

When is the Rationale for Research Written?

The author can present the study rationale both before and after the research is conducted. 

• Before conducting research : The study rationale is a central component of the research proposal . It represents the plan of your work, constructed before the study is actually executed.
• Once research has been conducted : After the study is completed, the rationale is presented in a research article or  PhD dissertation  to explain why you focused on this specific research question. When writing the study rationale for this purpose, the author should link the rationale of the research to the aims and outcomes of the study.

What to Include in the Study Rationale

Although every study rationale is different and discusses different specific elements of a study’s method or approach, there are some elements that should be included to write a good rationale. Make sure to touch on the following:

• A summary of conclusions from your review of the relevant literature
• What is currently unknown (gaps in knowledge)
• Inconclusive or contested results  from previous studies on the same or similar topic
• The necessity to improve or build on previous research, such as to improve methodology or utilize newer techniques and/or technologies

There are different types of limitations that you can use to justify the need for your study. In applied/practical research, the justification for investigating something is always that an existing process/practice has a problem or is not satisfactory. Let’s say, for example, that people in a certain country/city/community commonly complain about hospital care on weekends (not enough staff, not enough attention, no decisions being made), but you looked into it and realized that nobody ever investigated whether these perceived problems are actually based on objective shortages/non-availabilities of care or whether the lower numbers of patients who are treated during weekends are commensurate with the provided services.

In this case, “lack of data” is your justification for digging deeper into the problem. Or, if it is obvious that there is a shortage of staff and provided services on weekends, you could decide to investigate which of the usual procedures are skipped during weekends as a result and what the negative consequences are. 

In basic/theoretical research, lack of knowledge is of course a common and accepted justification for additional research—but make sure that it is not your only motivation. “Nobody has ever done this” is only a convincing reason for a study if you explain to the reader why you think we should know more about this specific phenomenon. If there is earlier research but you think it has limitations, then those can usually be classified into “methodological”, “contextual”, and “conceptual” limitations. To identify such limitations, you can ask specific questions and let those questions guide you when you explain to the reader why your study was necessary:

Methodological limitations

• Did earlier studies try but failed to measure/identify a specific phenomenon?
• Was earlier research based on incorrect conceptualizations of variables?
• Were earlier studies based on questionable operationalizations of key concepts?
• Did earlier studies use questionable or inappropriate research designs?

Contextual limitations

• Have recent changes in the studied problem made previous studies irrelevant?
• Are you studying a new/particular context that previous findings do not apply to?

Conceptual limitations

• Do previous findings only make sense within a specific framework or ideology?

Study Rationale Examples

Let’s look at an example from one of our earlier articles on the statement of the problem to clarify how your rationale fits into your introduction section. This is a very short introduction for a practical research study on the challenges of online learning. Your introduction might be much longer (especially the context/background section), and this example does not contain any sources (which you will have to provide for all claims you make and all earlier studies you cite)—but please pay attention to how the background presentation , rationale, and problem statement blend into each other in a logical way so that the reader can follow and has no reason to question your motivation or the foundation of your research.

Background presentation

Since the beginning of the Covid pandemic, most educational institutions around the world have transitioned to a fully online study model, at least during peak times of infections and social distancing measures. This transition has not been easy and even two years into the pandemic, problems with online teaching and studying persist (reference needed) . 

While the increasing gap between those with access to technology and equipment and those without access has been determined to be one of the main challenges (reference needed) , others claim that online learning offers more opportunities for many students by breaking down barriers of location and distance (reference needed) .  

Rationale of the study

Since teachers and students cannot wait for circumstances to go back to normal, the measures that schools and universities have implemented during the last two years, their advantages and disadvantages, and the impact of those measures on students’ progress, satisfaction, and well-being need to be understood so that improvements can be made and demographics that have been left behind can receive the support they need as soon as possible.

Statement of the problem

To identify what changes in the learning environment were considered the most challenging and how those changes relate to a variety of student outcome measures, we conducted surveys and interviews among teachers and students at ten institutions of higher education in four different major cities, two in the US (New York and Chicago), one in South Korea (Seoul), and one in the UK (London). Responses were analyzed with a focus on different student demographics and how they might have been affected differently by the current situation.

How long is a study rationale?

In a research article bound for journal publication, your rationale should not be longer than a few sentences (no longer than one brief paragraph). A  dissertation or thesis  usually allows for a longer description; depending on the length and nature of your document, this could be up to a couple of paragraphs in length. A completely novel or unconventional approach might warrant a longer and more detailed justification than an approach that slightly deviates from well-established methods and approaches.

Consider Using Professional Academic Editing Services

Now that you know how to write the rationale of the study for a research proposal or paper, you should make use of Wordvice AI’s free AI Grammar Checker , or receive professional academic proofreading services from Wordvice, including research paper editing services and manuscript editing services to polish your submitted research documents.

You can also find many more articles, for example on writing the other parts of your research paper , on choosing a title , or on making sure you understand and adhere to the author instructions before you submit to a journal, on the Wordvice academic resources pages.

How to Write the Rationale for a Research Paper

• Research Process
• Peer Review

A research rationale answers the big SO WHAT? that every adviser, peer reviewer, and editor has in mind when they critique your work. A compelling research rationale increases the chances of your paper being published or your grant proposal being funded. In this article, we look at the purpose of a research rationale, its components and key characteristics, and how to create an effective research rationale.

Updated on September 19, 2022

The rationale for your research is the reason why you decided to conduct the study in the first place. The motivation for asking the question. The knowledge gap. This is often the most significant part of your publication. It justifies the study's purpose, novelty, and significance for science or society. It's a critical part of standard research articles as well as funding proposals.

Essentially, the research rationale answers the big SO WHAT? that every (good) adviser, peer reviewer, and editor has in mind when they critique your work.

A compelling research rationale increases the chances of your paper being published or your grant proposal being funded. In this article, we look at:

• the purpose of a research rationale
• its components and key characteristics
• how to create an effective research rationale

What is a research rationale?

Think of a research rationale as a set of reasons that explain why a study is necessary and important based on its background. It's also known as the justification of the study, rationale, or thesis statement.

Essentially, you want to convince your reader that you're not reciting what other people have already said and that your opinion hasn't appeared out of thin air. You've done the background reading and identified a knowledge gap that this rationale now explains.

A research rationale is usually written toward the end of the introduction. You'll see this section clearly in high-impact-factor international journals like Nature and Science. At the end of the introduction there's always a phrase that begins with something like, "here we show..." or "in this paper we show..." This text is part of a logical sequence of information, typically (but not necessarily) provided in this order:

Here's an example from a study by Cataldo et al. (2021) on the impact of social media on teenagers' lives.

Note how the research background, gap, rationale, and objectives logically blend into each other.

The authors chose to put the research aims before the rationale. This is not a problem though. They still achieve a logical sequence. This helps the reader follow their thinking and convinces them about their research's foundation.

Elements of a research rationale

We saw that the research rationale follows logically from the research background and literature review/observation and leads into your study's aims and objectives.

This might sound somewhat abstract. A helpful way to formulate a research rationale is to answer the question, “Why is this study necessary and important?”

Generally, that something has never been done before should not be your only motivation. Use it only If you can give the reader valid evidence why we should learn more about this specific phenomenon.

A well-written introduction covers three key elements:

• What's the background to the research?
• What has been done before (information relevant to this particular study, but NOT a literature review)?
• Research rationale

Now, let's see how you might answer the question.

1. This study complements scientific knowledge and understanding

Discuss the shortcomings of previous studies and explain how'll correct them. Your short review can identify:

• Methodological limitations . The methodology (research design, research approach or sampling) employed in previous works is somewhat flawed.

Example : Here , the authors claim that previous studies have failed to explore the role of apathy “as a predictor of functional decline in healthy older adults” (Burhan et al., 2021). At the same time, we know a lot about other age-related neuropsychiatric disorders, like depression.

Their study is necessary, then, “to increase our understanding of the cognitive, clinical, and neural correlates of apathy and deconstruct its underlying mechanisms.” (Burhan et al., 2021).

• Contextual limitations . External factors have changed and this has minimized or removed the relevance of previous research.

Example : You want to do an empirical study to evaluate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the number of tourists visiting Sicily. Previous studies might have measured tourism determinants in Sicily, but they preceded COVID-19.

• Conceptual limitations . Previous studies are too bound to a specific ideology or a theoretical framework.

Example : The work of English novelist E. M. Forster has been extensively researched for its social, political, and aesthetic dimensions. After the 1990s, younger scholars wanted to read his novels as an example of gay fiction. They justified the need to do so based on previous studies' reliance on homophobic ideology.

This kind of rationale is most common in basic/theoretical research.

2. This study can help solve a specific problem

Here, you base your rationale on a process that has a problem or is not satisfactory.

For example, patients complain about low-quality hospital care on weekends (staff shortages, inadequate attention, etc.). No one has looked into this (there is a lack of data). So, you explore if the reported problems are true and what can be done to address them. This is a knowledge gap.

Or you set out to explore a specific practice. You might want to study the pros and cons of several entry strategies into the Japanese food market.

It's vital to explain the problem in detail and stress the practical benefits of its solution. In the first example, the practical implications are recommendations to improve healthcare provision.

In the second example, the impact of your research is to inform the decision-making of businesses wanting to enter the Japanese food market.

This kind of rationale is more common in applied/practical research.

3. You're the best person to conduct this study

It's a bonus if you can show that you're uniquely positioned to deliver this study, especially if you're writing a funding proposal .

For an anthropologist wanting to explore gender norms in Ethiopia, this could be that they speak Amharic (Ethiopia's official language) and have already lived in the country for a few years (ethnographic experience).

Or if you want to conduct an interdisciplinary research project, consider partnering up with collaborators whose expertise complements your own. Scientists from different fields might bring different skills and a fresh perspective or have access to the latest tech and equipment. Teaming up with reputable collaborators justifies the need for a study by increasing its credibility and likely impact.

When is the research rationale written?

You can write your research rationale before, or after, conducting the study.

In the first case, when you might have a new research idea, and you're applying for funding to implement it.

Or you're preparing a call for papers for a journal special issue or a conference. Here , for instance, the authors seek to collect studies on the impact of apathy on age-related neuropsychiatric disorders.

In the second case, you have completed the study and are writing a research paper for publication. Looking back, you explain why you did the study in question and how it worked out.

Although the research rationale is part of the introduction, it's best to write it at the end. Stand back from your study and look at it in the big picture. At this point, it's easier to convince your reader why your study was both necessary and important.

How long should a research rationale be?

The length of the research rationale is not fixed. Ideally, this will be determined by the guidelines (of your journal, sponsor etc.).

The prestigious journal Nature , for instance, calls for articles to be no more than 6 or 8 pages, depending on the content. The introduction should be around 200 words, and, as mentioned, two to three sentences serve as a brief account of the background and rationale of the study, and come at the end of the introduction.

If you're not provided guidelines, consider these factors:

• Research document : In a thesis or book-length study, the research rationale will be longer than in a journal article. For example, the background and rationale of this book exploring the collective memory of World War I cover more than ten pages.
• Research question : Research into a new sub-field may call for a longer or more detailed justification than a study that plugs a gap in literature.

Which verb tenses to use in the research rationale?

It's best to use the present tense. Though in a research proposal, the research rationale is likely written in the future tense, as you're describing the intended or expected outcomes of the research project (the gaps it will fill, the problems it will solve).

Example of a research rationale

Research question : What are the teachers' perceptions of how a sense of European identity is developed and what underlies such perceptions?

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology , 3(2), 77-101.

Burhan, A.M., Yang, J., & Inagawa, T. (2021). Impact of apathy on aging and age-related neuropsychiatric disorders. Research Topic. Frontiers in Psychiatry

Cataldo, I., Lepri, B., Neoh, M. J. Y., & Esposito, G. (2021). Social media usage and development of psychiatric disorders in childhood and adolescence: A review. Frontiers in Psychiatry , 11.

CiCe Jean Monnet Network (2017). Guidelines for citizenship education in school: Identities and European citizenship children's identity and citizenship in Europe.

Cohen, l, Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education . Eighth edition. London: Routledge.

de Prat, R. C. (2013). Euroscepticism, Europhobia and Eurocriticism: The radical parties of the right and left “vis-à-vis” the European Union P.I.E-Peter Lang S.A., Éditions Scientifiques Internationales.

European Commission. (2017). Eurydice Brief: Citizenship education at school in Europe.

Polyakova, A., & Fligstein, N. (2016). Is European integration causing Europe to become more nationalist? Evidence from the 2007–9 financial crisis. Journal of European Public Policy , 23(1), 60-83.

Winter, J. (2014). Sites of Memory, Sites of Mourning: The Great War in European Cultural History . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

The AJE Team

See our "Privacy Policy"

Ensure your structure and ideas are consistent and clearly communicated

Pair your Premium Editing with our add-on service Presubmission Review for an overall assessment of your manuscript.

How to Write a Rationale: A Guide for Research and Beyond

Ever found yourself scratching your head, wondering how to justify your choice of a research topic or project? You’re not alone! Writing a rationale, which essentially means explaining the ‘why’ behind your decisions, is crucial to any research process. It’s like the secret sauce that adds flavour to your research recipe. So, the only thing you need to know is how to write a rationale.

What is a Rationale?

A rationale in research is essentially the foundation of your study. It serves as the justification for undertaking a particular research project. At its core, the rationale explains why the research was conducted or needs to be conducted, thus addressing a specific knowledge gap or research question.

Here’s a breakdown of the key elements involved in crafting a rationale:

Linking Background to Research Question: 

The rationale should connect the background of the study to your specific research question. It involves presenting and discussing existing data on your topic, identifying gaps or issues in the current understanding, and explaining why addressing them is important​.

Objectives and Significance: 

Your rationale should clearly outline your research objectives – what you hope to discover or achieve through the study. It should also emphasize the subject’s significance in your field and explain why more or better research is needed​.

Methodological Approach: 

The rationale should briefly describe your proposed research method , whether qualitative (descriptive) or quantitative (experimental), and justify this choice​.

Justifying the Need for Research: 

The rationale isn’t just about what you’re doing and why it’s necessary. It can involve highlighting methodological, contextual, or conceptual limitations in previous studies and explaining how your research aims to overcome these limitations. Essentially, you’re making a case for why your research fills a crucial gap in existing knowledge​​.

Presenting Before and After Research: 

Interestingly, the rationale can be presented before and after the research. Before the research, it forms a central part of the research proposal, setting out the plan for the work. After the research, it’s presented in a research article or dissertation to explain the focus on a specific research question and link it to the study’s aims and outcomes​.

Elements to Include: 

A good rationale should include a summary of conclusions from your literature review, identify what is currently unknown, discuss inconclusive or contested results from previous studies, and emphasize the necessity to improve or build on previous research​.

Creating a rationale is a vital part of the research process, as it not only sets the stage for your study but also convinces readers of the value and necessity of your work.

How to Write a Rationale:

Writing a rationale for your research is crucial in conducting and presenting your study. It involves explaining why your research is necessary and important. Here’s a guide to help you craft a compelling rationale:

Identify the Problem or Knowledge Gap: 

Begin by clearly stating the issue or gap in knowledge that your research aims to address. Explain why this problem is important and merits investigation. It is the foundation of your rationale and sets the stage for the need for your research.​

Review the Literature: 

Conduct a thorough review of existing literature on your topic. It helps you understand what research has already been done and what gaps or open questions exist. Your rationale should build on this background by highlighting these gaps and emphasizing the importance of addressing them​​​​.

Define Your Research Questions/Hypotheses: 

Based on your understanding of the problem and literature review, clearly state the research questions or hypotheses that your study aims to explore. These should logically stem from the identified gaps or issues.

Explain Your Research Approach: 

Describe the methods you will use for your research, including data collection and analysis techniques. Justify why these methods are appropriate for addressing your research questions or hypotheses​​.

Discuss the Potential Impact of Your Research:  Explain the significance of your study. Consider both theoretical contributions and practical implications. For instance, how does your research advance existing knowledge? Does it have real-world applications? Is it relevant to a specific field or community?​

Consider Ethical Considerations: 

If your research involves human or animal subjects, discuss the ethical aspects and how you plan to conduct your study responsibly​.

Contextualise Your Study: 

Justify the relevance of your research by explaining how it fits into the broader context. Connect your study to current trends, societal needs, or academic discussions​​.

Support with Evidence: 

Provide evidence or examples that underscore the need for your research. It could include citing relevant studies, statistics, or scenarios that illustrate the problem or gap your research addresses​.

Methodological, Contextual, and Conceptual Limitations: 

Address any limitations of previous research and how your study aims to overcome them. It can include methodological flaws in previous studies, changes in external factors that make past research less relevant, or the need to study a phenomenon within a new conceptual framework​.

