difficulties in writing research paper

• Open supplemental data
• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Original research article, academic writing challenges and supports: perspectives of international doctoral students and their supervisors.

• 1 Faculty of Health Sciences, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada
• 2 School of Optometry, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada
• 3 Department of Chemistry, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada

Introduction: Academic writing is a core element of a successful graduate program, especially at the doctoral level. Graduate students are expected to write in a scholarly manner for their thesis and scholarly publications. However, in some cases, limited or no specific training on academic writing is provided to them to do this effectively. As a result, many graduate students, especially those having English as an Additional Language (EAL), face significant challenges in scholarly writing. Further, faculty supervisors often feel burdened by reviewing and editing multiple drafts and find it difficult to help and support EAL students in the process of scientific writing. In this study, we explored academic writing challenges faced by EAL doctoral students and faculty supervisors at a research intensive post-secondary university in Canada.

Methods and Analysis: We conducted a sequential explanatory mixed-method study using an online survey and subsequent focus group discussions with EAL doctoral students (n = 114) and faculty supervisors (n = 31). A cross-sectional online survey was designed and disseminated to the potential study participants using internal communications systems of the university. The survey was designed using a digital software called Qualtrics™. Following the survey, four focus group discussions (FGDs) were held, two each with two groups of our participants with an aim to achieve data saturation. The FGD guide was informed by the preliminary findings of the survey data. Quantitative data was analyzed using Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS) and qualitative data was managed and analyzed using NVivo.

Discussion: The study findings suggest that academic writing should be integrated into the formal training of doctoral graduate students from the beginning of the program. Both students and faculty members shared that discipline-specific training is required to ensure success in academic writing, which can be provided in the form of a formal course specifically designed for doctoral students wherein discipline-specific support is provided from faculty supervisors and editing support is provided from English language experts.

Ethics and Dissemination: The general research ethics board of the university approved the study (#6024751). The findings are disseminated with relevant stakeholders at the university and beyond using scientific presentations and publications.

Introduction

The international student population at Canadian Universities is on the rise. Statistics Canada reported that over the past 10 years, between 2008/2009 and 2018/2019, enrollments for Canadian students in formal programs grew by 10.9% whereas number of international students tripled over the same period ( Statistics Canada, 2020 ). The same report highlighted those international students contribute an estimated 40% of all tuition fees collected by Canadian universities, accounting for almost $4 billion in their annual revenue in 2018/2019 ( Statistics Canada, 2020 ). Not only international students contribute toward the tuition revenue of universities, but they also increase the social and cultural diversity of campuses leading to excellence in scientific achievement and innovation. The heterogeneity and diversity of graduate students contribute toward globalization of universities and enhance quality of educational experiences for all students ( Campbell, 2015 ).

Academic writing is one of the core elements of a successful graduate program, especially at the doctoral level ( Itua et al., 2014 ). The ability to present information and ideas in writing plays an integral role in graduate students’ academic and professional success ( Caffarella and Barnett, 2000 ; Aitchison et al., 2012 ). Research has shown that writing process is related directly with the doctoral students’ identity development and is not just can be seen as a skill acquisition but a socio-cultural tool that need to be learnt. In fact, in many cases it is a socially situated process that happens in social discourses and is based on intensive interactions with the text and scientific communities. The process eventually leads to the development of an academic identity of graduate students which determines expression of a scientific arguments, epistemologies, methodologies, and theoretical approaches that they align with and adopt as they grow into scientists ( Lee and Boud, 2003 ; Sala-Bubaré and Castelló, 2018 ; Inouye and McAlpine, 2019 ; Lonka et al., 2019 ). The complexity associated with scholarly writing is further compounded at the doctoral level due to the expectation of systematic understanding and comprehensive knowledge of the field of study, mastery of research methods associated with that field, and ability to communicate the complex ideas with the peers, the larger scholarly community and society in general ( Inouye and McAlpine, 2019 ). This process can be challenging to even native speakers, meaning that non-native English speakers may face not only problems with grammar, idea expression, etc., but this may lead to low self-esteem of doctoral students, especially those with English as an additional language (EAL), and interfere with their researcher identity and authorial voice development.

Many EAL doctoral students face numerous scholarly writing challenges ( Pidgeon and Andres, 2005 ). Previous research highlights that international students navigate a complex cultural adaptation like institutional, departmental, disciplinary, and individual culture ( Ismail et al., 2013 ). The internationalization of higher education enhances academic writing’s intricacies, challenging international students and their supervisors to tackle differences in English language understanding and proficiency ( Doyle et al., 2018 ). Previous research also suggests that academic writing practices are socio-culturally specific and subject to change for academic disciplines ( Abdulkareem, 2013 ). Second language learners need more time to gain similar understanding levels than first language learners ( Ipek, 2009 ). Individuals from a variety of disciplines and parts of the world adopt dissimilar rhetorical writing styles, with some preferring inductive forms while others prefer deductive styles. Writing styles also reflect specific cultural nuances that are not applicable or employed in different parts of the world.

Not only students, but faculty supervisors who supervise graduate students often feel burdened of reviewing and editing multiple drafts; and find it hard to help and support students in the process of scientific writing ( Maher et al., 2014 ). Furthermore, the university centers that provide services to support students develop their writing skills face difficulties in matching services according to the supervisor’s expectations ( McAlpine and Amundsen, 2011 ; Gopee and Deane, 2013 ). While extensive scholarly attention has been given to the challenges of doctoral studies, research directed toward understanding the challenges in academic writing from the perspectives of doctoral students and their graduate supervisors at Canadian institutions has been very limited ( Pidgeon and Andres, 2005 ; Jones, 2013 ). The goal of this study was to understand the challenges in academic writing faced by EAL doctoral students and graduate supervisors at a research-intensive post-secondary institution. To achieve our research goal, we had two main objectives:

1. Understand academic writing challenges from the perspectives of EAL doctoral students, knowledge and use of existing services, and writing support from supervisors.

2. Explore areas for support and services needed to improve academic writing, from the perspectives of EAL doctoral students and faculty supervisors with graduate supervision responsibilities and experience.

