The Report Over the Word Limit
Dev is finalising his externally assessed investigation report. The required sections are introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion, with a strict overall word limit that includes in-text citations but excludes reference list, tables, and appendices. His draft is 22% over. The excess sits mostly in a 900-word literature review inside the introduction and a 700-word methodology that reproduces his full 14-item survey and describes every procedural step. His results section is thin at 350 words and his discussion is 400 words. He proposes to move the literature review into an appendix, shrink the font of the methodology, and add a note that 'further detail is available on request'. He also wants to keep a long table of all 120 raw participant scores in the body because 'it shows I did the work'.
1. Evaluate each of Dev's three proposed fixes against the rules and the purpose of the report.
Read the worked answer
Moving the literature review to an appendix: not acceptable. The literature review performs the essential function of justifying the research question and situating the study; relocating it to an appendix removes argumentation from the assessed body and evades the limit. Appendices are for supporting material (instruments, raw data, consent forms), not for core argument.
Shrinking methodology font: not acceptable. Formatting manipulation to fit more words defeats the limit and is typically penalised. It also harms readability.
'Further detail available on request': not acceptable. The report must be self-contained; an assessor cannot request material, and this signals that required content is missing.
The raw-score table: wrong place. A 120-row table in the body consumes space without aiding understanding. It belongs in an appendix; the body should carry a summary table (means, SDs, group sizes) that supports the analysis.
2. Propose a rebalancing plan that brings Dev within the limit while strengthening the report, with approximate word targets.
Read the worked answer
Introduction (~cut 900 → 450). The literature review should be a focused argument, not a survey: retain only studies that establish the gap his question addresses, synthesise rather than list, and cut background that any reader would accept. Target roughly half its current length.
Methodology (~cut 700 → 400). Move the full 14-item survey to an appendix and describe it in prose (constructs, scale, number of items, reliability). Describe procedure at a level that permits replication without narrating every minute. Keep design, participants, materials, and analysis plan.
Results (expand 350 → 600). This is where marks are lost. Add descriptive statistics, the inferential test with assumptions checked, effect size, and a summary table. Reference the appendix for raw data.
Discussion (expand 400 → 700). Interpret findings against the question, address limitations specifically (not generically), and state implications and what a follow-up would test.
Conclusion (~150). Direct answer to the question, no new material.
This reallocation cuts ~750 words from the front and adds ~550 to the back, bringing him within the limit while shifting weight to the sections that carry analytic marks.
3. Dev worries that cutting the literature review will make his report look less scholarly. Respond to this concern.
Read the worked answer
Scholarship in a report is demonstrated by the precision of the argument, not the volume of citation. A 450-word review that identifies the specific gap, explains why existing studies cannot answer his question, and derives his hypothesis is more scholarly than 900 words that summarise studies without connecting them to his design. Assessors reward synthesis and justification; long descriptive reviews often read as padding and can obscure the research question.
He can preserve scholarly signal by: citing the most directly relevant work with brief critical comment on method or sample; explicitly linking each retained study to a design choice (e.g. 'Study X used a self-report measure, so I used a diary to reduce recall bias'); and keeping the reference list complete. The discussion can then engage the literature again when interpreting his findings, which is where scholarly conversation is most visible.