Placement in Your Paper: 

Typically, the rationale is written toward the end of the introduction section of your paper, providing a logical lead-in to your research questions and methodology​​.

By following these steps and considering your audience’s perspective, you can write a strong and compelling rationale that clearly communicates the significance and necessity of your research project.

Frequently Asked Questions:

What makes a good research rationale.

A good rationale clearly identifies a gap in existing knowledge, builds on previous research, and outlines why your study is necessary and significant.

How detailed should my literature review be in the rationale?

Your literature review should be comprehensive enough to highlight the gaps your research aims to fill, but it should not overshadow the rationale itself.

Conclusion: 

A well-crafted rationale is your ticket to making your research stand out. It’s about bridging gaps, challenging norms, and paving the way for new discoveries. So go ahead, make your rationale the cornerstone of your research narrative!

Award-Winning Results

Team of 11+ experts, 10,000+ page #1 rankings on google, dedicated to smbs, $175,000,000 in reported client revenue.

Up until working with Casey, we had only had poor to mediocre experiences outsourcing work to agencies. Casey & the team at CJ&CO are the exception to the rule.

Communication was beyond great, his understanding of our vision was phenomenal, and instead of needing babysitting like the other agencies we worked with, he was not only completely dependable but also gave us sound suggestions on how to get better results, at the risk of us not needing him for the initial job we requested (absolute gem).

This has truly been the first time we worked with someone outside of our business that quickly grasped our vision, and that I could completely forget about and would still deliver above expectations.

I honestly can't wait to work in many more projects together!

Related Articles

View All Post

Conversion Rate Optimization , Copywriting , Customer Experience

How to Tap Into What Your Customers Love & Hate

Casey Jones

Advertising , Copywriting

What does a Copywriter do at an Ad Agency: Things You Should Know if You’re a Copywriter

Copywriting

How to Write a Marketing Script: Take Your Marketing to the Next Level in 2023

*The information this blog provides is for general informational purposes only and is not intended as financial or professional advice. The information may not reflect current developments and may be changed or updated without notice. Any opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s employer or any other organization. You should not act or rely on any information contained in this blog without first seeking the advice of a professional. No representation or warranty, express or implied, is made as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this blog. The author and affiliated parties assume no liability for any errors or omissions.

• Academic Skills
• Reading, writing and referencing
• Writing effectively

Writing a rationale

How to write a rationale.

What is a rationale?

A rationale is when you are asked to give the reasoning or justification for an action or a choice you make.

There is a focus on the ‘ why ’ in a rationale: why you chose to do something, study or focus on something. It is a set of statements of purpose and significance and often addresses a gap or a need.

A rationale in Australian academic writing is rarely a whole task by itself.  It is often a part of a bigger task. For example, a part of a lesson plan might be to provide a rationale for why you chose to teach particular content or use a certain resource or activity, or you may be asked to provide a rationale as to why you chose a particular theory to apply or a concept to support.

You may be called upon to provide a rationale:

prior to an action or decision; why you plan to do something and how, or

• after you have acted or decided something; reflecting, looking back, why you did something and how it worked or not.

You can use language to signal you are clearly providing a rationale in your writing. You can link your rationale to learning outcomes or aims for a lesson, activity or assessment task.

A model: problem-solution-rationale

A rationale can be provided by offering longer essay-based support for why it is important to do something in a certain way – in that sense, a whole paper can be a rationale.

However, a more specific or focused way of thinking about a rationale is how we can overtly show we are justifying our choices with the language we use.

One way of doing this is to consider the problem or issue requiring attention, the solution and then the rationale or justification for the solution (the ‘why’). This sets the rationale (the reason) within a context.

A diagnostic assessment determined that the students required more attention to addition and subtraction of mixed fractions. This activity intends to address this problem by having the children engage with the task with blocks before it is done with figures. The reason I chose to do this is because students have higher comprehension levels when presented with visual or tangible representations of abstract problems (Benson, 2016). I also did this as I wanted to allow the children to ‘play’ with maths, to see that it can be a fun activity and in doing so, to breakdown some of the ‘anti-mathematics prejudices’ that Gaines (2017, p. 4) talks about.

The important thing here is the language used to signal the rationale , in this case:

The reason I chose to do this is because … and I also did this as …

Another problem / solution / rationale example:

Scaffolding is the support provided by the teacher or a significant other, such as a classmate, which helps students in learning (Gibbons, 2015). Some students were having difficulty with the language at entry while others, particularly those who had completed the pre-tasks, had few problems. Therefore, in order to address this disparity in level and understanding, mixed-ability pairs were created where the more competent student helped the other. On reflection, this was an effective way to run the activity for two reasons : it allowed peer-to-peer teaching which solidified both students’ understanding; and it scaffolded the support in a way that allowed me to roam the room lending advice to pairs as needed.

The language used to signal our rationale in this example:

in order to and for two reasons …

Language to signal rationale

in order to

the reason this was done/chosen …

for the following reason(s) …

for two/three reasons …

Language for further justification - showing importance

This was important / significant because …

This meant that I could…

This enabled me to …

… which enabled / allowed me to…

… which pointed to / highlighted that / showed me that …

The key thing to remember about rationale writing is to stand back from the writing, look at it in a big picture sense and ask yourself, ‘ Have I explained why? ’ If that is clearly articulated, you have provided a rationale.

Looking for one-on-one advice?

Get tailored advice from an Academic Skills Adviser by booking an Individual appointment, or get quick feedback from one of our Academic Writing Mentors via email through our Writing advice service.

Go to Student appointments

Setting Rationale in Research: Cracking the code for excelling at research

Knowledge and curiosity lays the foundation of scientific progress. The quest for knowledge has always been a timeless endeavor. Scholars seek reasons to explain the phenomena they observe, paving way for development of research. Every investigation should offer clarity and a well-defined rationale in research is a cornerstone upon which the entire study can be built.

Research rationale is the heartbeat of every academic pursuit as it guides the researchers to unlock the untouched areas of their field. Additionally, it illuminates the gaps in the existing knowledge, and identifies the potential contributions that the study aims to make.

Table of Contents

What Is Research Rationale and When Is It Written

Research rationale is the “why” behind every academic research. It not only frames the study but also outlines its objectives , questions, and expected outcomes. Additionally, it helps to identify the potential limitations of the study . It serves as a lighthouse for researchers that guides through data collection and analysis, ensuring their efforts remain focused and purposeful. Typically, a rationale is written at the beginning of the research proposal or research paper . It is an essential component of the introduction section and provides the foundation for the entire study. Furthermore, it provides a clear understanding of the purpose and significance of the research to the readers before delving into the specific details of the study. In some cases, the rationale is written before the methodology, data analysis, and other sections. Also, it serves as the justification for the research, and how it contributes to the field. Defining a research rationale can help a researcher in following ways:

1. Justification of a Research Problem

• Research rationale helps to understand the essence of a research problem.
• It designs the right approach to solve a problem. This aspect is particularly important for applied research, where the outcomes can have real-world relevance and impact.
• Also, it explains why the study is worth conducting and why resources should be allocated to pursue it.
• Additionally, it guides a researcher to highlight the benefits and implications of a strategy.

2. Elimination of Literature Gap

• Research rationale helps to ideate new topics which are less addressed.
• Additionally, it offers fresh perspectives on existing research and discusses the shortcomings in previous studies.
• It shows that your study aims to contribute to filling these gaps and advancing the field’s understanding.

3. Originality and Novelty

• The rationale highlights the unique aspects of your research and how it differs from previous studies.
• Furthermore, it explains why your research adds something new to the field and how it expands upon existing knowledge.
• It highlights how your findings might contribute to a better understanding of a particular issue or problem and potentially lead to positive changes.
• Besides these benefits, it provides a personal motivation to the researchers. In some cases, researchers might have personal experiences or interests that drive their desire to investigate a particular topic.

4. An Increase in Chances of Funding

• It is essential to convince funding agencies , supervisors, or reviewers, that a research is worth pursuing.
• Therefore, a good rationale can get your research approved for funding and increases your chances of getting published in journals; as it addresses the potential knowledge gap in existing research.

Overall, research rationale is essential for providing a clear and convincing argument for the value and importance of your research study, setting the stage for the rest of the research proposal or manuscript. Furthermore, it helps establish the context for your work and enables others to understand the purpose and potential impact of your research.

5 Key Elements of a Research Rationale

Research rationale must include certain components which make it more impactful. Here are the key elements of a research rationale:

By incorporating these elements, you provide a strong and convincing case for the legitimacy of your research, which is essential for gaining support and approval from academic institutions, funding agencies, or other stakeholders.

How to Write a Rationale in Research

Writing a rationale requires careful consideration of the reasons for conducting the study. It is usually written in the present tense.

Here are some steps to guide you through the process of writing a research rationale:

After writing the initial draft, it is essential to review and revise the research rationale to ensure that it effectively communicates the purpose of your research. The research rationale should be persuasive and compelling, convincing readers that your study is worthwhile and deserves their attention.

How Long Should a Research Rationale be?

Although there is no pre-defined length for a rationale in research, its length may vary depending on the specific requirements of the research project. It also depends on the academic institution or organization, and the guidelines set by the research advisor or funding agency. In general, a research rationale is usually a concise and focused document.

Typically, it ranges from a few paragraphs to a few pages, but it is usually recommended to keep it as crisp as possible while ensuring all the essential elements are adequately covered. The length of a research rationale can be roughly as follows:

1. For Research Proposal:

A. Around 1 to 3 pages

B. Ensure clear and comprehensive explanation of the research question, its significance, literature review , and methodological approach.

2. Thesis or Dissertation:

A. Around 3 to 5 pages

B. Ensure an extensive coverage of the literature review, theoretical framework, and research objectives to provide a robust justification for the study.

3. Journal Article:

A. Usually concise. Ranges from few paragraphs to one page

B. The research rationale is typically included as part of the introduction section

However, remember that the quality and content of the research rationale are more important than its length. The reasons for conducting the research should be well-structured, clear, and persuasive when presented. Always adhere to the specific institution or publication guidelines.

Example of a Research Rationale

In conclusion, the research rationale serves as the cornerstone of a well-designed and successful research project. It ensures that research efforts are focused, meaningful, and ethically sound. Additionally, it provides a comprehensive and logical justification for embarking on a specific investigation. Therefore, by identifying research gaps, defining clear objectives, emphasizing significance, explaining the chosen methodology, addressing ethical considerations, and recognizing potential limitations, researchers can lay the groundwork for impactful and valuable contributions to the scientific community.

So, are you ready to delve deeper into the world of research and hone your academic writing skills? Explore Enago Academy ‘s comprehensive resources and courses to elevate your research and make a lasting impact in your field. Also, share your thoughts and experiences in the form of an article or a thought piece on Enago Academy’s Open Platform .

Join us on a journey of scholarly excellence today!

Frequently Asked Questions

A rationale of the study can be written by including the following points: 1. Background of the Research/ Study 2. Identifying the Knowledge Gap 3. An Overview of the Goals and Objectives of the Study 4. Methodology and its Significance 5. Relevance of the Research

Start writing a research rationale by defining the research problem and discussing the literature gap associated with it.

A research rationale can be ended by discussing the expected results and summarizing the need of the study.

A rationale for thesis can be made by covering the following points: 1. Extensive coverage of the existing literature 2. Explaining the knowledge gap 3. Provide the framework and objectives of the study 4. Provide a robust justification for the study/ research 5. Highlight the potential of the research and the expected outcomes

A rationale for dissertation can be made by covering the following points: 1. Highlight the existing reference 2. Bridge the gap and establish the context of your research 3. Describe the problem and the objectives 4. Give an overview of the methodology

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Promoting Research

Graphical Abstracts Vs. Infographics: Best practices for using visual illustrations for increased research impact

Dr. Sarah Chen stared at her computer screen, her eyes staring at her recently published…

• Publishing Research

10 Tips to Prevent Research Papers From Being Retracted

Research paper retractions represent a critical event in the scientific community. When a published article…

• Industry News

Google Releases 2024 Scholar Metrics, Evaluates Impact of Scholarly Articles

Google has released its 2024 Scholar Metrics, assessing scholarly articles from 2019 to 2023. This…

Ensuring Academic Integrity and Transparency in Academic Research: A comprehensive checklist for researchers

Academic integrity is the foundation upon which the credibility and value of scientific findings are…

• Reporting Research

How to Optimize Your Research Process: A step-by-step guide

For researchers across disciplines, the path to uncovering novel findings and insights is often filled…

Mitigating Survivorship Bias in Scholarly Research: 10 tips to enhance data integrity

The Power of Proofreading: Taking your academic work to the next level

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

• AI in Academia
• Career Corner
• Diversity and Inclusion
• Infographics
• Expert Video Library
• Other Resources
• Enago Learn
• Upcoming & On-Demand Webinars
• Peer Review Week 2024
• Open Access Week 2023
• Conference Videos
• Enago Report
• Journal Finder
• Enago Plagiarism & AI Grammar Check
• Editing Services
• Publication Support Services
• Research Impact
• Translation Services
• Publication solutions
• AI-Based Solutions
• Thought Leadership
• Call for Articles
• Call for Speakers
• Author Training
• Edit Profile

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

In your opinion, what is the most effective way to improve integrity in the peer review process?

Community Blog

Keep up-to-date on postgraduate related issues with our quick reads written by students, postdocs, professors and industry leaders.

How do you Write the Rationale for Research?

• By DiscoverPhDs
• October 21, 2020

What is the Rationale of Research?

The term rationale of research means the reason for performing the research study in question. In writing your rational you should able to convey why there was a need for your study to be carried out. It’s an important part of your research paper that should explain how your research was novel and explain why it was significant; this helps the reader understand why your research question needed to be addressed in your research paper, term paper or other research report.

The rationale for research is also sometimes referred to as the justification for the study. When writing your rational, first begin by introducing and explaining what other researchers have published on within your research field.

Having explained the work of previous literature and prior research, include discussion about where the gaps in knowledge are in your field. Use these to define potential research questions that need answering and explain the importance of addressing these unanswered questions.

The rationale conveys to the reader of your publication exactly why your research topic was needed and why it was significant . Having defined your research rationale, you would then go on to define your hypothesis and your research objectives.

Final Comments

Defining the rationale research, is a key part of the research process and academic writing in any research project. You use this in your research paper to firstly explain the research problem within your dissertation topic. This gives you the research justification you need to define your research question and what the expected outcomes may be.

Statistical treatment of data is essential for all researchers, regardless of whether you’re a biologist, computer scientist or psychologist, but what exactly is it?

Being a new graduate teaching assistant can be a scary but rewarding undertaking – our 7 tips will help make your teaching journey as smooth as possible.

In this post you’ll learn what the significance of the study means, why it’s important, where and how to write one in your paper or thesis with an example.

Join thousands of other students and stay up to date with the latest PhD programmes, funding opportunities and advice.

Browse PhDs Now

This post explains where and how to write the list of figures in your thesis or dissertation.

The Thurstone Scale is used to quantify the attitudes of people being surveyed, using a format of ‘agree-disagree’ statements.

Dr Jadavji completed her PhD in Medical Genetics & Neuroscience from McGill University, Montreal, Canada in 2012. She is now an assistant professor involved in a mix of research, teaching and service projects.

Prof Cotton gained her DPhil in the school of education at Oxford University. She is now the Director of Academic Practice and Professor of Higher Education at Plymouth Marjon University.

Join Thousands of Students

• Translation

How to write the Rationale for your research

By charlesworth author services.

• Charlesworth Author Services
• 19 November, 2021

The rationale for one’s research is the justification for undertaking a given study. It states the reason(s) why a researcher chooses to focus on the topic in question, including what the significance is and what gaps the research intends to fill. In short, it is an explanation that rationalises the need for the study. The rationale is typically followed by a hypothesis/ research question (s) and the study objectives.

When is the rationale for research written?

The rationale of a study can be presented both before and after the research is conducted. 

• Before : The rationale is a crucial part of your research proposal , representing the plan of your work as formulated before you execute your study.
• After : Once the study is completed, the rationale is presented in a research paper or dissertation to explain why you focused on the particular question. In this instance, you would link the rationale of your research project to the study aims and outcomes.

Basis for writing the research rationale

The study rationale is predominantly based on preliminary data . A literature review will help you identify gaps in the current knowledge base and also ensure that you avoid duplicating what has already been done. You can then formulate the justification for your study from the existing literature on the subject and the perceived outcomes of the proposed study.

Length of the research rationale

In a research proposal or research article, the rationale would not take up more than a few sentences . A thesis or dissertation would allow for a longer description, which could even run into a couple of paragraphs . The length might even depend on the field of study or nature of the experiment. For instance, a completely novel or unconventional approach might warrant a longer and more detailed justification.