Understanding these challenges will inform the mechanisms adopted by Canadian or other universities across the world to strengthen the existing services and development of an academic writing model that support graduate students and their supervisors toward successful academic writing.

Materials and Methods

The project was undertaken at a research-intensive post-secondary university in Canada. This university is one of the Canada’s renowned universities that has been granting graduate degrees for over 130 years, and currently offers more than 125 graduate programs to over 4,200 graduate students. Figures from the university suggest that, in 2017, international students from 80 different countries across the world comprised 26% of the total graduate student population. This project was funded by an educational research grant provided by Centre for Teaching and Learning and was a collaborative effort among key stakeholders concerning graduate students, faculty, and staff at the university. These stakeholders included members of the School of Graduate Studies, university’s International Centre, Student Academic Success Services, Centre for Teaching and Learning, and Society for Graduate and Professional Students that provided guidance at every stage of the research process.

A mixed-method approach with sequential explanatory design was used, wherein quantitative data was collected first followed by qualitative data. Participants belonged to major academic disciplines at the university which included science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics.

Study Participants

The study participants included doctoral students doing PhD at the university who were non-native English language speakers and in any year of their program and faculty supervisors with experience of supervising EAL doctoral students. The non-probability sampling was used wherein participants were invited to participate in the study voluntarily. The eligibility to participate in the study was self-determined by the participants.

Doctoral Students

A total of 114 students participated in the study. The average age of doctoral students who responded the survey was 31 years, ranging between 23 and 51 years. Out of 114, 47 students identified themselves as male (41%), 63 identified as female (55%), and four (4%) chose not to declare. With regards to ethnic origin and native languages, there was a large heterogeneity within the sample. Participants belonged to ten different ethnic backgrounds, and thirty-four different languages were reported as their native spoken language. The most indicated racial/ethnic backgrounds were South Asian (22%) and Middle Eastern (18%) followed by European (16%), and Chinese (15%). Four most commonly represented native languages were Arabic (12%), Farsi (9%), Mandarin (9%), and Spanish (6%). Most of the students belonged to Arts and Science (26%), followed by Health Sciences (21%), Engineering (20%), School of Business (13%) and Education (6%). Majority of students who completed the survey were in their first year of PhD program (38%). The remainder of the respondents were almost evenly distributed amongst second year (14%), third year (15%), fourth year (17%) and upper year (16%). With regards to the stage of PhD studies; 48% of respondents were commencing PhD studies, 28% of respondents were mid-candidature, and 24% of respondents were completing PhD studies at the time of the survey.

Faculty Members

A total of 31 faculty members participated in the study. Out of 31, almost half were females. In terms of their faculty ranks, 48% identified as associate professor, 36% as professor, 16% as assistant professor. The number of years of experience of participant supervisors with graduate supervision ranged from 1 to 35; with 45% of respondents having 11–15 years of experience supervising graduate students. Majority of the respondents had supervised less than 10 doctoral students, with 2 EAL doctoral students on an average (46%).

Data Collection and Analysis

The general research ethics board of the university approved the study (#6024751). The data was collected over a period of 6 months, from January to June 2019.

Quantitative Data

Two cross-sectional online surveys were designed and disseminated to the potential study participants (EAL doctoral students and faculty supervisors) using internal communications systems of the university. The surveys were designed using a digital software called Qualtrics™ and developed based on the literature and an environmental scan of academic writing support across ten universities in Canada. The environmental scan helped us to identify the extent and nature of support and services in Canadian universities such as a dedicated academic writing center, online resources for academic writing, personal consultation services for academic writing, workshops/seminars/other events dedicated to academic writing, and resources specific to EAL graduate students and supervisors. The instruments were validated through expert consultation and pilot testing with four potential participants ( Supplementary Materials 1 , 2 ). We followed the general recommendations of anonymity, privacy, and confidentiality from ethical practice guidelines for online research ( Gupta, 2017 ). Quantitative data was analyzed using Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS). All continuous variables are presented as mean (standard deviation) and median (interquartile range). Dichotomous variable values are presented as proportions/percentage.

Qualitative Data

Following the survey, four FGDs were held, two each with two groups of our participants with an aim to achieve data saturation. A semi-structured interview guide was developed based on the objectives of the study and the key findings obtained from the quantitative phase of the study ( Supplementary Material 3 ). Participants for focus group discussions (FGDs) were recruited from the pool of survey respondents who agreed to participate in the qualitative phase of the study. The FGD guide was pilot tested with two participants and revised in light of their responses. The focus groups were conducted in-person. FGDs were conducted by the first author, who was a EAL PhD candidate at the time. All FGDs lasted between 40 and 60 min and were recorded using two audio-recorders and transcribed verbatim. To maintain anonymity, all personal identifiers were removed before data analysis.

Inductive thematic analysis approach was used for qualitative data which involved identifying, analyzing, and reporting themes that are important in the phenomenon of being investigated ( Braun and Clarke, 2006 ). The coding process in inductive thematic analysis started with the preparation of raw data files after data cleaning; close reading of the text to understand the content; the identification and development of general themes and categories; the re-reading to refine the categories and reduce overlap or redundancy among the categories; and creating a framework incorporating the most important categories ( Guest et al., 2014 ) ( Supplementary Material 4 ). The first two authors (SG, AJ) coded the four transcripts independently to ensure inter-coder consistency and peer examination of the codes developed by the first author. The coding scheme was confirmed and corrected by the senior author (JK) for any imprecise code definitions or overlapping of meaning in the coding scheme. Eighty percent of the total codes were identified within the first two FGDs. Two more FGDs were conducted to confirm thematic saturation in data. These additional FGDs verified that saturation is based on the widest possible range of data on the emerged subcategories. This process increased the comprehensibility of analysis and provided a sound interpretation of the data. The NVivo software was used to manage the data. Research rigor was ensured through an audit trail and peer debriefing ( Lincoln and Guba, 1985 ). For an audit trail, a logbook was maintained that contained the notes on the data collection process, the analysis process, and the final interpretations. The research team met at regular intervals to provide critical inputs on the research methods and lead researcher’s interpretation of meanings and analysis. The peer-review process involved deliberations and debriefing of the emerging codes, categories, and their relationship with the data.

