RESEARCH IN

TECHNICAL EDUCATION

Module 11.2: Evaluation of Research Report

National Institute of Technical Teachers Training & Research

Chandigarh
 CONTENTS

S. No Page

Learning Outcomes

1. Introduction 1

2. Purpose of Evaluation of Research Report 1-2

Practice Task 3

Feedback 4

3. Parts of Research Report 5

3. Parameters for Evaluating Research Report 5-8

4. Who Should Evaluate Research Report? 8

Practice Task 9

Feedback 10

References 11
 EVALUATION OF RESEARCH REPORT

Learning Outcomes

After reading the material, you will be able to:

 Explain the purposes served by evaluation of research report
 Identify the aspects of research report that need to be evaluated
 Identify the parameters for evaluating a research report
 Design rubric for evaluating a research report

1. Introduction
Evaluation of a research report is the last step in research and evaluation serves many
important purposes for the researcher, policy makers, administrator funding agency and
those interested in implementation of research findings or replicating the research in
different contexts.

2. Purpose of Evaluation of Research Report

Five major purposes are served by evaluation of any research report. These include:
(CPSC, 1984)

 Improve the quality of research: Evaluation helps in identifying the strengths

and weaknesses of the report. Thus, it helps in taking correctives to improve the
quality of further research.
 Enhance use of the findings of research: Evaluation of research report w.r.t.
its objectives, hypotheses, sampling technique used and sample, quality of
measuring tools and interpretation of results will provide an insight and the
stakeholders of the accuracy, adequacy, appropriateness and relevance of
research, will help in implementing the findings of research with confidence.
 Facilitate decision-making: A high quality research will facilitate the decision-
making process at various levels. For example, teacher may be facilitated in
taking a decision whether to use or not to use innovative technologies in
teaching-learning., administration may be helped in making a decision to provide
or not to provide technology infrastructure in classrooms, policy makers may be
assisted in formulation of appropriate policies and funding agency may be able to
take decision whether to fund or not to fund similar research.

1
 Aid in planning future research: Researchers are especially benefitted by the
evaluation of research report as it helps in selecting and defining research
problem and describing methodology of research.
 Identify competencies needed by researchers: The analysis of research
reports can provide insight into the type of researches undertaken and common
mistakes made by researchers in review of related literature, sampling, designing
of measuring tools or interpretation of results, and thus helps in identifying
competencies that are to be developed among researchers so as to enable them
undertake more relevant and quality research in technical education.

2
Practice Task

Explain the major purposes served by evaluation of research report.

3
Feedback

Compare your answer with the purposes of evaluation of research report on page number
1&2.

4
3. Parts of Research Report
The structure of any research report includes (Gay, Mills and Arisian, 2012):
 Preliminary pages
 Introduction
 Review of related literature
 Methods and procedure
 Analysis of data and results
 Summary and conclusion
 References

All these are important parts of research report and thus need to be evaluated.

4. Parameters for Evaluating Research Report

Table 1 provides the various parameters that need to be evaluated for the various
constituent parts of the research report.
Table 1: Aspects and parameters for evaluation of research report.
Sr. Part of research Aspect Parameter
No. report

1. Preliminary Title page Correctness as per the requirement

pages of University or sponsoring agency

Acknowledgement Concise

Table of contents Correctness of content

List of tables Correctness of content

List of illustrations Correctness of content

Abstract Concise, complete and correct

2. Introduction Rationale Adequacy, accuracy, coherence

Statement of the problem Clarity, researchability, size,

accessibility of data

Objectives of study Correct, significant

Significance of the Clarity, adequacy of explanation

problem

5
Sr. Part of research Aspect Parameter
No. report

3. Review of Related literature Complete, correct, clear, concise,

Relevant coherence
Literature
Conclusions Clarity, correct

Gaps in research Clarity, Correct

Formulation of Correct, testable, adequacy

hypotheses

4. Methods and Design Appropriate, feasible, accuracy in

Procedure description/ explanation

Sample Adequacy, appropriateness of

sampling technique, adequacy of
explanation

Measuring tools used Appropriate, reliable, valid, objective,

adequacy of explanation

Experimental procedure Adequacy of explanation, internal

and external validity

Collection of data Proper procedure followed

Statistical techniques Appropriateness

used

5. Analysis of Data Presentation of results Addressed major objectives /

and Results research questions / hypotheses

Accuracy and adequacy of

explanation

Tables / Illustrations Correct, summarise results, quality

Interpretation of results Correct, findings related to other

research studies presented in
Review of Related Literature

6
Sr. Part of research Aspect Parameter
No. report

6. Summary and Summary Inclusion of major elements of

Conclusions report, concise, correct

Conclusions Appropriate

Recommendations for Appropriate

further research

Implications of research Appropriate, for various stakeholders

References / As per APA style, complete

Bibliography

Annexure (if included) Relevant

A rubric can be designed on the basis of parameters for evaluating various parts of the
research report (Table 2).