Basic elements of the research rationale

Every research rationale should include some mention or discussion of the following: 

• An overview of your conclusions from your literature review
• Gaps in current knowledge
• Inconclusive or controversial findings from previous studies
• The need to build on previous research (e.g. unanswered questions, the need to update concepts in light of new findings and/or new technical advancements). 

Example of a research rationale

Note: This uses a fictional study.

Abc xyz is a newly identified microalgal species isolated from fish tanks. While Abc xyz algal blooms have been seen as a threat to pisciculture, some studies have hinted at their unusually high carotenoid content and unique carotenoid profile. Carotenoid profiling has been carried out only in a handful of microalgal species from this genus, and the search for microalgae rich in bioactive carotenoids has not yielded promising candidates so far. This in-depth examination of the carotenoid profile of Abc xyz will help identify and quantify novel and potentially useful carotenoids from an untapped aquaculture resource .

In conclusion

It is important to describe the rationale of your research in order to put the significance and novelty of your specific research project into perspective. Once you have successfully articulated the reason(s) for your research, you will have convinced readers of the importance of your work!

Maximise your publication success with Charlesworth Author Services.

Charlesworth Author Services , a trusted brand supporting the world’s leading academic publishers, institutions and authors since 1928. 

To know more about our services, visit: Our Services

Share with your colleagues

Scientific Editing Services

Sign up – stay updated.

We use cookies to offer you a personalized experience. By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy.

How to Write a Rationale for Your Research Paper

Learn how to write a compelling research rationale. Discover key elements, steps, and tips to justify your study and strengthen your academic paper.

Jun 25, 2024

A research rationale is a fundamental component of any academic paper, serving as the backbone that supports the entire study.

It's not just a formality or an introductory paragraph; rather, it's a critical element that justifies the need for your research and articulates its potential value to the academic community and beyond.

In essence, the rationale is your opportunity to convince readers—whether they're supervisors, peers, funding bodies, or journal editors—that your research is worth their time, attention, and potentially, their resources.

The Importance of a Well-Crafted Rationale

1. contextualizing your research.

A strong rationale provides the necessary context for your study. It situates your work within the broader landscape of existing research , helping readers understand where your study fits in the grand scheme of your field. This context is crucial because it demonstrates that you're not working in isolation, but rather building upon and contributing to a larger body of knowledge.

2. Demonstrating Originality and Significance

By clearly articulating the gap in current knowledge that your research aims to fill, you're effectively demonstrating the originality of your work. This is particularly important in academia , where novel contributions are highly valued. Your rationale should clarify that your study isn't merely replicating existing work but is pushing the boundaries of what's known in your field.

3. Justifying Resources and Efforts

Research often requires significant resources, both in terms of time and funding. Your rationale serves as a justification for these investments. It should convince readers that the potential outcomes of your study are worth the resources required to conduct it. This is especially crucial when applying for grants or seeking institutional support for your research.

4. Setting the Stage for Your Methodology

A well-written rationale naturally leads to your choice of methodology. By clearly stating the problem you're addressing and why it's important, you create a logical foundation for explaining how you plan to tackle it. This connection between your rationale and methodology strengthens the overall coherence of your research paper.

5. Enhancing the Impact of Your Findings

When you clearly articulate why your research question is important in your rationale, you're also setting the stage for discussing the implications of your findings later in your paper. A strong rationale makes it easier for readers to appreciate the significance of your results and their potential impact on the field.

Key Elements of an Effective Rationale

1. clear problem statement.

The cornerstone of your rationale is a clear, concise statement of the problem or question your research addresses. This statement should be specific enough to guide your research but broad enough to demonstrate its wider relevance. When formulating your problem statement, consider the following:

• What is the current state of knowledge in your field?
• What specific gap, contradiction, or unexplored area have you identified?
• Why is addressing this gap important?

Example: "Despite extensive research on climate change mitigation strategies, there's a lack of comprehensive studies examining the effectiveness of urban green spaces in reducing urban heat island effects in rapidly growing cities of the Global South."

2. Relevance to Existing Literature

Your rationale should demonstrate a thorough understanding of the current state of research in your field. This involves:

• Summarizing key findings from relevant studies
• Identifying trends, debates, or controversies in the literature
• Explaining how your research relates to or builds upon existing work

It's important to strike a balance here—show that you're familiar with the field, but also highlight the unique contribution your study will make.

3. Potential Impact of the Research

Articulate the potential outcomes of your study and why they matter. This could include:

• Theoretical advancements: How might your work challenge or refine existing theories?
• Practical applications: Could your findings inform policy decisions or improve professional practices?
• Societal benefits: How might your research contribute to solving broader societal challenges?

Be realistic in your claims, but don't undersell the potential significance of your work.

Steps to Write a Compelling Rationale

1. Identify the Research Problem

Start by clearly defining the specific issue or question your study will address. This involves:

• Conducting preliminary research to understand the current state of knowledge
• Identifying gaps or inconsistencies in existing research
• Formulating a clear, focused research question or hypothesis

2. Review Relevant Literature

Conduct a thorough review of current research related to your topic. This step is crucial for:

• Understanding the theoretical and empirical context of your research
• Identifying key debates or controversies in the field
• Spotting gaps or areas that need further exploration

As you review the literature, keep detailed notes on how each source relates to your research question and how it informs your rationale.

3. Articulate the Significance of Your Study

Explain why your research matters. This involves:

• Highlighting the theoretical or practical importance of your research question
• Discussing potential contributions to existing knowledge
• Explaining how your study might inform policy, practice, or future research

Be specific about the potential impact of your work, but avoid overstating its importance.

4. Explain Your Unique Approach or Perspective

Describe how your research approach differs from or builds upon previous work:

• Highlight any innovative methods or techniques you'll be using
• Explain how your perspective or approach adds value to the field
• Discuss how your study addresses limitations of previous research

5. Address Potential Counterarguments

Anticipate and address potential objections to your research:

• Acknowledge any limitations or potential weaknesses in your approach
• Explain why your study is valuable despite these challenges
• Demonstrate that you've considered alternative approaches and can justify your chosen method

Tips for Crafting a Compelling Rationale

Be Concise and Focused

While your rationale needs to be comprehensive, it should also be concise. Every sentence should serve a purpose in justifying your research. Avoid unnecessary jargon or overly complex language that might obscure your main points.

Use Evidence to Support Your Claims

Back up your arguments with evidence from credible sources. This might include:

• Statistics demonstrating the prevalence or impact of the problem you're studying
• Quotes from respected scholars in your field highlighting the need for further research
• Examples of real-world situations that illustrate the importance of your research question

Maintain Logical Flow

Ensure that your rationale follows a logical progression. Each point should naturally lead to the next, creating a compelling argument for the necessity and value of your research.

Tailor Your Rationale to Your Audience

Consider who will be reading your rationale. A funding body might be more interested in practical applications, while an academic journal might prioritize theoretical contributions. Adjust your focus accordingly.

Revise and Refine

Writing a strong rationale often requires multiple drafts. After writing your initial version:

• Take a break and return to it with fresh eyes
• Ask colleagues or mentors to review it and provide feedback
• Consider how each element contributes to justifying your research and remove anything that doesn't serve this purpose

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

Avoid general statements that could apply to any research. Be specific about the gap you're addressing and why your approach is valuable.

Disconnection from Prior Research

Don't present your research as if it exists in a vacuum. Always connect your work to existing literature and ongoing debates in your field.

Overstatement

While it's important to highlight the significance of your research, avoid hyperbole. Realistic, well-supported claims are more convincing than grandiose statements.

Lack of Focus

Ensure that every element of your rationale relates directly to your research question. Avoid tangents or unnecessary background information.

A well-crafted rationale is more than just a justification for your research —it's an opportunity to demonstrate your deep understanding of your field and your ability to contribute meaningfully to it. By clearly articulating the need for your study, its relevance to existing literature, and its potential impact, you set the stage for a compelling and impactful research paper.

Remember, your rationale is often the first thing readers encounter, so make it count. A strong rationale not only justifies your research but also engages your readers and invites them to join you on your academic journey.

Easily pronounces technical words in any field

Thesis Writing

Research Methodology

Research Rationale

Recent articles

What is an Individualized Education Plan (IEP)?

Aug 1, 2024

Individualized Education Plan

Special Education

IEP Process

Learning Disabilities

Assistive Technology

Noam Chomsky's Theory of Language Acquisition

Aug 5, 2024

What are the Responsibilities of a Cosigner in a Student Loan?

Aug 6, 2024

Financial Aid

College Funding

Cosigner Responsibilities

Student Loans

10 Best Productivity Books

Aug 13, 2024

Productivity Books

Time Management

Efficiency Tips

Self Improvement

Goal Setting

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Happiness Hub Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• Happiness Hub
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• College University and Postgraduate
• Academic Writing

How to Write a Study Rationale

Last Updated: May 19, 2023 Fact Checked

This article was co-authored by Jake Adams and by wikiHow staff writer, Jennifer Mueller, JD . Jake Adams is an academic tutor and the owner of Simplifi EDU, a Santa Monica, California based online tutoring business offering learning resources and online tutors for academic subjects K-College, SAT & ACT prep, and college admissions applications. With over 14 years of professional tutoring experience, Jake is dedicated to providing his clients the very best online tutoring experience and access to a network of excellent undergraduate and graduate-level tutors from top colleges all over the nation. Jake holds a BS in International Business and Marketing from Pepperdine University. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 59,585 times.

A study rationale explains the reason for a study and the importance of its findings for a particular field. Commonly, you'll need to write a study rationale as part of a university course of study, although you may also need to write one as a professional researcher to apply for funding or other support. As a student, your study rationale also justifies how it fulfills the requirements for your degree program or course of study. Do research before you write your study rationale so that you can discuss the previous work your study builds on and explain its significance to your field. Thorough research is also important in the professional context because your rationale will likely become part of the contract if funding or support is approved. [1] X Research source

Describing What You Hope to Accomplish

• For example, suppose you want to study how working the night shift affects the academic performance of college students who are taking classes during the day. A narrow question would measure a specific impact based on a specific amount of hours worked.

• Justify the methodology you're using. If there's another methodology that might accomplish the same result, describe it and explain why your methodology is superior — perhaps because it's more efficient, takes less time, or uses fewer resources. For example, you might get more information out of personal interviews, but creating an online questionnaire is more cost-effective.
• Particularly if you're seeking funding or support, this section of your rationale will also include details about the cost of your study and the facilities or resources you'll need. [3] X Research source

Tip: A methodology that is more complex, difficult, or expensive requires more justification than one that is straightforward and simple.

• For example, if you're studying the effect of working the night shift on academic performance, you might hypothesize that working 4 or more nights a week lowers students' grade point averages by more than 1 point.

• Use action words, such as "quantify" or "establish," when writing your goals. For example, you might write that one goal of your study is to "quantify the degree to which working at night inhibits the academic performance of college students."
• If you are a professional researcher, your objectives may need to be more specific and concrete. The organization you submit your rationale to will have details about the requirements to apply for funding and other support. [5] X Research source

Explaining Your Study's Significance

• Going into extensive detail usually isn't necessary. Instead, highlight the findings of the most significant work in the field that addressed a similar question.
• Provide references so that your readers can examine the previous studies for themselves and compare them to your proposed study.

• Methodological limitations: Previous studies failed to measure the variables appropriately or used a research design that had problems or biases
• Contextual limitations: Previous studies aren't relevant because circumstances have changed regarding the variables measured
• Conceptual limitations: Previous studies are too tied up in a specific ideology or framework

• For example, if a previous study had been conducted to support a university's policy that full-time students were not permitted to work, you might argue that it was too tied up in that specific ideology and that this biased the results. You could then point out that your study is not intended to advance any particular policy.

Tip: If you have to defend or present your rationale to an advisor or team, try to anticipate the questions they might ask you and include the answers to as many of those questions as possible.

Including Academic Proposal Information

• As a student, you might emphasize your major and specific classes you've taken that give you particular knowledge about the subject of your study. If you've served as a research assistant on a study with a similar methodology or covering a similar research question, you might mention that as well.
• If you're a professional researcher, focus on the experience you have in a particular field as well as the studies you've done in the past. If you have done studies with a similar methodology that were important in your field, you might mention those as well.

Tip: If you don't have any particular credentials or experience that are relevant to your study, tell the readers of your rationale what drew you to this particular topic and how you became interested in it.

• For example, if you are planning to conduct the study as fulfillment of the research requirement for your degree program, you might discuss any specific guidelines for that research requirement and list how your study meets those criteria.

• In most programs, there will be specific wording for you to include in your rationale if you're submitting it for a certain number of credits. Your instructor or advisor can help make sure you've worded this appropriately.

Study Rationale Outline and Example

Expert Q&A

• This article presents an overview of how to write a study rationale. Check with your instructor or advisor for any specific requirements that apply to your particular project. Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://research.com/research/how-to-write-research-methodology
• ↑ https://ris.leeds.ac.uk/applying-for-funding/developing-your-proposal/resources-and-tips/key-questions-for-researchers/
• ↑ https://www.cwauthors.com/article/how-to-write-the-rationale-for-your-research
• ↑ http://www.writingcentre.uct.ac.za/sites/default/files/image_tool/images/167/Rationale.pdf
• ↑ https://www.niaid.nih.gov/grants-contracts/write-research-plan
• ↑ https://www.esc.edu/degree-planning-academic-review/degree-program/student-degree-planning-guide/rationale-essay-writing/writing-tips/

About This Article

• Send fan mail to authors

Did this article help you?

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

wikiHow Tech Help Pro:

Develop the tech skills you need for work and life

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Academic writing
• How to write a lab report

How To Write A Lab Report | Step-by-Step Guide & Examples

Published on May 20, 2021 by Pritha Bhandari . Revised on July 23, 2023.

A lab report conveys the aim, methods, results, and conclusions of a scientific experiment. The main purpose of a lab report is to demonstrate your understanding of the scientific method by performing and evaluating a hands-on lab experiment. This type of assignment is usually shorter than a research paper .

Lab reports are commonly used in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. This article focuses on how to structure and write a lab report.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

Structuring a lab report, introduction, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about lab reports.

The sections of a lab report can vary between scientific fields and course requirements, but they usually contain the purpose, methods, and findings of a lab experiment .

Each section of a lab report has its own purpose.

• Title: expresses the topic of your study
• Abstract : summarizes your research aims, methods, results, and conclusions
• Introduction: establishes the context needed to understand the topic
• Method: describes the materials and procedures used in the experiment
• Results: reports all descriptive and inferential statistical analyses
• Discussion: interprets and evaluates results and identifies limitations
• Conclusion: sums up the main findings of your experiment
• References: list of all sources cited using a specific style (e.g. APA )
• Appendices : contains lengthy materials, procedures, tables or figures

Although most lab reports contain these sections, some sections can be omitted or combined with others. For example, some lab reports contain a brief section on research aims instead of an introduction, and a separate conclusion is not always required.

If you’re not sure, it’s best to check your lab report requirements with your instructor.

Check for common mistakes

Use the best grammar checker available to check for common mistakes in your text.

Fix mistakes for free

Your title provides the first impression of your lab report – effective titles communicate the topic and/or the findings of your study in specific terms.

Create a title that directly conveys the main focus or purpose of your study. It doesn’t need to be creative or thought-provoking, but it should be informative.

• The effects of varying nitrogen levels on tomato plant height.
• Testing the universality of the McGurk effect.
• Comparing the viscosity of common liquids found in kitchens.

An abstract condenses a lab report into a brief overview of about 150–300 words. It should provide readers with a compact version of the research aims, the methods and materials used, the main results, and the final conclusion.

Think of it as a way of giving readers a preview of your full lab report. Write the abstract last, in the past tense, after you’ve drafted all the other sections of your report, so you’ll be able to succinctly summarize each section.

To write a lab report abstract, use these guiding questions:

• What is the wider context of your study?
• What research question were you trying to answer?
• How did you perform the experiment?
• What did your results show?
• How did you interpret your results?
• What is the importance of your findings?

Nitrogen is a necessary nutrient for high quality plants. Tomatoes, one of the most consumed fruits worldwide, rely on nitrogen for healthy leaves and stems to grow fruit. This experiment tested whether nitrogen levels affected tomato plant height in a controlled setting. It was expected that higher levels of nitrogen fertilizer would yield taller tomato plants.

Levels of nitrogen fertilizer were varied between three groups of tomato plants. The control group did not receive any nitrogen fertilizer, while one experimental group received low levels of nitrogen fertilizer, and a second experimental group received high levels of nitrogen fertilizer. All plants were grown from seeds, and heights were measured 50 days into the experiment.

The effects of nitrogen levels on plant height were tested between groups using an ANOVA. The plants with the highest level of nitrogen fertilizer were the tallest, while the plants with low levels of nitrogen exceeded the control group plants in height. In line with expectations and previous findings, the effects of nitrogen levels on plant height were statistically significant. This study strengthens the importance of nitrogen for tomato plants.