Integration of quantitative and qualitative data

Using the mixed-methods sequential explanatory design, the quantitative and qualitative data was connected at the intermediate stage when results obtained from the quantitative data analysis informed data collection of the qualitative study and guided the formation of the semi-structured interview guide. The quantitative and qualitative studies were also connected while selecting the participants for the qualitative study and conduct follow-up analysis based on the quantitative results. The development of the qualitative data collection tool was grounded in the results from the quantitative study to investigate those results in more depth through collecting and analyzing the qualitative data. Finally, an overall interpretation was framed, which is presented in this paper, and implications of the integrated findings on future research, policy and practice are discussed. Figure 1 describes this process and depicts the various stages of integration, along with the specific aspects of this research that were explored in subsequent phases or informed the subsequent phase.

Figure 1. Study process.

Findings From the Online Survey and Focus Group Discussions

Academic writing challenges.

Out of total respondents, almost 90% doctoral students felt that they need to improve their academic writing skills and 46% indicated that a university supervisor or faculty has at some point indicated that they need to work on improving their academic writing skills. The highest rated areas of difficulty were the writing process (25%), followed by developing content/ideas (24%), use of grammar (16%) and vocabulary (12%), and the organization of sentences or paragraphs (11%).

When explored further over a focus group discussion, the students provided reasons for their academic writing challenges. For example, a few students shared that because they frame their ideas in their native language, it becomes challenging for them to express those ideas in English due to the differences in structures, vocabulary, mechanics, and semantics between the two languages. These were depicted in these quotes:

“I tend too much often to use French grammatical structures and to apply it in English. Some words are not in my database of my vocabulary and I don’t think of those words. So, for me it’s two problems: it’s grammatical structures; and vocabulary.” (7th year PhD student, French speaker)

“In my … mother tongue- the syntax, or the semantics, how to organize sentences is totally different from English. in my writing … people find it quite easy to see that this kind of paper is written by a foreign people and not by a native speaker.”(1st year PhD student, Farsi speaker)

“One of the challenges that we have, that at least I have, is the difference in structures and organization … between my language, which would be Italian and English. So sometimes I tend to write sentences in the Italian structure, which is not the correct one.” (2nd year PhD student, Italian speaker)

Some students also highlighted the challenges they face while writing with their faculty supervisors such as getting timely and adequate feedback from them and making sure if they understand that feedback correctly. They further shared how this lack or delay of clear communication between them and their supervisors about their writing challenges led to loss of time and stress during their doctoral programs. This is depicted in these quotes:

“How to differentiate between a comment about concepts from a comment about writing. Like, sometimes I’m like, so is the idea correct and it’s not written well? Or are you saying the idea itself is crap? Like, can you tell me, if you know, where should I make the change. That took me many months to figure out. And yes, I think that more feedback would mean that you can actually talk to them and say I don’t understand what this comment means, but if you get less number of feedbacks and then that itself is like very confusing then you’re just stuck with four comment which you’re like … okay I think I’m terrible, I think I should just leave, this makes no sense.” (2nd year PhD student, Italian speaker)

“I’ll need to work more- just read them again and again and again and sometimes I’ll realize, oh I could use precise language … words that I was not thinking about. So it’s just more time consuming and time is against us in the PhD program.” (3rd year PhD student, French speaker)

Commonly Used Resources

The most common English language development or academic writing support sought out by doctoral students was university workshops (n = 28 students, 25%). After university workshops, the university writing center (20%) was listed as other commonly used English language support. Less common sought out supports were tutoring (9%) and writing retreats (8%). Some students also used resources outside the university such as grammar-check tools. However, around 62% doctoral students ( n = 71) indicated that they had not sought out any support for their academic writing development.

When asked about the reasons for not using university’s academic writing center over the subsequent focus group discussions, participants shared that either they were not aware of those services or felt that they needed support from someone belonging to their own discipline, as depicted in the quotes below:

“I started coming to the writing center only in my fourth year, which I was not aware of before … and I’m in fifth year now, and … it’s just … I’m here because of my editing, or the lack of editing (laughs) in my first draft because I didn’t know what to edit for. these things are something I could have started looking for in my first year.” (5th year PhD student, Hindi speaker)

“I think I was kind of aware of this possibility, but I think right now the major challenge I’m facing is improving on clarity in a way that can possibly only be done be somebody who’s in a research field. So, I think I notwithstanding that I could improve on structure and grammar and so on and so on, I think a major challenge I have is on particularly on specific points.” (2nd year PhD student, German speaker)

Participants further shared although they appreciate the support provided by English language experts, lack of technical or subject knowledge by them creates a barrier to either use those services. Lack of discipline specific knowledge among English language experts made those services less relevant for doctoral students across highly specialized disciplines. This was depicted in this quote:

“When they try to suggest us re-writing the sentence in a way that I know is not correct. So, their suggestion is not right because the science is modified for a different clarity purpose.” (3rd year PhD student, Hindi speaker)

Academic Writing Supports Needed

Students were also asked what writing supports would help improve their academic writing skills. The most important written language support as indicated by 64 respondents (56%) was personal feedback on writing tasks. Doctoral thesis writing workshops and working one-on-one with language experts to check writing regularly were identified as the next most important writing supports each with 47 students (41%). Finally, students were asked what they believe is the best way for their supervisors to give them feedback about their writing. The majority of students (56%) identified that the best way for supervisors to provide written feedback to students was highlighting the errors and informing the student of the type of error.

In the subsequent FGDs, students highlighted several aspects of the support that they thought would help in academic writing. For example, participants shared that a formal training should be provided to all PhD students, right from the beginning of their PhD, though this support should be available to them throughout their PhD program.