Table 2: Rubric for evaluation of research report

S. Part of report Good Satisfactory Poor
No
1. Preliminary Correct title; concise Correct title; Correct title;
Pages acknowledgement, acknowledgement, acknowledgement,
correct Contents; correct Contents; incorrect Contents;
Tables & Illustrations;Tables & Tables &
concise, correct and Illustrations; concise Illustrations;
coherent abstract and correct incoherent abstract
abstract
2. Introduction Adequate some-what Inadequate
justification, problem adequate justification, problem
significant and justification, problem research ability but
researchable, clarity significant and not significant,
in objectives researchable, clarity objective not
in objectives properly stated
3. Review of Integrated review well Review well Gaps in review, lack
Related classified, correctly classified, correctly classification, gaps
literature identified gaps in identified gaps in in research not
research, correctly research, correctly identified,
formulated formulated hypotheses not
hypotheses hypotheses properly formulated

7
S. Part of report Good Satisfactory Poor
No
4. Methods & Appropriate design, Appropriate design, Inappropriate
Procedures sample size, inadequate sample design, inadequate
sampling technique, size, correct sample size,
tools and statistical sampling technique, inappropriate
techniques tools and statistical sampling techniques
techniques and inadequate
statistical technique
5. Analysis & Addressed major Addressed major Major
Results questions/objectives/ questions/objectives/ questions/objectives/
Hypotheses, Hypotheses, Hypotheses not
Accuracy and Explanation addressed,
Adequacy of accurate but inaccurate
Explanation; Correct inadequate; Tables explanation, Tables
tabulation of results, lack clarity, Correct lack clarity, incorrect
summarize results, interpretation but not interpretation, not
quality; Correct, related to other related to other
related to other studies reported in studies reported in
studies reported in RORL RORL
RORL
6. Summary and Iinclusion of major Iinclusion of major Iinclusion of major
conclusions components, components, components,
appropriate appropriate appropriate
conclusions conclusions but conclusions
implications and incomplete, implications and
suggestions for incomplete but suggestions for
further research correct implications further research
and suggestions for
further research
7. References/ As per APA and As per APA and Not as per APA and
Bibliography complete some incomplete incomplete

5. Who Should Evaluate Research Report?

The research report can be evaluated by be researcher himself / herself, supervisor or
guide, experts or funding agency.

8
Practice Task
Critically evaluate the rubric for evaluation of research report and design your own rubric for
the same. Upload the same on discussion forum.

9
Feedback
Discuss your rubric with the instructor and peers.

10
References

 CPSC (1984) Developing Skills in Technician Education: Research Module 11,

Colombo Plan Staff College for Technician Edcation, Singapore.
 Gay, LR; Mills, GE. and Ariasian, PW (2012). Educational research: Competencies
for Analysis & Application. New York: Pearson.
 Johnson, R.B. and Christensen, L.B. (2008) Educational Research: Quantitative,
Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches. 3rd Edition, Los Angeles: Sage Publications,
Inc.,

Web links
 Checklist for Critiquing a Research Article
http://www.riverboathouse.com/dochayes/pdf/artguide2.pdf.http://wps.prenhall.com/c
het_airasian_edresearch_7/0,6488,382194-,00.html
 Committee for Evaluation of Research (CIVR): Guidelines for Research Evaluation.
http://vtr2006.cineca.it/documenti/linee_guida_EN.pdf
 Evaluating Educational Research.
http://www.indiana.edu/~educy520/readings/wandt65.pdf
 Evaluating Information Sources
http://ivy.mannlib.cornell.edu/newhelp/res_strategy/evaluating/analyze.html
 Evaluating Research Reports.
http://www.selu.edu/Academics/Education/EDF600/cw8c.htm.
http://wps.prenhall.com/chet_airasian_edresearch_7/0,6488,382194-,00.html
 Guidelines for Critiquing Research Articles
http://www.sonoma.edu/users/n/nolan/n400/critique.htm.http://wps.prenhall.com/chet
_airasian_edresearch_7/0,6488,382194-,00.html
 Guidelines for Critiquing Research Articles
http://www2.msstate.edu/~bsc2/guidelines.htm.
 Research Report Evaluation Form
http://www.irsst.qc.ca/media/documents/en/Evaluation-Criterias-report.pdf
 Litman, Todd (2012). Evaluating Research Quality: Guidelines for
Scholarship.http://vtpi.org/resqual.pdf
 Miron, Gary (2004). Evaluation report
checklist.https://www.wmich.edu/sites/default/files/attachments/u350/2014/evaluation
-reports.pdf
 Research Paper Rubric. https://www.cornellcollege.edu/library/faculty/focusing-on-
assignments/tools-for-assessment/research-paper-rubric.shtml
 Savory, Paul (2009). Rubric for Project Report Evaluation.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=imseteach
http://wps.prenhall.com/chet_airasian_edresearch_7/0,6488,382194-,00.html

11