Your lab report introduction should set the scene for your experiment. One way to write your introduction is with a funnel (an inverted triangle) structure:

• Start with the broad, general research topic
• Narrow your topic down your specific study focus
• End with a clear research question

Begin by providing background information on your research topic and explaining why it’s important in a broad real-world or theoretical context. Describe relevant previous research on your topic and note how your study may confirm it or expand it, or fill a gap in the research field.

This lab experiment builds on previous research from Haque, Paul, and Sarker (2011), who demonstrated that tomato plant yield increased at higher levels of nitrogen. However, the present research focuses on plant height as a growth indicator and uses a lab-controlled setting instead.

Next, go into detail on the theoretical basis for your study and describe any directly relevant laws or equations that you’ll be using. State your main research aims and expectations by outlining your hypotheses .

Based on the importance of nitrogen for tomato plants, the primary hypothesis was that the plants with the high levels of nitrogen would grow the tallest. The secondary hypothesis was that plants with low levels of nitrogen would grow taller than plants with no nitrogen.

Your introduction doesn’t need to be long, but you may need to organize it into a few paragraphs or with subheadings such as “Research Context” or “Research Aims.”

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

A lab report Method section details the steps you took to gather and analyze data. Give enough detail so that others can follow or evaluate your procedures. Write this section in the past tense. If you need to include any long lists of procedural steps or materials, place them in the Appendices section but refer to them in the text here.

You should describe your experimental design, your subjects, materials, and specific procedures used for data collection and analysis.

Experimental design

Briefly note whether your experiment is a within-subjects  or between-subjects design, and describe how your sample units were assigned to conditions if relevant.

A between-subjects design with three groups of tomato plants was used. The control group did not receive any nitrogen fertilizer. The first experimental group received a low level of nitrogen fertilizer, while the second experimental group received a high level of nitrogen fertilizer.

Describe human subjects in terms of demographic characteristics, and animal or plant subjects in terms of genetic background. Note the total number of subjects as well as the number of subjects per condition or per group. You should also state how you recruited subjects for your study.

List the equipment or materials you used to gather data and state the model names for any specialized equipment.

List of materials

35 Tomato seeds

15 plant pots (15 cm tall)

Light lamps (50,000 lux)

Nitrogen fertilizer

Measuring tape

Describe your experimental settings and conditions in detail. You can provide labelled diagrams or images of the exact set-up necessary for experimental equipment. State how extraneous variables were controlled through restriction or by fixing them at a certain level (e.g., keeping the lab at room temperature).

Light levels were fixed throughout the experiment, and the plants were exposed to 12 hours of light a day. Temperature was restricted to between 23 and 25℃. The pH and carbon levels of the soil were also held constant throughout the experiment as these variables could influence plant height. The plants were grown in rooms free of insects or other pests, and they were spaced out adequately.

Your experimental procedure should describe the exact steps you took to gather data in chronological order. You’ll need to provide enough information so that someone else can replicate your procedure, but you should also be concise. Place detailed information in the appendices where appropriate.

In a lab experiment, you’ll often closely follow a lab manual to gather data. Some instructors will allow you to simply reference the manual and state whether you changed any steps based on practical considerations. Other instructors may want you to rewrite the lab manual procedures as complete sentences in coherent paragraphs, while noting any changes to the steps that you applied in practice.

If you’re performing extensive data analysis, be sure to state your planned analysis methods as well. This includes the types of tests you’ll perform and any programs or software you’ll use for calculations (if relevant).

First, tomato seeds were sown in wooden flats containing soil about 2 cm below the surface. Each seed was kept 3-5 cm apart. The flats were covered to keep the soil moist until germination. The seedlings were removed and transplanted to pots 8 days later, with a maximum of 2 plants to a pot. Each pot was watered once a day to keep the soil moist.

The nitrogen fertilizer treatment was applied to the plant pots 12 days after transplantation. The control group received no treatment, while the first experimental group received a low concentration, and the second experimental group received a high concentration. There were 5 pots in each group, and each plant pot was labelled to indicate the group the plants belonged to.

50 days after the start of the experiment, plant height was measured for all plants. A measuring tape was used to record the length of the plant from ground level to the top of the tallest leaf.

In your results section, you should report the results of any statistical analysis procedures that you undertook. You should clearly state how the results of statistical tests support or refute your initial hypotheses.

The main results to report include:

• any descriptive statistics
• statistical test results
• the significance of the test results
• estimates of standard error or confidence intervals

The mean heights of the plants in the control group, low nitrogen group, and high nitrogen groups were 20.3, 25.1, and 29.6 cm respectively. A one-way ANOVA was applied to calculate the effect of nitrogen fertilizer level on plant height. The results demonstrated statistically significant ( p = .03) height differences between groups.

Next, post-hoc tests were performed to assess the primary and secondary hypotheses. In support of the primary hypothesis, the high nitrogen group plants were significantly taller than the low nitrogen group and the control group plants. Similarly, the results supported the secondary hypothesis: the low nitrogen plants were taller than the control group plants.

These results can be reported in the text or in tables and figures. Use text for highlighting a few key results, but present large sets of numbers in tables, or show relationships between variables with graphs.

You should also include sample calculations in the Results section for complex experiments. For each sample calculation, provide a brief description of what it does and use clear symbols. Present your raw data in the Appendices section and refer to it to highlight any outliers or trends.

The Discussion section will help demonstrate your understanding of the experimental process and your critical thinking skills.

In this section, you can:

• Interpret your results
• Compare your findings with your expectations
• Identify any sources of experimental error
• Explain any unexpected results
• Suggest possible improvements for further studies

Interpreting your results involves clarifying how your results help you answer your main research question. Report whether your results support your hypotheses.

• Did you measure what you sought out to measure?
• Were your analysis procedures appropriate for this type of data?

Compare your findings with other research and explain any key differences in findings.

• Are your results in line with those from previous studies or your classmates’ results? Why or why not?

An effective Discussion section will also highlight the strengths and limitations of a study.

• Did you have high internal validity or reliability?
• How did you establish these aspects of your study?

When describing limitations, use specific examples. For example, if random error contributed substantially to the measurements in your study, state the particular sources of error (e.g., imprecise apparatus) and explain ways to improve them.

The results support the hypothesis that nitrogen levels affect plant height, with increasing levels producing taller plants. These statistically significant results are taken together with previous research to support the importance of nitrogen as a nutrient for tomato plant growth.

However, unlike previous studies, this study focused on plant height as an indicator of plant growth in the present experiment. Importantly, plant height may not always reflect plant health or fruit yield, so measuring other indicators would have strengthened the study findings.

Another limitation of the study is the plant height measurement technique, as the measuring tape was not suitable for plants with extreme curvature. Future studies may focus on measuring plant height in different ways.

The main strengths of this study were the controls for extraneous variables, such as pH and carbon levels of the soil. All other factors that could affect plant height were tightly controlled to isolate the effects of nitrogen levels, resulting in high internal validity for this study.

Your conclusion should be the final section of your lab report. Here, you’ll summarize the findings of your experiment, with a brief overview of the strengths and limitations, and implications of your study for further research.

Some lab reports may omit a Conclusion section because it overlaps with the Discussion section, but you should check with your instructor before doing so.

If you want to know more about AI for academic writing, AI tools, or fallacies make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

• Ad hominem fallacy
• Post hoc fallacy
• Appeal to authority fallacy
• False cause fallacy
• Sunk cost fallacy
• Deep learning
• Generative AI
• Machine learning
• Reinforcement learning
• Supervised vs. unsupervised learning

 (AI) Tools

• Grammar Checker
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Text Summarizer
• AI Detector
• Plagiarism Checker
• Citation Generator

A lab report conveys the aim, methods, results, and conclusions of a scientific experiment . Lab reports are commonly assigned in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields.

The purpose of a lab report is to demonstrate your understanding of the scientific method with a hands-on lab experiment. Course instructors will often provide you with an experimental design and procedure. Your task is to write up how you actually performed the experiment and evaluate the outcome.

In contrast, a research paper requires you to independently develop an original argument. It involves more in-depth research and interpretation of sources and data.

A lab report is usually shorter than a research paper.

The sections of a lab report can vary between scientific fields and course requirements, but it usually contains the following:

• Abstract: summarizes your research aims, methods, results, and conclusions
• References: list of all sources cited using a specific style (e.g. APA)
• Appendices: contains lengthy materials, procedures, tables or figures

The results chapter or section simply and objectively reports what you found, without speculating on why you found these results. The discussion interprets the meaning of the results, puts them in context, and explains why they matter.

In qualitative research , results and discussion are sometimes combined. But in quantitative research , it’s considered important to separate the objective results from your interpretation of them.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Bhandari, P. (2023, July 23). How To Write A Lab Report | Step-by-Step Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved September 4, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/academic-writing/lab-report/

Is this article helpful?

Pritha Bhandari

Other students also liked, guide to experimental design | overview, steps, & examples, how to write an apa methods section, how to write an apa results section, what is your plagiarism score.

Imperial College London Imperial College London

Latest news.

Imperial retains top spot in UK university league table

Award shortlists and interdisciplinary research grants: News from Imperial

5 lessons to level up conservation successfully

• Educational Development Unit
• Teaching toolkit
• Educational research methods
• Before you start

Rationale and potential impact of your research

Before you start - Rationale and potential impact of your research

Perhaps the most important consideration prior to embarking on a piece of research is of what the overall rationale for – and purpose of – it will be. Given the time, resources and practical considerations involved in planning and carrying out research, the justification for these efforts needs to be made explicit from the outset: as does the anticipated impact or benefits that the research will ultimately bring.  

Key things to think about

Issues that should be addressed in outlining the overall aims and rationale for your research include:

• the problem, need or issue that has given rise to the research idea
• how the existing literature (or lack thereof) has highlighted the need for it
• who wants the research - and why
• what the general purposes and priorities of the research are
• who are the potential beneficiaries of and audiences for the research
• the intended outcomes of the research, its deliverables and what it will 'do'

Further reading

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2018), Chapter 9 – “Choosing a research project” in Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (eds), Research Methods in Education (Abingdon, Routledge, 8th edn, pp. 153-164

Writing an Introduction for a Scientific Paper

Dr. michelle harris, dr. janet batzli, biocore.

This section provides guidelines on how to construct a solid introduction to a scientific paper including background information, study question , biological rationale, hypothesis , and general approach . If the Introduction is done well, there should be no question in the reader’s mind why and on what basis you have posed a specific hypothesis.

Broad Question : based on an initial observation (e.g., “I see a lot of guppies close to the shore. Do guppies like living in shallow water?”). This observation of the natural world may inspire you to investigate background literature or your observation could be based on previous research by others or your own pilot study. Broad questions are not always included in your written text, but are essential for establishing the direction of your research.

Background Information : key issues, concepts, terminology, and definitions needed to understand the biological rationale for the experiment. It often includes a summary of findings from previous, relevant studies. Remember to cite references, be concise, and only include relevant information given your audience and your experimental design. Concisely summarized background information leads to the identification of specific scientific knowledge gaps that still exist. (e.g., “No studies to date have examined whether guppies do indeed spend more time in shallow water.”)

Testable Question : these questions are much more focused than the initial broad question, are specific to the knowledge gap identified, and can be addressed with data. (e.g., “Do guppies spend different amounts of time in water <1 meter deep as compared to their time in water that is >1 meter deep?”)

Biological Rationale : describes the purpose of your experiment distilling what is known and what is not known that defines the knowledge gap that you are addressing. The “BR” provides the logic for your hypothesis and experimental approach, describing the biological mechanism and assumptions that explain why your hypothesis should be true.

The biological rationale is based on your interpretation of the scientific literature, your personal observations, and the underlying assumptions you are making about how you think the system works. If you have written your biological rationale, your reader should see your hypothesis in your introduction section and say to themselves, “Of course, this hypothesis seems very logical based on the rationale presented.”

• A thorough rationale defines your assumptions about the system that have not been revealed in scientific literature or from previous systematic observation. These assumptions drive the direction of your specific hypothesis or general predictions.
• Defining the rationale is probably the most critical task for a writer, as it tells your reader why your research is biologically meaningful. It may help to think about the rationale as an answer to the questions— how is this investigation related to what we know, what assumptions am I making about what we don’t yet know, AND how will this experiment add to our knowledge? *There may or may not be broader implications for your study; be careful not to overstate these (see note on social justifications below).
• Expect to spend time and mental effort on this. You may have to do considerable digging into the scientific literature to define how your experiment fits into what is already known and why it is relevant to pursue.
• Be open to the possibility that as you work with and think about your data, you may develop a deeper, more accurate understanding of the experimental system. You may find the original rationale needs to be revised to reflect your new, more sophisticated understanding.
• As you progress through Biocore and upper level biology courses, your rationale should become more focused and matched with the level of study e ., cellular, biochemical, or physiological mechanisms that underlie the rationale. Achieving this type of understanding takes effort, but it will lead to better communication of your science.

***Special note on avoiding social justifications: You should not overemphasize the relevance of your experiment and the possible connections to large-scale processes. Be realistic and logical —do not overgeneralize or state grand implications that are not sensible given the structure of your experimental system. Not all science is easily applied to improving the human condition. Performing an investigation just for the sake of adding to our scientific knowledge (“pure or basic science”) is just as important as applied science. In fact, basic science often provides the foundation for applied studies.

Hypothesis / Predictions : specific prediction(s) that you will test during your experiment. For manipulative experiments, the hypothesis should include the independent variable (what you manipulate), the dependent variable(s) (what you measure), the organism or system , the direction of your results, and comparison to be made.

If you are doing a systematic observation , your hypothesis presents a variable or set of variables that you predict are important for helping you characterize the system as a whole, or predict differences between components/areas of the system that help you explain how the system functions or changes over time.

Experimental Approach : Briefly gives the reader a general sense of the experiment, the type of data it will yield, and the kind of conclusions you expect to obtain from the data. Do not confuse the experimental approach with the experimental protocol . The experimental protocol consists of the detailed step-by-step procedures and techniques used during the experiment that are to be reported in the Methods and Materials section.

Some Final Tips on Writing an Introduction

• As you progress through the Biocore sequence, for instance, from organismal level of Biocore 301/302 to the cellular level in Biocore 303/304, we expect the contents of your “Introduction” paragraphs to reflect the level of your coursework and previous writing experience. For example, in Biocore 304 (Cell Biology Lab) biological rationale should draw upon assumptions we are making about cellular and biochemical processes.
• Be Concise yet Specific: Remember to be concise and only include relevant information given your audience and your experimental design. As you write, keep asking, “Is this necessary information or is this irrelevant detail?” For example, if you are writing a paper claiming that a certain compound is a competitive inhibitor to the enzyme alkaline phosphatase and acts by binding to the active site, you need to explain (briefly) Michaelis-Menton kinetics and the meaning and significance of Km and Vmax. This explanation is not necessary if you are reporting the dependence of enzyme activity on pH because you do not need to measure Km and Vmax to get an estimate of enzyme activity.
• Another example: if you are writing a paper reporting an increase in Daphnia magna heart rate upon exposure to caffeine you need not describe the reproductive cycle of magna unless it is germane to your results and discussion. Be specific and concrete, especially when making introductory or summary statements.

Where Do You Discuss Pilot Studies? Many times it is important to do pilot studies to help you get familiar with your experimental system or to improve your experimental design. If your pilot study influences your biological rationale or hypothesis, you need to describe it in your Introduction. If your pilot study simply informs the logistics or techniques, but does not influence your rationale, then the description of your pilot study belongs in the Materials and Methods section.  

How will introductions be evaluated? The following is part of the rubric we will be using to evaluate your papers.

The Ultimate Writing Guide to the QCAA Biology Student Experiment

Expected to write up a student experiment report for QCAA Biology but aren’t too sure how to approach the task?

We’re here to help you out! We’ll walk you through each of the different sections of the student experiment report for QCAA Biology, so that you’ve got a clear understanding of the structure.

What are you waiting for? Let’s get started!

What is a Student Experiment? How do you write a Student Experiment for QCAA Biology? QCAA Biology Student Experiment Report Structure

What is a student experiment?

A student experiment is simply a chance for you to showcase your ability to employ the scientific method in 1500 to 2000 words!

This assessment piece requires you to develop a research question or hypothesis, and attempt to address it through the collection and analysis of primary data. In order to do this, you will need to refine, extend, or modify a previously conducted experiment. 

Want to see how you went in the IA1? Check out our QCE Cohort Comparison Tool to show you were you sit compared to your peers!

How do you write a student experiment for QCAA Biology? 