“If in the first year itself that they had a course, or just someone or something- an online module on little things like punctuation or comma splices, and length of sentences. Um … it would have definitely helped me figure out what was going wrong with my writing earlier.” (5th year PhD student, Hindi speaker)

“If there was a two-week time that we just dedicated all the efforts and energies to correcting systematic errors that we do when writing in English, then it would be so much easier afterwards.” (3rd year PhD student, Hindi speaker)

When asked further about their preferred arrangements to receive such support, they suggested a hybrid model wherein university’s writing center provides support on English language in the form of online modules, classes or one-on-one appointments with English language experts, while their department and its faculty members provide them training in discipline specific writing via seminars or workshops. These are depicted in the several of the quotes highlighted below:

“I think the support should be more department-specific rather than the entire university. I would say it’s more beneficial because academic writing’s different for every department …. (agreement in group)” (3rd year PhD student, Farsi speaker)

“May be the professors who have 10 to 15 years’ experience writing research reports can have a one-hour seminar throughout the semester, every 2 or 3 weeks, so they can share what they basically do when they’re reviewing reports, as well as also when developing their writing styles.” (1 st year PhD student, Arabic speaker)

“um … that is something for sure we could do like every year like a couple seminars on uh, semantics and punctuation- whatever topic in writing. But uh … sometimes it’s also about the structure of the … of the paper or the thesis. Um … writing my proposal of research um … research proposal? (laughs) I was uh, it was really helpful for me- both because it’s a great writing exercise and also because I learned the importance of having um, a frame when I start writing.” (3rd year PhD student, Spanish speaker)

“I think that not only if even the first year when it’s recommended for them or as we see now it’s most beneficial to them, if it’s open for later for second or third year they will still go if they think it’s useful…” (4th year PhD student, Mandarin speaker)

With respect to supervisors, students shared that they would like their supervisors to communicate expectations and give examples of good writing from the beginning of their program. They also suggested that there should be a link between supervisors and university’s writing center, so that they can be referred whenever they need support in English language, as depicted in this quote:

“I’m not aware that supervisors or profs at [university name] have been in contact with SASS at all, so I think it would be helpful to improve on this link because if supervisors find that students need sort of help that could be provided in the framework of these services, then they could say, well why don’t you ask, you know, the people here and then they will help you with the structure, the grammar and so on, and they don’t have to spend time on things that we could get help on otherwise.” (3rd year PhD student, French speaker)

Faculty Supervisors

The most common areas of difficulty highlighted by faculty supervisors were grammar ( n = 27, 87%), followed by logical organization ( n = 20, 65%), mechanics ( n = 19, 61%), vocabulary ( n = 19, 61%), content/ideas generation ( n = 14, 45%), writing process ( n = 14, 45%) and semantics ( n = 11, 35%).

In the FGDs, faculty members expanded further on the academic writing challenges that their EAL students face or have faced in the past. Using correct grammar and synthesizing and expressing ideas in a cohesive way were the two main challenges highlighted by faculty members. They also acknowledged that academic writing in general is a skill that even native English speakers find difficult. These are reflected in the quotes below:

“It’s as much as being grammatically correct as being able to express ideas in a concise and accurate succinct manner…” (Assistant Professor, Arabic speaker)

“I think I see this part of the training as not only you want them to be grammatically correct, but you want them to be able to say things to an audience – that they can say the right thing to the right audience and be persuasive in certain manner that they would be effective public speakers. But this will take time and some process we go through.” (Associate Professor, Mandarin speaker)

“Academic writing issues affect domestic students also, but especially if you have done an undergraduate degree outside Canada, then you’re going to be limping … ” (Assistant Professor, French speaker)

“Sometimes I find that our domestic students have trouble writing and these are the people who went through the Canadian system in high school and undergraduate, so it’s not … I think writ- professional writing in general is … an issue and it would take some time generally for all of us … ” (Professor, English speaker)

When explored further, faculty members shared the challenges they face while supervising EAL students in academic writing. For example, the quote below from a faculty member highlights how they need more time and effort to clearly understand and supervise the work of EAL students in comparison to students who are native English speakers.

“Before I can look at the idea, I have to go over and over and over the actual presentation so that I can understand the idea and argument clearly, and those additional rounds of assistance are not required for people who, who would perhaps have English as their first language. (Professor, English speaker)

Basically, we ask the student to write something and then rewrite it and rewrite it again depending on the student and how – how quickly, how quickly they’re getting it. The iteration can be anywhere between three and five times … ” (Assistant Professor, French speaker)

Expanding on this further, another faculty member who was also a department head at the university shared that the extra amount of time and effort required to supervise EAL students lead to reluctance from faculty supervisors in supervising international students.

“I have had faculty members say they don’t wish to supervise international students because they have to spend so much more time editing their work. And it’s nothing to do with their brightness – they’re very competent, but to get to the same level of output requires a lot more effort on the part of the supervisor and so some prefer not to work with international students.” (Professor and Department Head, Chinese speaker)

Academic Writing Supports Provided and Awareness of Academic Writing Support on Campus

In terms of writing supports provided, 75% of faculty supervisors said they provided models of good writing such as academic papers, previous successful and/or unsuccessful theses, dissertations and journal publications. The next question asked if the supervisor has any specific processes they use when supervising EAL doctoral students. The answers were fairly evenly split between yes (45%) and no (55%). Some examples provided by respondents of specific processes included: providing writing exercises, earlier submissions compared to native English speakers, peer reviews and one-on-one writing support.

The next question asked about what writing support services the participants were aware of on campus that support student writing. This was an open-ended question that resulted in various answers; however, the most common answer was ‘The Writing Centre’ with 50% respondents indicating this as the only writing support service they were aware of on campus. However, some comments indicated that respondents felt the writing center was not intensive enough or merely supplemental for doctoral students.

“I’ve never sent any students there. I have assumed that because undergraduates at the end of the semester are waiting a month to get access to it, it’s simply not available for the kind of intensive work, the kind of on-going intensive work that is required for graduate-level students.” (Assistant Professor, Cantonese speaker)

Around 10% of faculty supervisors did not know of any writing supports. Other responses included: graduate school seminars, the University International Centre, the Centre for Teaching and Learning, and graduate school workshops. Finally, 2 respondents knew that support services exist, but did not know the name. Participants were also asked if they had referred students to these services, and 24 respondents (75%) said yes, and 7 respondents (25%) said no.

