The Investigation Report That Arrived Without a Research Question
A student submits a 1,500-word Dutch-language investigation for school assessment. The task requires: a clearly stated research question, evidence of planning, use of at least three Dutch-language sources, analysis linking findings to the question, and reflection on the process. The submitted report has a title ('De invloed van social media op jongeren'), a 400-word introduction describing social media use, a 700-word summary of three articles, a 300-word conclusion stating that social media 'has both positive and negative effects', and a 100-word reflection. No research question appears anywhere. The three sources are all Dutch-language news websites. The student's teacher must assign a grade against a five-criterion rubric where each criterion is worth 4 marks.
1. Explain how the missing research question affects the marking of criteria other than the one that explicitly names it.
Read the worked answer
The missing question is not a single lost criterion; it propagates. Criterion 1 (research question) is clearly not met. But criterion 4 (analysis linking findings to the question) cannot be met either, because there is no question to link to - the 300-word conclusion restates the sources rather than answering anything. The 700-word summary is description, not analysis, so even generous marking cannot award the upper band there.
Criterion 2 (planning) is separate and could still be awarded if the student submitted drafts or a plan, but nothing in the report evidences it. Criterion 3 (three Dutch sources) is technically met - three sources, all in Dutch - though all being news websites limits the range; whether that matters depends on whether the rubric specifies source type, which here it does not, so the marker should award the marks and note the narrowness as feedback rather than deduct. Criterion 5 (reflection) is partially met: the reflection exists but does not discuss the research decisions, only the process in general terms.
The marker should therefore award marks criterion by criterion on the evidence present, not apply a blanket penalty for the structural failure. The realistic outcome is low marks on criteria 1 and 4, partial on 5, and full or near-full on 3.
2. The student asks for a remark, arguing the conclusion 'answers the title'. How should the teacher respond, and what does this reveal about task design?
Read the worked answer
The teacher should respond that a title is not a research question: 'the influence of social media on young people' names a topic, whereas a question specifies what is being asked and therefore what evidence would count as an answer. The conclusion's claim that effects are 'both positive and negative' would be true of almost any topic, which is the diagnostic sign that no question was operationalised. A remark should therefore confirm the original mark rather than change it, but the teacher should show the student exactly which sentences would have functioned as a question and how the 700-word summary could have been reorganised into an argument.
The case reveals a task-design issue: the rubric named a research question as a criterion but the task sheet apparently did not require students to submit the question for approval before drafting. A stronger design would build a checkpoint - question approved in Week 2, sources logged in Week 3 - so that a structural failure is caught while it can still be fixed. The teacher should also consider whether the rubric's 'analysis' descriptor is explicit enough about what distinguishes summary from analysis, since the student evidently did not know.