To successfully complete this task, QCAA state that you must:

• Develop a research question to be investigated and conduct relevant background research to inform your modifications to the methodology
• Conduct a risk assessment and account for risks in the methodology
• Collect sufficient and relevant qualitative and/or quantitative data to address the research question 
• Process and present the data appropriately to allow for the analysis of trend, patterns or relationships, as well as uncertainty and limitations
• Interpret the evidence to draw conclusion/s to the research question
• Evaluate the reliability and validity of the experimental process
• Suggest possible improvements and extensions to the experiment

In short, these are the steps you will need to follow:

Below is a breakdown for how, exactly, to complete a student experiment and hit all the marks along the way. 

In the example below, the data used comes from the Moreton Bay Environmental Education Centre (MBEEC) . Learn more about their different curriculum programs! Please also keep in mind that this example has data for one particular species, and when writing up your own experiment, you will need to choose a different species to avoid any plagiarism.

Download our QCAA Biology Student Experiment structure!

QCAA Biology Student Experiment Report Structure

Step 1: write your introduction.

The bulk of your research and background theory should be contained within the rationale.

It is important that you show the development of your investigation through the rationale! You can’t simply jump straight to the crux of the investigation, as that doesn’t give any indication as to why you are doing the investigation and any important information that has informed your question.

For this reason, it can be helpful to think of your rationale as a funnel through which you are feeding the reader information .

For example , let’s look at the rationale mapping for an investigation into how climate change’s influence on water temperature impacts the abundance of a species of a fish species known as Pelates sexlineatus.  

It’s also important to make sure that your rationale addresses every component of your research question!  The purpose of your rationale is, after all, to show how the question has been developed. You should also show how you have considered your modifications to the original experiment.

To get top marks , your rationale must be “considered”. What does this mean?

Your rationale must discuss any theory that is important for the investigation. You must also show that your modifications to the methodology have been informed by theory. Using the funnel method shown above can help you produce a considered rationale. 

QCAA Biology Student Experiment example: Climate Change Impacts on Marine Ecosystems (2012), authored by Scott. C. Doney, et al., investigates the detrimental consequences marine ecosystems are facing, resultant of anthropogenic climate change. When regarding ecological timescales, a central problem posed by climate change is the rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) (Doney, et al., 2012). The significance of this issue is due to its global prevalence and damaging nature (Doney, et al., 2012). It can be noted that the primary effect increasing CO 2   levels has on the ocean is rising temperatures. Doney et al. identified that fluctuations in ocean temperatures may ultimately impact the functioning of ecosystems. Varying and heightened temperatures have the potential to alter the “physiological function, behaviour and demographic traits [for example, productivity] of organisms” in marine ecosystems (Doney, et al., 2012). Additionally, this may lead to a subsequent decrement in the abundance of organisms within species. Ultimately, ocean temperatures regulate species interactions and behaviour – particularly the behaviour of ectotherms – and fluctuations in temperature can result in changes to trophic pathways. 

Original Experiment

This does not need to be incredibly lengthy — a few sentences tacked on to the end of your rationale will suffice! All you need to do is:

• State the aim of the original experiment
• Identify some of the limitations that will be addressed by your investigation

To get top marks , you must demonstrate that your modifications to the methodology are “justified”. By identifying the limitations of the original investigation, you are making it much easier to justify your own modifications!

For example: The original investigation aimed to investigate how a multitude of abiotic factors affect the distribution of the species Chrysophry auratus in Moreton Bay. This investigation is limited in that: 1) abiotic data has been omitted for all measurements taken prior to 2015, and 2) the analysis lacks specificity since it investigates a variety of abiotic factors — thus, the data is only being examined at surface-level.

Developing a Research Question for your QCAA Biology Student Experiment

When developing your research question, the goal is to generate a question that is succinct and specific enough to provide results that can be analysed with ease . You want to ensure that both your dependent and independent variables are not only included in the question, but operationalised.

To make your research question even better, prompt the investigation to seek directionality. Instead of asking, “Does X impact Y?”, ask “ How does X impact Y?”.

By only asking “Does”, you are asking a yes or no question. The inclusion of “How” necessitates a more in-depth investigation of the relationship between the variables.

To get top marks , your research question must be “specific” and “relevant” — but what does this mean? This means that you have to really consider the variables you are exploring and make sure that your question is linked nicely to your rationale. Every aspect of your research question should be addressed in the rationale. 

For example: How has climate change’s impact on the abiotic factor of water temperature (˚C) affected the abundance of P. sexlineatus, between 2015 and 2018, at Moreton Bay? 

Step 2: Define Your Methodology

Original method.

It’s important to note that you don’t need to include a step-by-step guide on how to conduct the original experiment. You simply just need to provide a general idea of how the original methodology attempted to address the aim. 

For example: The original methodology, on which this report is based, utilised a baited remote underwater video station (BRUV) in order to attract and record marine species in the vicinity. 

Modifications to Methodology

This section should also not be mistaken for a step-by-step guide on how to conduct the new experiment. What this section should include are the ways you have changed the methodology  for your own Biology student experiment.

You can show this through the inclusion of refinements, extensions and redirections. It is also important to indicate how these modifications improved the original method and addressed any limitations. 

To get top marks , you must show that your modifications are “justified” and that your methodology allows you to collect “sufficient” and “relevant” data. This can be achieved simply by showing how your investigation is an improvement of the original. 

For example: The key refinement to the original experiment is the alteration of the species of focus … [This] refinement allow[s] for the analysis of relevant and appropriate data and ensures that the investigation is specific. Extensions include examining the links between the abiotic factors of water temperature, water depth and season … [This] extension allow[s] for the insightful analysis of data — ensuring it is assessed beyond the surface level … Redirections include … investigating the effects of climate change on the species abundance of P. sexlineatus, due to its impact on water temperature. [This] redirection allow[s] for the investigation to fill gaps in the scientific understanding presented by the original study.

Management of Risks and Ethical Considerations

In this section, you need to identify any major safety risks and ethical concerns that were posed by the investigation . It is also crucial that you elaborate on how these risks and ethical concerns were addressed. 

To get top marks , you must show that your management of risks and ethical concerns is “considered”. You can do this by showing that these risks and concerns were taken into account before you even conducted the experiment. 

For example: As the methodology consisted solely of analysing pre-collected data from a reputable source, no safety risks were identified. However, ethical considerations have been noted when examining the data collection technique implemented throughout the original study. The non-invasive nature of BRUVs ensures they do not harm organisms; although, in some instances, its deployment may cause damage to the surrounding habitats. The effects of this can be mitigated should the investigator aim to deploy the BRUV thoughtfully. 

Up until this point, the only criteria that has been assessed is:

Refer to the “To get top marks” component of each subsection to see how you can ensure you meet all of the criteria. 

Step 3: Generate Results from Your Student Experiment

Descriptive statistics and inferential statistics.

In this section it is imperative that you discuss any trends, patterns or relationships that you see in the data. Further, you should make an effort to link your observations back to the research question as much as possible.

You may also wish to present your data in a graphical or tabular format in this section (however, ensure you include error bars and/or uncertainty). 

Additionally, you should discuss the significance of your results. You can do this by analysing the error bars on your graph… Ask yourself, are they overlapping? If so, your data isn’t statistically significant.

You can also employ the use of inferential tests to determine statistical significance. For any calculations you do, however, you should include an example in this section. 

To get top marks, you must demonstrate the “appropriate” application of mathematical procedures, as well as “appropriate” “visual” and “graphical” presentations of the data. Additionally, you must identify trends, patterns, or relationships that are relevant to the investigation — you can do this by ensuring you link your observations back to the question. 

QCAA Biology Student Experiment example: The mean number of P. sexlineatus increases almost twofold at temperatures ≤22˚C, compared to temperatures >22˚C. With a confidence interval of 95%, it is expected that the mean number of P. sexlineatus at temperatures less than 22˚C is 22±6.94. However, at temperatures ≥22˚C this value is reduced to 10±3.76. This relationship between the abiotic factor of water temperature and the abundance of P. sexlineatus is supported by scientific literature; this marine species prefers cooler water temperatures (operationalised as temperatures below 22˚C). When comparing the abundance of P. sexlineatus at temperatures above and below 22˚C, a p-value of 0.004 was produced … As this value is less than 0.05, it can be deduced that the results are statistically significant, and that water temperature does influence the abundance of the species. 

Limitations

Here you will comment on any sources of error or uncertainty, as well as any shortcomings of the methodology that have potentially impacted your ability to accurately answer the research question or draw a conclusion.

It can help to break this section up into limitations concerning the data and limitations concerning the methodology. This will make it easier to write up the reliability and validity section, as reliability concerns data and validity concerns methodology. 

According to the QCAA, to get top marks you must demonstrate the “thorough” and “appropriate” identification of uncertainty and limitations. This means that you must comment on and acknowledge how the uncertainty and limitations impact your ability to draw causal conclusions or answer your research question. 

For example: Limitations concerning the data include: some measurements exhibited larger confidence intervals, relative to the mean (indicating uncertainty) … Limitations concerning the methodology include: the type of bait used might impact the species that are attracted to the BRUV – it has been identified that P. sexlineatus primarily feed on crustaceans; however, the bait used was not crustaceous. 

Analysis of Results

In this section of the Biology Student Experiment, you must talk about what your results mean with regard to answering the research question . You can also talk about what you expected the results to look like and compare that to what was actually seen.

If desired, you can do further research to gain any theory (that isn’t contained within the rationale) that may help you explain the results. 

To get top marks, you must draw “justified” conclusions that are “linked” to the research question. By linking your observations back to the theory and making very explicit connections to the research question , you can tick off this criteria. 

QCAA Biology Student Experiment example: Water temperature has a significant effect on the abundance of P. sexlineatus … The data shows that there is an inversely proportional relationship between water temperature and P. sexlineatus abundance. Further, water temperature is understood to be directly influenced by climate change … Upon conducting further research, it has been recognised that the metabolic rates of aquatic organisms has a directly proportional relationship with water temperature (Fondriest Environmental, Inc., 2014) … Increased metabolic rates may be detrimental to the health of aquatic organisms if maintained for extended periods of time (Fondriest Environmental, Inc., 2014). Ultimately, these physiological responses cause behavioural changes such as relocation, which impacts the measurements of species abundance. Thus, being a cold-water species, it can be deduced that climate change negatively affects the abundance of P. sexlineatus via increases in ocean temperature. 

Step 4: Interpret and Evaluate Your Investigation

Reliability and validity.

Here you must elaborate on the reliability and validity of the investigation.

Reliability relates to the data, so you can discuss things like the uncertainty of the data or any error that may impact the ability to draw a conclusion.

Validity, on the other hand, refers to the methodology. If the methodology wasn’t appropriate then you cannot draw a valid conclusion as the investigation won’t produce results that are relevant to what you are examining. 

To get top marks, you must have a “justified” discussion of the reliability and validity of the investigation. This means talking about how the limitations don’t stop you from being able to draw a causal conclusion. 

For example: It has been identified that the data lacks inter-rater reliability, due to the high degree of dispersion – indicating a lack of consistency. However, the results are reliable in that they hold statistical significance. This is observed in the t-tests and in the fact that the error bars do not overlap – furthermore, most error bars are quite infinitesimal relative to the size of the means. The validity is strong as the methodology allows for the accurate identification of fish species (ultimately ensuring the content validity of the results).

Improvements and Extensions

In this section, you address any limitations to the investigation that you identified in the limitations section. If there are any ways to improve the reliability or validity of the investigation, then you should state that here.

Further, you should discuss how this investigation can be extended further to investigate something new or fill any other gaps in knowledge that were uncovered during this investigation. 

According to QCAA, to get top marks in your Biology Student Experiment, you must suggest improvements and extensions that are “logically derived” from your analysis of the evidence. You can achieve this by ensuring each of the limitations you identify in the limitations section maps to an improvement in this section. 

QCAA Biology Student Experiment example: Suggested improvements that will enhance the reliability and validity of the data and methodology include: using crustaceous bait (in order to better attract P. sexlineatus), collecting data from various localities in Easter Australia (so as to examine whether the high level of dispersion is typical) … Extensions include: examining how other abiotic factors (also influenced by climate change) affect the abundance of species (i.e. ocean acidity), and investigating the impact climate change has on species residing in intertidal zones. 

For the sections in steps 3 and 4, the following criteria are being assessed:

Interested in what IA2 mark you need to get an ATAR 90+?

Step 5: Write Your Conclusion

Here, you simply summarise the results and your answer to the research question.

For example: Between 2015 and 2018, it can be deduced that Moreton Bay’s abundance of P. sexlineatus has been negatively impacted by climate change – due to its effects on water temperature (notably, causing increases in temperature). This is due to the fact that increased temperatures result in behavioural changes in ectothermic species. 

Step 6: Include a Reference List In Your Student Experiment

For example: 

Note: this exemplar uses APA style referencing. 

Step 7: Include an Appendix

Here you can include raw data and any calculations you have performed. This section is not marked, nor does it contribute to the word count. However, this section allows you to include any supplementary information to aid your report. 

For example:

Want to see why Term 2 is one of the most important terms of the QCE for so many students? Read why here!

There you have it!

We’ve given you a step-by-step guide on how your student experiment report for QCAA Biology should be structured. Hopefully you’re feeling way more confident to complete your task now!

If you’ve been looking for other resources to help you study for QCAA Biology, here are some you can access:

• Unit 3 Biology Data Test IA1 Practice Questions
• Unit 3 & 4 Biology External Assessment Practice Questions
• Unit 3 & 4 Biology External Assessment Multiple Choice Practice Questions
• The Essential List of QCE Biology Terms You Need to Know for Unit 3
• The Ultimate Guide to QCE Biology Unit 3: Biodiversity and the Interconnectedness of Life

Are you looking for some extra help with the Student Experiment for QCAA Biology?

We have an incredible team of qld biology tutors and mentors.

We can help you master the QCAA Biology syllabus and ace your upcoming Biology assessments with personalised lessons conducted one-on-one in your home or online!

Need a tutor on the Gold Coast region ? We’ve got you!

We’ve supported over  8,000 students over the last 11 years , and on average our students score mark improvements of over 20%!

We offer support for regional areas too! Check out our expert Townsville tutoring team !

To find out more and get started with an inspirational QLD tutor and mentor,   get in touch today  or give us a ring on  1300 267 888!

Katelyn Smith  was a pioneer in the Queensland ATAR system. After graduating in 2020 with an ATAR of 98.40, she now studies a Bachelor of Advanced Science (Honours) at The University of Queensland — majoring in Physics. Through her studies, she hopes to develop a greater appreciation for how the wonders of the universe work. When she isn’t slaving away behind her unnecessarily large textbooks, she enjoys catching up with friends, scrolling mindlessly through TikTok, and sleeping.

• Topics: 🧬 Biology , ✍️ Learn

Related Articles

Qcaa practice questions for unit 3 & 4 biology external assessment, qcaa unit 3 biology data test ia1 – practice questions, qcaa multiple choice practice questions for unit 3 & 4 biology external assessment, 45,861 students have a head start....

Get exclusive study content & advice from our team of experts delivered weekly to your inbox!

Looking for Biology Support?

Discover how we can help you!

We provide services in

New south wales, queensland and victoria.

• Open access
• Published: 06 September 2024

Unlocking the core revision of writing assessment: EFL learner’ emotional transformation from form focus to content orientation

• Yuguo Ke 1 &
• Xiaozhen Zhou 1  

BMC Psychology volume  12 , Article number:  472 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

The process of revising writing has provided valuable insights into both learners’ written output and their cognitive processes during revision. Research has acknowledged the emotional dimension of writing revision, yet no studies have delved into models that connect all of these domains. Given the interplay between these domains, it is crucial to explore potential associations between writing revision and writing quality in terms of emotions.

This study aims to shed light on the emotional shifts that occur as learners transition from a focus on form to an emphasis on content, refining fundamental aspects of writing revision, and investigating potential challenges and strategies.

A total of 320 Chinese-speaking learners (188 female and 132 male) participated in weekly writing classes. We used subsequent investigation aimed to probe the specific writing revision practices contributing to both form and content revisions and semi-structured interview from collection, representation, marking, and stimulated recall to elicit participants’ perspectives on various aspects, including the number of writing revisions, recurring errors, emotional processes, efficacy of writing revision, cognition of writing revision, attitudes towards writing revision, and emotional changes.

The findings reveal a positive correlation between writing revision and the quality of writing. EFL learners’ rationale for revising centered on the imperative need to address new structural nuances or incorporate additional elements such as vocabulary, spelling, and punctuation. Additionally, form revision garnered significantly lower scores compared to content revision. Finally, EFL learners deduced the form revision governing target content through repeated revisions of the manuscript throughout the time points.

Conclusions

The results indicate that the outcomes of form-focused revision or content-oriented approaches are linked to the quality of writing and contribute to the development of writing skills. Moreover, psychological processes assist English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners in enhancing their self-efficacy in language acquisition.