Academic Writing Supports Required

Participants were then asked in what ways they thought academic writing for EAL students could be strengthened at the university. The most frequent response ( n = 18, 58%) was one-on-one group guidance from someone in a similar area of study. The second most frequent response was editing services/proofreading/grammar check tools ( n = 17, 55%). The third most frequent response chosen by respondents was sitting one by one with a language expert to check writing regularly ( n = 16, 52%). Also, courses on academic writing ( n = 12, 39%), training on grammar, structure, and expressions in sentences ( n = 11, 35%), and PhD thesis-writing workshops ( n = 11, 35%) were in the top-most frequent responses.

In the subsequent FGD, we asked faculty members for suggestions for supporting EAL doctoral students. A common theme in the responses was that more resources should be allocated to EAL doctoral students with respect to writing supports; particularly one-on-one writing supports and editing services. Another suggestion that emerged in the discussions is that expectations, needs and challenges will be subjective based on the department and the student’s individual needs. Specifically, the faculty supervisors suggested for a course specifically designed for graduate students, offered by respective discipline-specific departments but designed and delivered in partnership with academic writing centre of the university.

“I think dedicated graduate supervision on graduate writing would be very valuable. But the problem I would have with that is the kind of supervision you could provide in the science is going to be very different than what you provide in the social sciences, and you provide in humanities. So, there would have to be people who really can write in the different modes.” (Assistant Professor, Italian speaker)

“I think you could have dedicated courses. This is possible, but the courses would have to be designed in conjunction with the departments that are involved.” (Assistant Professor, Cantonese speaker)

“I would say that ongoing support and continuous support through a feedback loop, which will return some gains, because if a course is just provided in the first year, by the time the student actually gets into the intensive writing phase – third year, fourth year, it might not turn out to be very effective … ” (Assistant Professor, English speaker)

Finally, the discussions indicated that faculty supervisors would like to have resources external to themselves in terms of academic writing support, so that they have more time to focus on technical content of the student’s writing.

The purpose of this study was to explore academic writing challenges faced by EAL PhD graduate students and their faculty supervisors. The students chose writing process and content/ideas as their highest rated areas of difficulty whereas for faculty members, grammar and logical organization were the two most common areas where EAL students need improvement. Our study was confined to one post-secondary institution in Canada, though the findings can be applied widely to other universities in Canada and around the world where international student population is growing. We discuss three key recommendations that emerged out of this study ( Figure 2 ) while comparing our findings with other similar studies.

Figure 2. Study recommendations to improve academic writing for EAL doctoral students.

Need of Specialized Writing Support Services for Doctoral Students

Writing at the doctoral level requires a highly specialized understanding of the subject area that cannot be expected to be provided by the support staff at university writing centers. This was echoed by faculty supervisors and students in our study that felt the existing writing support center needs more capacity to support the intensity of a doctoral program. This finding has important implications for the universities where there are currently no writing centers dedicated to doctoral students and that for EAL doctoral students only. A previous study examined a doctoral support group for EAL students. In this program, native English speakers volunteered to review doctorate’s academic writing at the draft stages for clarity, grammar, and spelling/punctation ( Carter, 2009 ). Although the service was specific for doctoral EAL students, the volunteers did not receive EAL training or had to be doctorate holders ( Carter, 2009 ). Therefore, some EAL students of the program had suggested for volunteers to be academically trained or department specific to receive more thorough assistance ( Carter, 2009 ). On the other hand, a study in the United States examined a university that has a Doctoral Support Center (DSC) which provides technical and emotional support to doctoral students only ( West et al., 2011 ). Technical services at the DSC included one-on-one consultations with writing class papers/dissertations, preparation support for proposal and dissertation defenses, and writing retreats/workshops ( West et al., 2011 ). The services were offered by three writing advisors who are doctorate holders ( West et al., 2011 ). These findings suggest that a doctoral focused writing service can be more beneficial compared to general writing centers and can provide more tailored support. More specifically, since EAL doctoral students require both English language and general dissertation support throughout their program, one-on-one support in this area can assist with student success, address common writing errors, and reduce workload of faculty having to provide continuous feedback.

Significance of Faculty Supervisors/Advisors Support for EAL Doctoral Students

Some faculty supervisors within our study reported allowing EAL students to submit their work early, provided examples of strong academic papers or previous dissertations, and/or provided individual writing support. Previous literature has identified one-on-one consultations with advisors helped EAL doctoral students receive personal feedback, improve their writing, and build confidence in themselves, ( Odena and Burgess, 2017 ; Ma, 2019 ). On the other hand, our study and other studies reported some students did not receive timely, clear, or direct/specific constructive feedback from faculty, adding as a challenge to improve their writing ( Sidman-taveau and Karathanos-aguilar, 2015 ; Abdulkhaleq, 2021 ). Faculty supervisors should be aware of the initial learning curve EAL students may face and ensure they have ample time and capacity to provide English language support to doctoral EAL students, in addition to general academic writing mentorship. Although in our study, faculty indicated some staff prefer not to supervise international students due to the extra time required, it is important to recognize the diversity, value, and enriching experiences that EAL students bring to teams. Based on our study findings and that of previous literature, it is evident faculty supervisors play an integral role in supporting doctoral students to become strong writers.

Furthermore, in our study, EAL students reported facing stress due to untimely feedback from supervisors. Other studies found that EAL students often feel discouraged, lack confidence, feel vulnerable, and greater pressure due to their English speaking/writing abilities ( Maringe and Jenkins, 2015 ). One study had a participant suggest that academic writing courses should be taught by EAL staff since they will understand the technical and emotional challenges that EAL doctoral students face ( Odena and Burgess, 2017 ). Based on these findings, it is recommended writing support centers and supervisors help build confidence in student’s writing skills by providing positive encouragement and acknowledging student’s improvement, while also understanding the additional pressure international EAL students face.

EAL Doctoral Students Use University Resources and Invest Time in Building Their Academic Writing Skills

One of the intriguing findings of this study was that while 89.5% of students felt that they do need to improve on their academic writing skills, 62% indicated that they had not sought out any support for their academic writing development. Further in the study, participant students have explained the challenges that prevent them seeking support for academic writing. However, it is important to highlight the importance of intrinsic motivation for academic and social integration of international students and role it plays to determine their success. Previous studies have found that international students’ motivation and learning attitudes are significant for their academic success and cultural adaptation in a new learning environment ( Hsu, 2011 ; Zhou and Zhang, 2014 ; Eze and Inegbedion, 2015 ).