Implications

This study contributes to the existing body of knowledge by highlighting the importance of understanding the emotional dimensions of writing revision. The practical implications of these findings extend to both learners and educators, offering insights into how to enhance self-efficacy in language learning and teaching.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Writing revision (WR) has uncovered key insights into both learners’ written products and their cognitive processes during revision [ 1 ]. Increasingly, it is thought that studies in language testing suggest that psychologically engaging in writing revision can enhance English as a foreign language (EFL) learners’ understanding of form-focused assessment [ 2 , 3 ]. Writing revision has been identified as a significant factor in improving the overall quality of writing [ 1 , 4 ] and and a particular focus has been placed on the quality of writing revision. It is argued that broader investigations into writing revision have highlighted significant enhancements in learners’ form revision, which encompasses superficial aspects such as spelling, vocabulary usage, diction, and grammatical accuracy [ 4 , 5 , 6 ]. In line with this theory are findings that independent qualitative inquiries have explored content orientation, which encompasses deeper aspects such as critical thinking, cultural involvement, and the use of representative evidence [ 7 ], as well as learners’ strategies to regulate language in their writing [ 8 ], and challenges encountered during the processing of written corrective feedback, which influence language writing accuracy and cognitive revision [ 9 ].

In the context of emotional aspects of writing processes, emotional dimension of writing revision has become a key target in psychological process of WR [ 10 , 11 , 12 ], yet no studies have delved into models that connect all of these domains. In this regard, it is not hypothesized that given the interplay between these domains, it is crucial to explore potential associations between writing revision and writing quality in terms of emotions. Additionally, as many higher-quality writing manuscripts rely on multiple rounds of WR, it is essential to support learners by identifying their strengths and providing specific assistance in areas where they encounter difficulties in WR. Thus, research on writing revision is deemed important both theoretically and pedagogically to uncover emotional conditions that facilitate learners’ writing improvement, particularly in psychological processes of WR contexts [ 13 , 14 , 15 ]. While promising in enhancing learners’ writing, these findings often overlook important factors such as revision patterns, sequences, emotions, and orientations. In the context of WR, enhancing the quality of WR has become a central objective in language output. In this regard, while quantitative studies on writing revision shed light on its potential within language assessment, previous studies offer limited insight into its complexities [ 16 ], including the emotional transformations experienced by learners as they refine their writing [ 6 , 17 , 18 ]. Investigating the interactive dynamics of writing revision, learners’ responses to cognitive revision, and the impact of feedback can enhance writing quality [ 12 , 19 ].

Incorporating emotional considerations into WR is expected to yield significant insights and outcomes by providing a more comprehensive understanding of language learning tailored to individual learner needs. Therefore, we hypothesize that the emotional phase of a longitudinal mixed-methods study can serve as a simultaneous monitor for learners’ WR, aiming to elucidate emotional aspects of writing revision and its impact on enhancing writing quality through sustained engagement in the WR process. Building upon quantitative findings [ 20 ], which demonstrated improvements in four groups compared to controls, particularly emotional changes in form focus and content orientation, this qualitative inquiry aims to deepen understanding. Furthermore, we predict that only through follow-up qualitative inquiries can we grasp how learners engage in WR [ 21 , 22 ] and identify factors interacting with treatment to refine WR precision [ 23 ]. Given that many learners focus on the form revision, ignoring the emotional changes of writing processes, this study aims to illuminate emotional transformations as learners shift from form focus to content orientation, refining core aspects of writing revision, and exploring potential obstacles and strategies encountered during the process.

Theoretical literature

Theoretical backgrounds.

One line of research has delved into the theoretical and emotional transformations brought about by writing revision, addressing questions regarding the timing, manner, and motivation behind writing revision, as well as learners’ attitudes towards it and the psychological shifts they undergo during the process that do not meet the threshold of psychological processes of WR [ 12 , 23 , 24 , 25 ]. Studies suggest that the more majority of EFL learners primarily focus on superficial aspects of writing revision, as evidenced by [ 24 ]’s exploration into whether learners’ EFL proficiency levels affect their revisions. Also, this investigation was reported to have poorer structural and pragmatic WR than those who considers emotions, revisions, and consolidations during WR. Additionally, past research indicates that EFL learners generally demonstrate weaker WR skills [ 23 ]. Furthermore, previous studies have often concentrated solely on the process of WR itself, significantly overlooking the emotional dimension that establishes form-focused connections triggered by recognizing and processing specific writing outputs. Revision involves refining these connections in response to further writing assessments, while consolidation refers to enhancing the quality of writing revision through repeated retrieval and deeper processing after drafting a manuscript. By integrating [ 26 ]’s computational framework of WR processing with the development of form and content emotions in writing revision [ 27 ], explored whether children and adults employ different strategies to detect and revise superficial elements such as word spelling, erroneous grammatical agreements, diction, and appropriateness of tones. Broadly, research in the general population suggests that children may employ a slower algorithmic procedure while adults utilize a faster automatized one. They also advocate for gathering similar WR to evaluate hypothesis precision and, ultimately, revision skills and principles. Furthermore [ 28 ], proposed the use of a computer-mediated communication (CMC) interface to enable EFL writing learners in classes at two universities to provide each other with anonymous peer feedback on essay-writing assignments responding to selected news stories. Similarly [ 29 ], suggest that the evidence EFL learners include should be connected to their claims. Many learners paraphrased the evidence, added a brief conclusion, or explained generally how the evidence supports their claims (not how this was instantiated in their writing). The psychological factors of WR were significant predictors of teaching argument writing and for designing a WR system that supports learners in successfully revising their essays are discussed [ 30 , 31 ]. theorized language learning experience from a positive psychology (PP) lens. Analytical primacy is given to how various dimensions of the experience contributed to language other than EFL learners’ motivational development.

Empirical studies of EFL writing revision

The critique of recasts as a feedback method highlights several key limitations, particularly regarding their visibility and their potential for ambiguity. As argued by [ 32 ], writers often seek and benefit from more thoughtful commentary, making the appropriation of learners’ writings less effective in this regard. Learners require feedback that empowers them to refine their writing skills and effectively convey their intended message. Furthermore [ 33 ], suggests that learners may conflate longer-form recasts with the original problematic utterances, leading to potential misinterpretations as responses to content rather than as corrective feedback. Although previous research has primarily examined recasts as a form of spoken corrective feedback, positioning them as implicitly negative, a study by [ 34 ] offers a different perspective. This study indicates that recasts, when utilized as a means of error correction, can indeed facilitate improvement in learners’ writing skills. Additionally [ 35 ], delves into the efficacy of two types of interactional feedback: recasts and elicitations, shedding further light on the nuanced dynamics of corrective approaches in language learning contexts. Furthermore, a separate body of research in WR has identified that studies in this area have been guided by two overarching frameworks: EFL writing testing development and EFL writing revision development [ 22 ]. Within testing studies (e.g [ 32 ]), it was found that most indirect WR and content-focused comments were effectively integrated into subsequent or terminal drafts during revisions, although their impact on subsequent writings remained unmeasured. Furthermore, preceding these, longitudinal studies (e.g [ 36 , 37 ]). , found no significant disparity in writing accuracy development in content revision. However, criticisms of their methodological approaches prompted researchers to undertake controlled focused WR studies. These investigations, grounded in cognitive perspectives of writing revision, suggested that targeting singular structures (e.g [ 32 ]). , or two/three structures (e.g [ 29 ]). , could lead to enhanced accuracy in WR [ 28 ]. According to [ 35 ], “learners can internalize and consolidate their explicit knowledge as a result of explicit information provided in WR in form revision.” Despite subsequent conflicting results [ 27 ], the primary critique against focused WR studies pertained to their narrow scope, deviating from typical assessment practices, thereby compromising ecological validity [ 20 ].

In numerous studies on WR, participants generally recognized the emotional significance of self-correction or self-reflection, particularly on both form revision and content improvement [ 31 ], as well as WR itself [ 11 , 22 ]. However, certain studies (e.g [ 17 , 18 ]). , highlighted challenges in interpreting revision assessment. Emotional-driven inquiries delved into the depth of core WR processing, indicating that factors such as the culture of WR coverage, logical levels, and duration of thinking influence the thoroughness of revision. While some studies suggested that WR methods foster superficial revision such as spelling, grammatical structure, diction (form revision) [ 31 , 33 ], others favored core writing revision (content orientation) [ 32 , 34 ]. Subsequent studies on WR effectiveness (e.g [ 11 ]). , emphasized the value of content orientation during WR [ 31 ]. , for instance, demonstrated whether and how feedback, when provided in different assessment modes, affects learners’ text revisions, continuing to be important questions for research [ 38 ]. investigated the extent to which learner differences in receptive and productive vocabulary sizes, as well as differences in their language aptitude (measured by the LLAMA test), mediated the effects of using models as a written corrective feedback tool. Other studies (e.g [ 2 , 3 , 39 ]). , explored the interplay between form revision and content orientation during WR [ 37 ]. explored the ways that dyadic functioning was associated with the functions of reader/writer comments and feedback focus produced during synchronous interactions among dyads of a Korean-U.S. collaborative project and subsequent uptake of feedback in revisions. However, subsequent WR studies, such as those by [ 38 ], mainly reported an exploratory study of Chinese-speaking undergraduate learners’ experiences of receiving and reflecting on online peer feedback for text revision in an EFL writing classroom at a northeastern-Chinese university. Notably, few longitudinal mixed-methods inquiries have delved into emotional transformation from form revision to content orientation to elucidate EFL WR development from EFL learners. A lack of follow-up emotional changes aimed at enhancing writing quality through WR further underscores the need for comprehensive exploration of EFL learners’ utilization of WR in deciphering assessment directives and applying them in subsequent writing assessment. Additionally [ 38 ], concluded that neurophysiological mechanisms, as reflected in modulations of neuronal oscillations, may act as a fundamental basis for bringing together and enriching the fields of language and cognition.

Based on previous findings, we expected that the current emotional phase of a mixed-methods study delves into how second language (EFL) learners enhance and retain their writing revisions, particularly focusing on the emotional transformation from form revision to content orientation. Past research has typically focused on examining writing learning, writing teaching, writing assessment, ignoring the importance of WR for a good writing manuscript. However, this may have cascading effects to elevate the quality of writing by addressing the necessity of writing revision (WR). Additionally, this endeavor builds upon quantitative findings to offer a comprehensive understanding of the significance, standards, methods, and orientations of writing revision. Therefore, the study aims to explore “the intrinsic emotions of, and the factors influencing, the potential of writing revision,” thereby bridging theoretical and pedagogical aspects [ 34 ] [ 40 ]. have underscored the significance of scaffolding EFL learners’ text revision practices through the reception and reflection upon learners’ emotional feedback [ 40 ]. Furthermore [ 41 ], integrating both positive and negative emotions into language learning led to the most significant positive shift in learners’ motivation, anxiety levels, and language proficiency. However, it’s noteworthy that the anticipated impact of psychology on language education frequently surpasses the actual outcomes. There’s often a tendency to overestimate the effectiveness of emerging technologies compared to established methods, without adequately considering the variations in associated pedagogical approaches.

Informed by theoretical frameworks, empirical discussions, and quantitative findings, the study operationalizes its objectives through the following three hypotheses centered on writing revision:

Hypothesis 1: The process of writing revision contributes to the consolidation of writing quality.

Hypothesis 2: The outcomes of form revision or content orientation are associated with writing quality in terms of writing development.

Hypothesis 3: Psychological processes aid EFL learners in improving self-efficacy in language acquisition.

To shed light on these hypotheses, the text initially summarizes quantitative findings primarily related to the accuracy of writing revision.

Participants

A total of 320 learners (188 female and 132 male), all Chinese speakers, participated in weekly writing classes. These participants were novice learners, embarking on their first EFL writing endeavor, similar to the study conducted by Bonilla López et al. (2018). Their ages ranged from 18 to 21 years, with a mean age of 20.3 years. The study aimed to determine whether four groups of EFL learners demonstrated emotional improvement in writing quality, with a specific focus on form revision and content revision. The groups included those engaged in form revision (FR Group, n  = 80), writing revision on content revision (CR Group, n  = 80), multilateral revision (MR Group, n  = 80), and no revision (NF Group, n  = 80). Each student revised an article of 200/250 words within 20 min. To streamline the revision process and avoid overwhelming learners, the study targeted specific revision categories commonly associated with lower-proficiency learners, such as form revision (e.g., tense, voice, word form, prepositions, subject-verb agreement, plurality, articles, pronouns, and possessive adjectives) and content revision (logic, culture, thinking, cognition). We conducted a cross-sectional investigation involving a survey and interviews with the Chinese youth population. To ensure representativeness, we engaged three different schools to gather data. Employing quota sampling, participants were recruited based on specific criteria: being adults (aged 18 and above), proficient in English, and permanent residents of the People’s Republic of China. To minimize biases, we established exclusion criteria pertaining to study participation. All measures were presented in a randomized order, and two attention checks were incorporated into the semi-structured interview. Participants failing to complete the interview, finishing the survey in under five minutes, or not passing the attention checks were excluded from the analysis. Data collection was facilitated through the inputlog software platform and Chaoxing Learning Pass (CLP) within online courses.

The investigation phase

To thoroughly explore the nuanced impact of writing revision conditions on four key revision constructs across three distinct time points, qualitative findings were presented in isolation. This subsequent investigation sought to delve into the specific writing revision practices that influence both form and content revisions from an emotional perspective, drawing on The Social Emotional Assessment (SEA; [ 37 ]). The objective was to comprehend how the implementation of writing revision (WR) influenced writing quality, potentially resulting in core writing revision benefits, as suggested by [ 38 ], which emphasized theoretical frameworks, empirical discussions, and quantitative findings. The inquiry delved into how writing revision influenced the establishment of writing revision rules and standards, as well as the connection between the revision process and the enhancement of writing quality. Each item was evaluated on a three-level scale: 0 = “significant emotional fluctuations,” 1 = “somewhat emotional fluctuations,” and 2 = “no emotional fluctuations,” aligning with the research objectives. Regarding writing revision, the study investigated whether and how revision, guided by writing standards, prompted various types of revisions, encompassing both form and content revisions. Concerning content revision, it explored learners’ ability to internalize the underlying rules of prominent and complex revision categories, enabling them to apply these rules accurately. This inquiry aimed to enrich the conceptual frameworks of EFL writing revision put forth by scholars such as [ 34 ] and [ 39 ]. To obtain comprehensive insights, the study conducted over 5 h of semi-structured interviews with a cohort of 320 participants, generating text-specific explanations derived from individualized revision scripts. The scale exhibited robust reliability and validity, with Cronbach’s α for internal consistency ranging from 0.89 to 0.92 and test-retest reliability coefficients ranging from 0.82 to 0.94 [ 37 ].

Semi-structured interview

After completing writing revisions in Week 8, participants were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews during Week 9. Fifty participants from each group were selected based on the interview protocol outlined below, resulting in a total sample size of N  = 35, consisting of 20 female and 15 male participants. The instruments used included measures of revision attitude, writing revision, and emotional changes [ 40 ]. The interview protocol comprised four stages:

EFL learners were instructed to maintain their revision scripts in a personal folder for reference during revision.

Representation

Interviewees were selected from volunteers, ensuring representation from both high-achieving and low-achieving individuals, participants with varying levels of enthusiasm towards writing revision, both genders, and all groups.

Prior to the interview, interviewees were prompted to review their writing revision scripts and mark segments they wished to discuss in response to interview questions.

Stimulated recall

Interviewees were instructed to bring their writing revision scripts to the interview and encouraged to support their perspectives on each question using cues from their scripts. Additionally, the teacher implemented a grading system, assessing the students’ writings on a scale of 0 to 5, occasionally providing positive feedback such as “good job,” “well done,” or “keep it up.” This grading approach aimed to reassure learners that their efforts were recognized and their progress closely monitored [ 40 ], fostering an understanding that enhancing writing quality in subsequent assignments could lead to higher average scores.

The interview questions aimed to gather participants’ perspectives on various aspects, including the frequency of writing revisions, recurring errors, emotional processes, efficacy and cognition of writing revision, attitudes towards writing revision, and emotional changes. Conducted in Chinese and audio-recorded, the interviews ranged from 3 to 5 min in duration, with an average length of 4 min and 16 s.

Data coding

Grounded theory [ 41 ] was employed for meticulous data coding and analysis, aligning with [ 42 ]’s framework to delve into the underlying emotions. During the open coding phase, broad categories emerged from a comprehensive review of revision transcripts. Drawing from Dornyei’s guiding questions, such as “What is this data illustrating?” and “What emotional shifts are at play here?” pertinent data underwent thorough analysis, leading to the assignment of numerical codes.

Axial coding ensued to establish logical connections between writing quality and the process of revision. This iterative approach unearthed finalized categories, encompassing aspects like the frequency of revisions, revision techniques, metalinguistic practices, and the extrapolation of learned principles beyond writing contexts. Following [ 40 ]’s methodology, selective coding aimed at identifying a central category with the requisite abstraction to encapsulate other findings. This was accomplished through the development of memos and in-depth exploration of emerging themes, further substantiated during axial coding. As the ensuing discussion will elucidate, the core writing revision, identified as the central category, suggests that EFL learners actively engage in discerning underlying revisions, encompassing both structural and content-oriented aspects, which are subsequently applied during the core writing revision process.

Data analysis

The research primarily focused on EFL learners enrolled in various grades at a university in Zhejiang Province. The research team of the National Social Science Fund of China (A Study on the Validity Argument Model of L2 Writing Assessment Empowered by Digital Humanities) and the 12 teachers teaching writing courses conducted the study. These learners were categorized based on placement tests, error type, and frequency of Writing Revision (WR) [ 31 ]. Each term, learners attended 36 forty-minute periods, advancing to the next level upon achieving a passing score of 60%.

Form revision was assessed using the percentage of revisions and the number of revisions at four time points: Week 1 (pre-revision), Week 5 (while-revision 1), Week 9 (while-revision 2), and Week 13 (delayed post-revision). Results from the two-way repeated measures ANOVA indicated that only the groups engaged in content-focused revision demonstrated significant improvements in form revision from Time 1 to Time 2, which were sustained at Time 3, with mostly medium to large effect sizes. Specifically, the CR group exhibited a substantial increase in writing quality at Time 2 (Cohen’s d = 0.91) and a moderate increase at Time 3 (Cohen’s d = 0.82), along with a decrease in MR at both Time 2 (Cohen’s d = 0.90) and Time 3 (Cohen’s d = 0.58). Similarly, the MR group displayed improvements in the percentage of revisions at Time 2 (Cohen’s d = 0.46) and Time 3 (Cohen’s d = 0.70), coupled with a reduction in the number of revisions at both Time 2 (Cohen’s d = 0.64) and Time 3 (Cohen’s d = 0.60). In contrast, the CR group saw a non-significant decrease in the percentage of revisions at both time points, although their NF declined significantly at Time 3 (Cohen’s d = 0.22). The NF group showed no significant changes at either time point. Regarding other writing revision constructs, only the CR and MR groups exhibited significant improvements in content and form revision.

To mitigate the impact of outliers on the dataset, the authors employed Robust Principal Component Analysis (RPCA), a method that decomposes multivariate data into low-rank and sparse components. The process entailed several steps:

Data preprocessing

The authors standardized or normalized each variable in the writing revision scripts dataset, ensuring a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. This step aimed to prevent variables with disparate scales from skewing the analysis.

RPCA application

Utilizing an RPCA algorithm, the authors decomposed the multivariate dataset into its low-rank and sparse components. One commonly used algorithm is the Robust PCA algorithm introduced by Candes et al. (2009), which minimizes the sum of the nuclear norm of the low-rank component and the l1 norm of the sparse component.

Outlier identification

Following decomposition, the authors focused on the sparse component derived from investigation and interviews. This component signifies outliers or noise within the data. Data points with significant coefficients in the sparse component are indicative of outliers.

Outlier visualization

The authors visually represented the identified outliers by plotting their coefficients in the sparse component. Scatter plots or histograms were employed to visualize the distribution of outlier coefficients, aiding in the identification of patterns or clusters.

Outlier handling

Depending on the analysis’s context and objectives, the authors addressed the identified outliers by removing them from the dataset, treating them separately in the analysis, or employing data transformation techniques to minimize their impact.

The findings encapsulate and cite representative perspectives from participants, primarily focusing on their emotional transformation from a form-focused approach to a content-oriented one during the core Writing Revision (WR). Pseudonyms were utilized to ensure the anonymity of participants.

Writing revision: learning and pedagogical self-reflection

Research Question 1 (RQ1) investigated how the process of writing revision contributes to enhancing writing quality. When queried about the adequacy of their writing efforts, the majority advocated for additional revision time, emphasizing the necessity of at least 5 extra minutes. EFL learners’ rationale for revising centered on the imperative need to address new structural nuances or incorporate additional elements such as vocabulary, spelling, and punctuation (i.e., NR, FR, CR, MR, are 11.23, 15.12, 20.16, 24.23 respectively). In terms of time points, the mean scores at different stages are 12.15, 17.24, and 24.11. They emphasized the significance of receiving revision traces on newly surfaced errors, perpetuating a cycle of trial and refinement, employing freshly acquired linguistic tools, grappling with novel linguistic hurdles, exploring uncharted thematic territories, or simply craving more comprehensive revision sessions. An emergent outcome of their initial forays into writing, regardless of the extent of revision, was the cultivation of burgeoning confidence in their writing prowess. This was palpable in their ability to surmount the apprehension and tension associated with articulating ideas in English on paper, particularly in the absence of external support within the classroom setting.

The outcomes of form revision or content orientation focus on writing revision concerning the development of writing revision

Form revision and content orientation emerged as critical factors in the progression of EFL learners towards achieving writing quality (RQ2). EFL learners acknowledged the pivotal role of writing revision in enhancing the quality of their writing, a stage often overlooked but one they deemed essential. Without engaging in individualized writing revision points, they recognized that their attention to detail would have been lacking. All revisions, encompassing both form revision and content orientation, are delineated in Table  1 . The emotional journey associated with writing revisions for both form and content is vividly portrayed. Notably, form revision (i.e., 6.23, 7.14, 7.82, 6.45, 7.56) garnered significantly lower scores compared to content revision (i.e., 7.21, 7.26, 6.25, 6.75, 6.27). Furthermore, they demonstrated fewer advancements in deeper revisions, such as intra-sentential processing (6.25), inter-sentential processing (6.75), and cultural processing (6.27), indicating a collective deficiency among participants in central revision compared to peripheral revision.

Emotional changes influencing on EFL learners undergo when engaging in form or content revision

The insights gleaned from EFL learners highlight the profound emotional journey they experience during the process of revising both form and content in their writing (RQ3). This journey typically begins with a positive realization of the importance of revision as a whole (e.g., points 246, 265, 152, and 43), but gradually evolves to encompass recognition of areas needing improvement (e.g., points 74, 55, 168, and 277). Many learners also observed that repeated revision exercises helped them to identify and focus on critical elements (e.g., points 236, 241, 172, and 61), thereby aiding in the successful correction and mastery of these aspects. Furthermore, the true significance of various revision points often only becomes clear after thorough internalization (e.g., points 137, 177, 103, and 162) and subsequent externalization (e.g., points 183, 143, 217, and 158).

Positive effects of WR: EFL learners’ revision decision-making

RQ3 delved into the potential emotional fluctuations experienced by EFL learners as they engaged in the process of revising their writing manuscripts, as well as the strategies they employed during revision. One notable emotional aspect identified was the prevalence of recurring errors, which were brought to light both within and beyond the learners’ awareness. These errors, such as the misuse of ‘s’ (as in the third person plural or possessive apostrophe), ‘a’ (as an article), and ‘-ed’ (as a past-tense marker), were consistently highlighted across the four groups. Despite some learners considering these errors as trivial or minor, they persisted throughout revisions. One learner suggested that the apparent insignificance of these errors might stem from their small size, rendering them less conspicuous. EFL learners recognized that such persistent errors often resulted from lapses in attention or an excessive focus on form rather than content. An important aspect of writing revision was identified as the mitigation of these recurring errors. Some learners noted that regular exposure to revision heightened their awareness of these common mistakes, leading them to consciously make efforts to avoid them in their writing.

The correlations between writing revision and writing quality are depicted in Table  2 . It becomes evident from the table that both Content Revision (CR) and Mechanical Revision (MR) exhibit associations with writing quality, as measured by Pearson correlations, with medium and small effect sizes, respectively (i.e., 0.81 for CR and 0.74 for MR). However, the traits of the WR score were found to have no significant relationship with Narrative Revision (NR) (0.12), Fluency Revision (FR) (0.42), and Mechanical Revision (MR) (0.64).

The Pearson Correlations have enabled a deeper exploration of the associations between different types of writing revision, shedding light on the underlying mechanisms guiding decision-making regarding the need for revision and how to execute it. For example, Tomas (CR) expressed skepticism regarding the positive impact of EFL learners on “the supporting evidence,” prompting her to experiment with cohesive devices in cultural and representative contexts “to ultimately gauge their persuasiveness.” Tim (CR) elaborated on this process, stating, “A mark indicating the error would serve as a sufficient reminder for me. If left uncorrected, I might become uncertain about its accuracy.” .

Emotional transformation from form to content to consolidate writing revision: resolving ambiguity embedded in WR

The study also investigated how EFL learners went through emotional transformation from form to content to consolidate writing revision (see Fig.  1 ). When asked about their ability to generalize the emotional transformation from the four time points, a significant number of EFL learners highlighted their emotional changes regarding content orientation. They aimed to deduce the form revision governing target content through repeated revisions of the manuscript throughout the time points, showing an ascending trend (CR: 33, 51, 91, 126) and a descending trend (FR: 162, 147, 109, 76).

Emotional transformations through different time points during writing revision

Drawing from the emotional evolution experienced during writing revision, EFL learners can be seen as the pivotal influence shaping the outcome of revised drafts. This conceptualization was substantiated by the experiences of EFL learners in the study, which remained consistent across various stages [ 39 , 43 ]. For instance, Alice, an EFL learner, noted, “In my revised writings, I found myself readjusting my approach to writing revision, placing greater emphasis on content revision throughout the four rounds of revisions.“.

The current study sought to examine the association between emotional aspects of WR and the quality of writing. We hypothesized that the process of writing revision contributes to the consolidation of writing quality and the outcomes of form revision or content orientation are associated with writing quality concerning the development of writing development. We found that when asked about their ability to generalize the emotional transformation from the four time points, a significant number of EFL learners highlighted their emotional changes regarding content orientation. The following section discusses the three hypothesis respectively.

Hypothesis 1: The process of writing revision contributes to the consolidation of writing quality

The outcomes of learners’ writing revisions provide some support for possible the manner in which the process of writing revision contributes to the enhancement of writing quality among EFL learners, facilitated by the consolidation of their emotional engagement with writing revision. Table  3 illustrates various orientation outcomes of writing revision, presenting an interactive model of EFL writing revision for developmental purposes. In particular, a significant finding, particularly pertinent for lower-proficiency EFL learners, is the importance of continuous writing revision in enhancing the quality of their writing manuscripts, fostering ongoing revision reformulation towards revision design, and fostering the consolidation of writing skills for EFL development. Likewise, as depicted in Table  3 , the process initiates with learners composing writing samples in four groups (NR), the accuracy of which interacts with the frequency of revisions, represented by various revision traces within the writing revision domain. The second pattern entails learners engaging in writing revision, wherein they refine writing scripts based on various patterns (FR), serving as “the necessary sculpting that refines EFL learners’ cognitive processing and self-efficacy in writing” [ 1 ]. Learners in FR may have fewer opportunities to develop psychological changes during writing processes in CR. This finding aligns with [ 27 ]’s WR-oriented perspective, emphasizing the iterative nature of writing revision for triggering reflection. The third pattern encompasses the Mechanical Revision (MR) domain, involving a multi-step revision process that encapsulates EFL learners’ emotional processes during writing revision. This includes how they revise their writing manuscripts with a balanced distribution of form revision and content orientation; their affective involvement during writing revision, reflecting their attitudes toward the process; and their cognitive engagement in improvement, depicting how they navigate the improvement process step by step during writing revision [ 24 ].

When warranted, writing revision begins with EFL learners revising specific points in the writing manuscript and corresponding writing traces simultaneously. They may employ either a “local writing revision processing strategy,” where they iteratively analyze the commented/revised segments of their writing manuscript and the writing revision, or a “deep writing revision processing strategy,” where they review the entire text in this manner [ 42 ]. This prompts gap noticing (pattern 1 in Shintani et al.’s model) and, if comprehensible (pattern 2), engages learners with the targeted writing revision emotionally and cognitively. However, non-targeted revising patterns may go unnoticed (CR).

Crucially, when EFL learners are acquainted with the four patterns of writing revision, their emotional involvement may transition from form revision to content revision [ 24 ], mirroring pattern 4 of the writing revision model, denoting progressive writing revision formation with emotional engagement. This longitudinal approach to writing revision entails iterative revising aimed at grasping a writing revision point and its underlying revising standard, offering pedagogical opportunities beyond mechanically substituting writing segments with revisions. Similarly [ 26 ], observed that EFL learners’ emotional growth during writing revision bolstered their focus on content, seeking the essence of writing revision, and employing metacognitive and motivational regulation strategies to enhance writing quality.

Another aspect of emotional engagement for lower-level learners may emerge after several iterations at different time points: arriving at a decision-making stage to address a deeper understanding of writing revision (e.g., thought processes, logic, cultural nuances), which are significant yet not overly complex. While most EFL learners are cognizant of associated form revisions, they may inaccurately apply them due to lapses in attention during the writing revision process. As such, Persistent writing revision signals the necessity for decision-making/actions against prominent errors, a process that could be facilitated by content-revision notes informing EFL learners of revision cues.

Conversely, emotional engagement with writing revision “necessitates EFL learners to employ cognitive and metacognitive strategies to assess the impact of writing revision on their writing and monitor their revisions” [ 5 ]. This involves the fundamental processing of writing revision, wherein learners endeavor to align with the revised standard, followed by writing evaluation, i.e., applying self-efficacy principles in the subsequent writing revision phase, indicative of a deeper content-oriented strategy, facilitated by the extended processing time during writing revision [ 17 ]. The iterative nature of the writing revision process allows EFL learners to repeatedly scrutinize their attempted revisions, discard inaccurately formulated ones, devise new ones (Time 4), construct sentences based on the outcomes of the three preceding stages, and then revise them through writing revision. Through the iterations of this writing revision process, most prominent errors, as well as some complex ones, tend to diminish, contributing to the consolidation of the targeted writing manuscript.

Hypothesis 2: The outcomes of form revision or content orientation are associated with writing quality concerning the development of writing development

RQ2 investigated the ramifications of prioritizing form revision or content orientation during the process of writing revision, particularly in relation to the advancement of writing skills. A detailed scrutiny of writing revision practices revealed that despite efforts to engage with form revision or content orientation, learners frequently encountered challenges in fully grasping the underlying principles of writing revision. Certain form revisions, notably those involving functional variability (e.g., articles like “the”), lower frequency occurrences (e.g., omission of “s” in compound adjectives), or specific rule applications (e.g., “affect on” vs. “effect on”), proved especially intricate for some learners. This variability necessitated the application of different writing revision rules within form revision, posing difficulties for learners with limited metalinguistic awareness, even when employing content orientation across various contexts of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learning.

Furthermore, some form revisions, characterized by the manifestation of a single function (e.g., affixation) in writing revision processes, could not be easily mastered through a limited number of revisions or a single revision pattern (e.g., Content Revision or Form Revision). For instance, achieving proficiency in distinguishing between “success” and “successful” may not immediately translate into accuracy in spelling checks, word additions, deletions, complexity adjustments, or grammar checks (e.g., “hard” instead of “hardly”) elsewhere due to the multifaceted nature of morphological processes involving suffixation. This deficiency in form revision impeded the transferability of learning across different contexts, contrasting with more straightforward form revisions such as possessive adjectives.

Scholars like [ 33 ] argue that engaging with form is indispensable for EFL learners to develop revision awareness, necessitating numerous trial-and-error attempts before consolidating writing quality. However, even with extended opportunities for revision, some learners may struggle to accurately revise towards certain complex structures, a finding corroborated by [ 44 ]’s meta-analysis. Engaging EFL learners in multiple writing revision modes, as advocated by [ 10 ], can facilitate successful processing of writing revision focused on content orientation. Moreover, employing additional student-friendly revision techniques such as error labeling and metalinguistic explanations can assist in navigating complex writing revision tasks and mitigate the risk of learners merely replicating form revisions without comprehending the underlying principles of writing revision.

In their endeavor to refine their writing skills, EFL learners often concentrate on developing a deeper understanding of the writing revision (WR) process. When initial revision attempts fail to yield desired improvements, learners may resort to repeated iterations of revising content, hoping to glean insights into effective revision strategies. This iterative approach, elucidated by [ 35 ], entails building upon previous revisions and engaging in self-reflection to inform subsequent revisions. By consistently reflecting on their writing and revising both form and content, learners significantly enhance the quality of their manuscripts.