There are many things that EAL doctoral students can do to improve their academic writing skills, as demonstrated to be effective by research evidence. Recently, a number of published studies suggest that participation in writing retreats help graduate students in developing academic writing abilities through a community of practice formed during writing retreats and interacting with their peers afterward ( Kornhaber et al., 2016 ; Tremblay-Wragg et al., 2021 ). A few studies also suggest students examine their beliefs about writing and form a writer identity to improve their style and come up with effective strategies that work for them. Authors suggest that these activities can be useful across any discipline, in which high-stakes writing is used ( Boscolo et al., 2007 ; Fernsten and Reda, 2011 ). Some of the other effective strategies that could be helpful include developing a network for peer feedback, writing regularly, personal organization while keeping time aside for academic writing, and building self-motivation and resilience ( Wellington, 2010 ; Odena and Burgess, 2017 ).

Limitations

Our findings were only limited to a Canadian university; hence, the findings may not be generalizable to other contexts. The participation in the study was voluntary, hence the survey respondents were not representative of all EAL doctoral students on campus. Although the sample for qualitative data ( n = 31) is reasonable, it was not representative of all disciplines. The findings should be interpreted with caution with respect to discipline-specific nuances toward academic writing challenges and supports. Gathering data on students’ level of language proficiency, previous educational setting or background and personal characteristics could have provided a more comprehensive understanding of this phenomena. Moreover, this study was limited to academic writing challenges and supports for international graduate students; it will be interesting to explore this phenomenon among domestic doctoral students and their supervisors to ascertain the impact of writing culture and level of language proficiency on scientific writing. Despite these limitations, we believe that our findings still provide original and meaningful insight into academic writing challenges and required supports for EAL doctoral students and have the potential to inform programs on academic writing in higher education.

This study explored academic writing experiences—challenges and potential solutions from the perspective of EAL PhD graduate students and their faculty supervisors at a Canadian University. With the rise in international student population across Canada, understanding the doctoral academic writing challenges is critical to strengthen the existing services and development of an academic writing model that support students and their supervisors toward successful academic writing experience and outcomes. Our study indicated that EAL doctoral students require both English language and general dissertation support throughout their program. A doctoral-focused writing service will be beneficial compared to general writing centers given they can provide more tailored support. One-on-one support in this area can assist with student success, address common writing errors, and reduce workload for faculty members. There is a need for multipronged approach at various levels to provide a conducive and enabling environment and support resources for the students to thrive in their doctoral journey, and timely complete their thesis with success.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article/ Supplementary Material , further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by General Research Ethics Board of the Queen’s university. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author Contributions

SG and AJ contributed to the conception and design of the study. JK contributed to the design of data collection tools. SG, AJ, and AP were involved in writing the first draft of the manuscript. JK and SG edited the final manuscript for submission. All authors read and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Klodiana Kolomitro, Susan Korba, Marta Straznicky, Agniezka Herra, and Colette Steer for their support to this research project. We would also like to thank the students at Queen’s University who participated in this study and shared their experiences. We would like to acknowledge the support of Centre for Teaching and Learning at Queen’s University for providing educational research grant to conduct this research.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2022.891534/full#supplementary-material

Abdulkareem, M. N. (2013). an investigation study of academic writing problems faced by Arab postgraduate students at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM). Theory Pract. Lang. Stud. 3, 1552–1557. doi: 10.4304/tpls.3.9.1552-1557

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Abdulkhaleq, M. M. A. (2021). Postgraduate ESL student’s perceptions of supervisor’s written and oral feedback. J. Lang. Commun. 8, 45–60.

Google Scholar

Aitchison, C., Catterall, J., Ross, P., and Burgin, S. (2012). “Tough love and tears”: learning doctoral writing in the sciences. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 31, 435–447. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2011.559195

Boscolo, P., Arfé, B., and Quarisa, M. (2007). Improving the quality of students’ academic writing: an intervention study. Stud. High. Educ. 32, 419–438. doi: 10.1080/03075070701476092

Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3, 77–101.

Caffarella, R. S., and Barnett, B. G. (2000). Teaching doctoral students to become scholarly writers: the importance of giving and receiving critiques. Stud. High. Educ. 25, 39–52. doi: 10.1080/030750700116000

Campbell, T. A. (2015). A phenomenological study on international doctoral students’ acculturation experiences at a U.S. university. J. Int. Stud. 5, 285–299.

Carter, S. (2009). Volunteer support of english as an additional language (EAL) for doctoral students. Int. J. Dr. Stud. 4, 013–025. doi: 10.28945/43

Doyle, S., Manathunga, C., Prinsen, G., Tallon, R., and Cornforth, S. (2018). African international doctoral students in New Zealand: englishes, doctoral writing and intercultural supervision. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 37, 1–14. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2017.1339182

Eze, S. C., and Inegbedion, H. (2015). Key factors influencing academic performance of international students’ in UK universities: a preliminary investigation. Br. J. Educ. 3, 55–68. doi: 10.37745/bje.vol3.no5.p55-68.2013

Fernsten, L. A., and Reda, M. (2011). Helping students meet the challenges of academic writing. Teach. High. Educ. 16, 171–182. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2010.507306

Gopee, N., and Deane, M. (2013). Strategies for successful academic writing – institutional and non-institutional support for students. Nurse Educ. Today 33, 1624–1631. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2013.02.004

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Guest, G., MacQueen, K., and Namey, E. (2014). Introduction to applied thematic analysis. Appl. Themat. Anal. 3:20. doi: 10.4135/9781483384436.n1

Gupta, S. (2017). Ethical issues in designing internet-based research: recommendations for good practice. J. Res. Pract. 13, 1–14. doi: 10.1186/s12888-018-1612-3

Hsu, C.-H. (2011). Factors Influencing International Students’ Academic and Sociocultural Transition in an Increasingly Globalized Society. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 153. Available online at: https://search.proquest.com/docview/868529304?accountid=10673%0Ahttp://openurl.ac.uk/redirect/athens:edu/?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&genre=dissertations+%26+theses&sid=ProQ:ProQuest+Dissertations+%26+Theses+Global&at (accessed April 30, 2022).

Inouye, K., and McAlpine, L. (2019). Developing academic identity: a review of the literature on doctoral writing and feedback. Int. J. Dr. Stud. 14, 001–031. doi: 10.28945/4168

Ipek, H. (2009). Comparing and contrasting first and second language acquisition: implications for language teachers. Engl. Lang. Teach. 2, 155–163.

Ismail, H. M., Majid, F. A., and Ismail, I. S. (2013). “It’s complicated” relationship: research students’ perspective on doctoral supervision. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 90, 165–170. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.078

Itua, I., Coffey, M., Merryweather, D., Norton, L., and Foxcroft, A. (2014). Exploring barriers and solutions to academic writing: perspectives from students, higher education and further education tutors. J. Furth. High. Educ. 38, 305–326. doi: 10.1080/0309877X.2012.726966

Jones, M. (2013). Issues in doctoral studies -forty years of journal discussion: where have we been and where are we going? Int. J. Dr. Stud. 8, 83–104.

Kornhaber, R., Cross, M., Betihavas, V., and Bridgman, H. (2016). The benefits and challenges of academic writing retreats: an integrative review. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 35, 1210–1227. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2016.1144572

Lee, A., and Boud, D. (2003). Writing groups, change and academic identity: research development as local practice. Stud. High. Educ. 28, 187–200. doi: 10.1080/0307507032000058109

Lincoln, Y. S., and Guba, E. G. (1985). Lincoln and Guba’s Evaluative Criteria. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 3684.

Lonka, K., Ketonen, E., Vekkaila, J., Cerrato Lara, M., and Pyhältö, K. (2019). Doctoral students’ writing profiles and their relations to well-being and perceptions of the academic environment. High. Educ. 77, 587–602. doi: 10.1007/s10734-018-0290-x

Ma, L. P. F. (2019). Academic writing support through individual consultations: EAL doctoral student experiences and evaluation. J. Sec. Lang. Writ. 43, 72–79. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2017.11.006

Maher, M. A., Feldon, D. F., Timmerman, B. E., and Chao, J. (2014). Faculty perceptions of common challenges encountered by novice doctoral writers. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 33, 699–711. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2013.863850

Maringe, F., and Jenkins, J. (2015). Stigma, tensions, and apprehension: the academic writing experience of international students. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 29, 609–626. doi: 10.1108/IJEM-04-2014-0049

McAlpine, L., and Amundsen, C. (2011). Doctoral Education: Research-Based Strategies for Doctoral Students, Supervisors and Administrators. Quebec: Springer Nature. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-0507-4

Odena, O., and Burgess, H. (2017). How doctoral students and graduates describe facilitating experiences and strategies for their thesis writing learning process: a qualitative approach. Stud. High. Educ. 42, 572–590. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1063598

Pidgeon, M., and Andres, L. (2005). Demands, Challenges, and Rewards: The First Year Experiences of International and Domestic Students at Four Canadian Universities. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Sala-Bubaré, A., and Castelló, M. (2018). Writing regulation processes in higher education: a review of two decades of empirical research. Read. Writ. 31, 757–777. doi: 10.1007/s11145-017-9808-3

Sidman-taveau, R., and Karathanos-aguilar, K. (2015). Academic writing for graduate-level english as a second language students: experiences in education. CATESOL J. 27, 27–53.

Statistics Canada (2020). International Students Accounted for all of the Growth in Postsecondary Enrolments in 2018 / 2019. The Daily. Available online at: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/201125/dq201125e-eng.htm (accessed April 30, 2022).

Tremblay-Wragg, E., Mathieu Chartier, S., Labonté-Lemoyne, E., Déri, C., and Gadbois, M. E. (2021). Writing more, better, together: how writing retreats support graduate students through their journey. J. Furth. High. Educ. 45, 95–106. doi: 10.1080/0309877X.2020.1736272

Wellington, J. (2010). More than a matter of cognition: an exploration of affective writing problems of post-graduate students and their possible solutions. Teach. High. Educ. 15, 135–150. doi: 10.1080/13562511003619961

West, I. J. Y., Gokalp, G., Peña, E. V., Fischer, L., and Gupton, J. (2011). Exploring effective support practices for doctoral students’ degree completion. Coll. Stud. J. 45:310.

Zhou, G., and Zhang, Z. (2014). A study of the first year international students at a Canadian university: challenges and experiences with social integration. Comp. Int. Educ. 43, 1–18. doi: 10.5206/cie-eci.v43i2.9253

Keywords : international students (foreign students), academic writing and publishing, supervisors and supervision, university resources, support and services

Citation: Gupta S, Jaiswal A, Paramasivam A and Kotecha J (2022) Academic Writing Challenges and Supports: Perspectives of International Doctoral Students and Their Supervisors. Front. Educ. 7:891534. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.891534

Received: 07 March 2022; Accepted: 31 May 2022; Published: 29 June 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Gupta, Jaiswal, Paramasivam and Kotecha. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Shikha Gupta, [email protected]

• Resources Home 🏠
• Try SciSpace Copilot
• Search research papers
• Add Copilot Extension
• Try AI Detector
• Try Paraphraser
• Try Citation Generator
• April Papers
• June Papers
• July Papers

4 Common Research Writing Mistakes (and How to Fix Them)

It is disappointing to see authors who, after putting in so much of time and effort into conducting their research, make peace with their work being judged based on styling or linguistic errors, rather than its scientific merit.

Successful researchers understand that communicating your research effectively is as important as conducting solid scientific research. You can also check out this article on top ten ways to improve technical writing , which helps you to eliminate the  most common problems in technical writing and provide tips on how to recognize and solve them.