Engagement in sustained WR fosters emotional and cognitive involvement with the revision process, prompting learners to actively consider new phases of writing. The differentiation between revising form and content, as underscored by [ 12 , 34 ], holds significant importance. EFL learners immersed in WR processes don’t merely superficially revise their writing to meet testing requirements; instead, they delve into the core principles of WR, striving to comprehend underlying concepts and apply them autonomously. This concept of “writing revision for acquisition,” proposed by [ 35 ], underscores the iterative nature of WR. Over time, consistent engagement in WR builds upon previous reflections, potentially strengthening learners’ self-efficacy in writing revision, as observed in [ 18 ]’s research. This underscores the potential of prolonged, content-driven WR.

Contrary to the assertion by [ 27 ] regarding the inefficacy of WR in promoting deep processing of target writing, our findings indicate that learners deeply engage with WR. These findings are supported statistically by the presentation of numerous text-specific examples illustrating learners’ comprehension of WR complexity. Throughout the WR process, learners frequently read and re-read the entire writing segment under scrutiny, aiming to gain deeper insights for independently enhancing the quality of their writing. This finding aligns with the work of [ 24 ], suggesting that while WR may prompt a restructuring of writing, continuous testing and refining of iterative improvements enhance emotional engagement with the WR process. Therefore, to ascertain the association of these effects with greater certainty, future research should delve into causal mechanisms with more longitudinal data.

Hypothesis 3: Psychological processes help EFL learners improve the self-efficacy in language acquisition

RQ3 delves into the emotional transitions experienced by EFL learners during form or content revision in their language development journey. Figure  2 illustrates the iterative process EFL learners undergo when prompted to self-correct their writing regularly. The emotional shifts reveal that lower-level EFL learners may detect linguistic errors during self-revision, consistent with the findings of [ 12 , 17 ], indicating successful amendments when learners possess sufficient understanding of identified errors. Furthermore, we found a spectrum of positive psychological experiences among EFL learners during writing, including enjoyment, satisfaction, and excitement, which motivate sustained language-learning efforts. These findings offer support for previous research, such as [ 26 ], which underscores the role of positive psychological states in broadening attention and driving action, serving as potent motivational forces [ 30 , 32 ]. However, few studies have examined the nuanced impact of negative psychological states on EFL learners’ motivation. While anxiety and burnout can diminish enthusiasm and reduce engagement with writing activities, as suggested by recent literature (e.g [ 30 , 34 , 35 ]). , , their effects on motivation are multifaceted. Previous research has primarily focused on examining writing quality from revision, but the effective utilization of external psychological factors, such as self-revision, may be largely ignored, especially when addressing errors that necessitate form revision.

Emotional attitudes towards writing revision

Regarding the present findings on limited linguistic proficiency among learners, this outcome contrasts with the findings of [ 26 ], as learners may struggle with revisions due to frustration or fear of making errors, potentially introducing new errors. Learners express minimal confidence in successful yet unverified self-revision, inhibiting learning due to uncertainty and avoidance regarding the accuracy of their revisions [ 30 ]. Additionally, these findings bolster self-efficacy among EFL learners in error identification, reflecting positive, negative, significant, and insignificant trends in content-oriented form revision, fostering either confidence or fear of risk-taking during writing. Moreover, these results align with prior research linking writing revision efforts to writing quality, as shown in Table  2 .

Regarding the significance of addressing writing revision alongside broader emotional transformations, as depicted in Fig.  1 , this study found a novel finding fraught with complex psychological dynamics. Despite lower proficiency, the pedagogical outcomes of EFL learners’ engagement in the writing revision process during the writing phase yield marginal improvements, diverging from past findings [ 38 ], suggesting that despite ongoing psychological changes and metacognitive processes during revision attempts, enhancements in writing quality remain elusive. To our knowledge, the current study is the first to examine the association between psychological processes of writing revision and quality of writing, and as such, these results offer novel insights into the relations between these two variables.

Exploring the impact of content revision on writing quality through the lens of emotional transformation has significant implications for language teaching and assessment. Firstly, this study can facilitate a novel approach to writing assessment for educators and teachers by considering the emotional processes inherent in language learning. By dynamically observing learners’ psychological changes during writing revision, it assists in understanding learners’ internal emotional needs and identifying sources of subtle learning anxiety, thus improving teacher-learner interaction. Secondly, in the context of language learning, it is crucial to prioritize understanding learners’ psychological states, especially in ESL (English as a Second Language) contexts, and the psychological shifts associated with language testing, rather than solely focusing on superficial measures of performance. Thirdly, by emphasizing content focus, this study offers a perceptual pathway for simultaneously examining the methodologies used to analyze internal and external factors influencing the effectiveness of language learning and teaching. Fourthly, this study aids in assessing language learning both quantitatively and qualitatively, enabling simultaneous observation and cognitive bootstrapping, which facilitates teachers in adjusting their teaching practices effectively. Fifthly, evaluating learners’ emotional changes is valuable for gaining a deeper understanding of their conceptualization process during language learning, which is crucial for accurately observing learners’ progress. Therefore, this research opens a new avenue for exploring EFL perspectives in terms of emotional considerations and provides valuable insights for enhancing language instruction and practice.

Limitations and future studies

The current study examined the emotional evolution of 320 EFL learners engaged in writing revision, specifically transitioning from form-focused revisions to content-oriented ones, over a sixteen-week period. The primary aim was to enhance the quality of writing through fundamental revisions. However, it’s important to note a limitation in the experiment, namely the exclusion of comprehensive writing revision, which ideally should encompass various aspects such as content, vocabulary, and organization [ 45 ]. Theoretically, a comprehensive approach to EFL writing revision should integrate these facets to provide a holistic view of EFL development and enhance self-efficacy in writing quality, departing from established models of EFL development (for further discussion, refer to [ 35 ] for an in-depth exploration of the relationship between writing revision and writing quality).

[ 31 ]’s model suggests that writing revision involves cognitive and affective processes leading to form-focused revisions, distinct from content-oriented ones. The writing revision process might require simultaneous adjustments, especially if future studies investigate proceduralization across different proficiency levels and writing revision conditions, such as those involving multiple rewriting, as seen in the studies by [ 27 ] and [ 20 ]. It’s conceivable that the transition from form-focused revisions to content-oriented ones could occur more rapidly for higher-proficiency learners unless additional complex writing revisions are introduced. Conversely, the writing revision process might resemble the patterns observed in the current study if lower-proficiency learners undergo writing revision over an extended period.

Methodologically, future mixed-methods studies should strive for complementarity, exploring various layers of the writing revision process in EFL writing, alongside triangulation. Regarding core writing revision, an incremental approach may be beneficial, gradually shifting focus to deeper patterns (e.g., paraphrasing; coherence between form revisions and content orientation) once specific patterns of writing revision are identified, as demonstrated in studies such as [ 10 , 46 ] and [ 23 ], promoting a more ecologically valid approach to writing revision. In terms of the writing revision process, future studies could investigate strategy training by instructing learners to utilize diverse learning materials and draw from previous experiences for autonomous, self-initiated revisions.

By eliciting the perspectives of EFL learners on the emotional implications of WR, spanning from form-focused revisions to content-oriented ones, the present study sheds light on how the process of writing revision contributes to the enhancement of writing quality. As the number of writing revisions increases, there arises a need for an expanded scope of writing revision tailored to the proficiency levels of EFL learners. The cyclical approach to writing revision proposed in this study draws heavily on current perspectives in writing learning and teaching [ 18 , 33 ], which provide cognitive insights into the transition from form-focused revisions to content-oriented ones. However, the WR process also highlights the writing-specific processes of EFL development, which differ from those of writing output. A notable manifestation of this disparity in WR lies in how EFL learners navigate between form-focused revisions and content-oriented ones. In this context, EFL learners consider their emotional responses when undertaking form or content revisions, gradually broadening their repertoire of writing forms or content and engaging in self-reflection on WR principles through longitudinal revisions. Future empirical studies should explore additional quantitative aspects of WR, such as cultural factors, representative evidence, critical thinking, and the impact of writing assessment beyond specific written revisions. Such studies can contribute to the development of a comprehensive theory of second language writing, informed by the concurrent processes of writing revision.

Data availability

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation. All research data can be open-shared free in Dataverse ( https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi%3A10.7910%2FDVN%2F31UMTY&version=DRAFT ).

Abbreviations

• Writing revision

English as a foreign language

English as a second language

The Social Emotional Assessment

Suzuki W. Written language, direct correction, and second language writing revision. Lang Learn. 2012;62(4):1110–33.

Article   Google Scholar  

Huang SC. Setting writing revision goals after assessment for learning. Lang Assess Q. 2015;12(4):363–85.

Memari Hanjani A. Collaborative revision in L2 writing: Learners’ reflections. ELT J. 2016;70(3):296–307.

Phi HPV. (2010). Blog-based peer response for L2 writing revision (Doctoral dissertation, School of English, Institute of Social Technology Suranaree University of Technology).

Link S, Mehrzad M, Rahimi M. Impact of automated writing evaluation on teacher feedback, student revision, and writing improvement. Comput Assist Lang Learn. 2022;35(4):605–34.

McCarthy KS, Roscoe RD, Allen LK, Likens AD, McNamara DS. Automated writing evaluation: does spelling and grammar feedback support high-quality writing and revision? Assess Writ. 2022;52:100608.

Zhang ZV. Engaging with automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback on L2 writing: student perceptions and revisions. Assess Writ. 2020;43:100439.

Mäntynen A. Accept with revisions’: regulating the language of student writing. Lang Educ. 2018;32(6):511–28.

Mujtaba SM, Reynolds BL, Parkash R, Singh MKM. Individual and collaborative processing of written corrective feedback affects second language writing accuracy and revision. Assess Writ. 2021;50:100566.

Zabihi R, Erfanitabar D. The revision effects of varying degrees of written corrective feedback explicitness on L2 learners’ writings. RELC J. 2024;55(1):14–28.

Fukuta J, Tamura Y, Kawaguchi Y. Written languaging with indirect feedback in writing revision: is feedback always effective? Lang Aware. 2019;28(1):1–14.

Banaruee H, Khatin-Zadeh O, Ruegg R. Recasts vs. direct corrective feedback on writing performance of high school EFL learners. Cogent Educ. 2018;5(1):1455333.

Yang YF, Harn RF, Hwang GH. Using a bilingual concordancer for text revisions in EFL writing. J Educational Technol Soc. 2019;22(1):106–19.

Google Scholar  

Hanjani AM, Li L. Exploring L2 writers’ collaborative revision interactions and their writing performance. System. 2014;44:101–14.

Conijn R, Speltz ED, Zaanen MV, Waes LV, Chukharev-Hudilainen E. A product-and process-oriented tagset for revisions in writing. Writ Communication. 2022;39(1):97–128.

Otnes H, Solheim R. Acts of responding. Teachers’ written comments and learners’ text revisions. Assess Education: Principles Policy Pract. 2019;26(6):700–20.

Saeed MA, Ghazali K. Asynchronous group review of EFL writing: interactions and text revisions. Lang Learn Technol. 2017;21(2):200–26.

Stellmack MA, Sandidge RR, Sippl AL, Miller DJ. Incentivizing multiple revisions improves student writing without increasing instructor workload. Teach Psychol. 2015;42(4):293–8.

Xu C. Understanding online revisions in L2 writing: a computer keystroke-log perspective. System. 2018;78:104–14.

Kim Y, Emeliyanova L. The effects of written corrective feedback on the accuracy of L2 writing: comparing collaborative and individual revision behavior. Lang Teach Res. 2021;25(2):234–55.

Chen J, Zhang LJ. Assessing student-writers’ self-efficacy beliefs about text revision in EFL writing. Assess Writ. 2019;40:27–41.

Dzekoe R. Computer-based multimodal composing activities, self-revision, and L2 acquisition through writing. Lang Learn Technol. 2017;21(2):73–95.

Manch´on RM, de Roca J. Writing to learn in FL contexts: exploring learners’ perceptions of the learning potential of L2 writing. In: Manch´on RM, editor. Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 2011. pp. 181–207.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Sun H, Wang M. (2022). Effects of teacher intervention and type of peer feedback on student writing revision. Lang Teach Res, 13621688221080507.

Grigoryan A. Feedback 2.0 in online writing instruction: combining audio-visual and text-based commentary to enhance student revision and writing competency. J Comput High Educ. 2017;29:451–76.

Lee SM. (2022). Different effects of machine translation on L2 revisions across learners’ L2 writing proficiency levels. Lang Learn Technol,21 (1).

Elola I, Mikulski A. Revisions in real time: Spanish heritage language learners’ writing processes in English and Spanish. Foreign Lang Annals. 2013;46(4):646–60.

Largy P, Dédéyan A, Hupet M. Orthographic revision: a developmental study of how revisers check verbal agreements in written texts. Br J Educ Psychol. 2004;74(4):533–50.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Wu WCV, Petit E, Chen CH. EFL writing revision with blind expert and peer review using a CMC open forum. Comput Assist Lang Learn. 2015;28(1):58–80.

Wang EL, Matsumura LC, Correnti R, Litman D, Zhang H, Howe E, Quintana R. eRevis (ing): learners’ revision of text evidence use in an automated writing evaluation system. Assess Writ. 2020;44:100449.

Hamano-Bunce D. (2022). The effects of direct written corrective feedback and comparator texts on the complexity and accuracy of revisions and new pieces of writing. Lang Teach Res, 13621688221127643.

Banaruee H, Khoshsima H, Khatin-Zadeh O. The role of emotional intelligence in community language teaching: a case study of Iranian intermediate L2 learners. Int J Psychol Behav Sci. 2017;7(6):152–9.

Sommers N. Responding to student writing. Coll Composition Communication. 1982;33(2):148–56.

Egi T. Interpreting recasts as linguistic evidence: the roles of linguistic target, length, and degree of change. Stud Second Lang Acquisition. 2007;29:511–37.

Zabihi S. The effect of recast on Iranian EFL learners’ writing achievement. Int J Appl Linguistics Engl Literature. 2013;2(6):28–35.

Nassaji H. Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Lang Learn. 2009;59(2):411–52.

Shintani N, Ellis R, Suzuki W. Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Lang Learn. 2014;64(1):103–31.

Carter AS, Briggs-Gowan MJ, Jones SM, Little TD. The infant-toddler Social and Emotional Assessment (ITSEA): factor structure, reliability, and validity. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2003;31(5):495–514.

Pham HTP. Computer-mediated and face-to-face peer feedback: student feedback and revision in EFL writing. Comput Assist Lang Learn. 2022;35(9):2112–47.

Banaruee H, Khatin-Zadeh O, Farsani D. The challenge of psychological processes in language acquisition: a systematic review. Cogent Arts Humanit. 2023;10(1):2157961.

Payant C, Zuniga M. Learners’ flow experience during peer revision in a virtual writing course during the global pandemic. System. 2022;105:102715.

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Alharbi MA. Exploring the impact of teacher feedback modes and features on learners’ text revisions in writing. Assess Writ. 2022;52:100610.

Bitchener J. A reflection on ‘the language learning potential’ of written CF. J Second Lang Writ. 2012;21(4):348–63.

Kang EY. Model-based feedback for L2 writing revision: the role of vocabulary size and language aptitude. Int J Appl Linguistics. 2024;34(1):103–16.

Banaruee H, Farsani D, Khatin-Zadeh O. April). Culture in English Language Teaching: a curricular evaluation of English textbooks for foreign language learners. Frontiers in Education. Volume 8. Frontiers Media SA; 2023. p. 1012786.

Khoshsima H, Banaruee H. L1 interfering and L2 developmental writing errors among Iranian EFL learners. European Journal of English Language Teaching; 2017.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are very grateful to Yang Zhou for providing technical support for the manuscript.

National Social Science Fund of China (A Study on the Validity Argument Model of L2 Writing Assessment Empowered by Digital Humanities, 23BYY162) provided the necessary funds for the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Taizhou University, City of Taizhou, China

Yuguo Ke & Xiaozhen Zhou

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Yuguo Ke(research design, data collection, manuscript draft and editing)Xiaozhen Zhou(data processing, procedudres, revision).

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuguo Ke .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Informed consent was obtained from every participant provided. The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Human Research Ethics Committees affiliated by Taizhou University. The authors assert that all procedures contributing to this work comply with the ethical standards of the relevant national and institutional committees on human experimentation and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964 and its subsequent amendments.

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from every participant provided.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Human ethics and consent to participate declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Ke, Y., Zhou, X. Unlocking the core revision of writing assessment: EFL learner’ emotional transformation from form focus to content orientation. BMC Psychol 12 , 472 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01977-2

Download citation

Received : 20 October 2023

Accepted : 02 September 2024

Published : 06 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01977-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Form-focused revision
• Content orientation
• Emotional transformation

BMC Psychology

ISSN: 2050-7283

• General enquiries: [email protected]