If you are about to start writing an academic paper soon, here are a few common research writing mistakes you must keep in mind to avoid unnecessary rejections:

1. Not emphasising on “why” the problem you are trying to solve is important

The introduction sets the tone of the entire paper. Authors often utilize this section to talk about the objectives of the study and explain the problem they are addressing. But a lot of authors leave it up to the reviewer to understand ‘why’ the problem is so important and challenging, which is a big mistake.

Authors must take the responsibility of convincing the reviewer about the gravity of the problem to give a compelling start to their paper. Use data to state why the problem is so important, how the current solutions are falling short to solve it, and why it is a difficult problem to solve. Similarly, just stating the solution to the problem is not enough. Give detailed arguments to explain what makes your solution so compelling. Explaining the limitations of the current solution and the challenges faced in solving the problem are also good ways to intrigue the reviewer. For example, if you are optimizing a current solution, showing the impact of those optimizations on the outcome can certainly help make a good case for your solution.

2. Weak structuring of the paper

The longer the research paper, the more challenging it becomes to keep readers engaged until the end. It is easy to drift from one thought to another.

A strong research question is at the center of a good research paper. You might want to present some good ideas, but if it doesn’t relate directly to the answer to your research question, it’s best to keep it for another day. If a project allows you to explore several research questions, it is best to address each question in a different paper.

Unnecessary information like why you used a particular software to create pie charts, or explaining fundamentals of a topic when the majority of your readers are already well-versed with it are easy ways to make people lose their interest in your work.

In some domains, projects are undertaken for operational purposes and not necessarily to add anything to scientific knowledge. Papers that are written based on such projects should thus define their primary research question as the basis of the paper.

A good research question is specific, original, and expresses a strong perspective on one focused topic. It should either extend the conversation about the topic in the scientific community or refute existing knowledge. For example, ‘we examined if giving a checklist of vaccinations for a newborn makes couples come back to the same hospital for vaccinations,’ might make a good hypothesis. Authors must note that their question should be intriguing enough for those in the same field of study.

All supporting statements should in effect answer this primary research question and pose a sustained inquiry and an inspiring discussion around your research question. This helps maintain unity throughout the paper and lends a logic flow to your ideas. Although most journals recommend following IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) to define the structure of a scientific paper, you must check specific requirements of the journal under the author’s guidelines section.

In the image below, you can see a great demarcation provided by OUP of the points to address under each section of IMRAD for a typical research paper:

Often when submitting manuscripts, authors do not mention the research question or the defined aim of the question is too vague. Mixing points between sections is another common issue that can make the paper lose its impact. The above image should work as a handy reference, in case you get confused. Besides structure, it is also important for authors to rightfully acknowledge the limitations of their study and make sure that their discussion is providing a convincing answer to the research question. Non-native speakers are highly recommended to get their papers proofread by a native speaker at least once before submission. The only time when it is probably okay to receive a paper rejection is when there is some grave loophole in your research you couldn’t have realized earlier and it warrants further deep dive into the subject. Getting your paper rejected due to linguistic errors, paper style errors, LaTeX errors or because you didn’t acknowledge the latest research, is a waste of your time as well as the reviewers and the journal where you submitted the paper.

3. Citing the sources incorrectly

There are several ways you can interpret this. Many scholars do not add relevant references that support their key arguments in the introduction and the discussion.

At other times, reviewers reject papers that cite references from a long time ago as it is unlikely that no scientific progress has been made in a particular field in a couple of years. Citing newer research thus is a great way to make sure that your manuscript is relevant and adds to the current conversation about the topic you are addressing. Add a few newer references from top journals to show how well aware you are about the recent developments to earn yourself some brownie points.

No one wants additional rounds of the stressful peer review process. It is common to spot authors conveniently skipping important research references (sometimes intentionally) or mentioning incorrect facts when citing previous references. For example, if you propose a revolutionary new algorithm to solve a problem but fail to recognize that it can be solved by an already existing solution, it might lead to rejection of your paper.

Each journal has specific guidelines on how to cite sources as well. Make sure you do not take these guidelines lightly and follow them correctly. Of course, if you are a SciSpace (Formerly Typeset) user, you do not have to worry about any of this as you can select the pre-set template of your journal on our platform and follow all citation and author guidelines 100% in a single click.

To understand all about citations, refer to The Fundamentals of Journal Citation

4. Not enriching your paper with appropriate figures and tables

Using text to describe everything can be boring and might not help you put your results/data across as effectively as a table or a figure. Adding figures and tables also help you flesh out your results section and give it the emphasis it deserves. Otherwise, it will probably be the shortest section of your manuscript. Authors often make a lot of mistakes in regards to basic formatting conventions in figures and tables. For example, figures and tables should be numbered in the same order in which they appear in your text and should be cited as (Figure 1) or (Fig. 1), and not (See Figure 1 attached). Same goes for tables as well. Also, your figures and tables should be self-explanatory.

If you are unable to decide what would be the best way to represent your data — tables or figures — the general rule is that tables present the experimental results, while figures offer a better visualization when comparing experimental results with theoretical/calculated values or previous works. Regardless of the choice you make, do not duplicate the information you’ve covered elsewhere in the manuscript.

Here are a few quick tips to present your figures and tables more clearly:

• Don’t use crowded plots. Limit to 3–4 sets of data per figure and choose your scales carefully
• Use the right size for axis labels
• Make sure your symbols are clear and it is easy to distinguish data sets
• Avoid including long boring tables and add them as supplementary material, if needed

Although the list of research writing mistakes can be pretty long-winding if you delve into the granularities of LaTeX errors or specific grammatical errors, those are probably appropriate subjects to take up in other posts. Are you a journal editor or perhaps a researcher yourself? What are the common errors you’ve observed in research papers? Share it with us.

Our recommendation, since you are looking for platforms that simplify research workflows, is SciSpace . All your research needs can be met through it, from literature searches to writing papers to publishing.

SciSpace is a platform that researchers, universities, and publishers worldwide trust for everything they need. An exhaustive repository with more than 200 million research papers from across disciplines with SEO-optimized summaries, public profiles to showcase your experience and expertise, a specifically-built collaborative text editor, 20,000+ journal templates that can be inserted in a click, and so much more.

More Stories

• How to increase citation count of your research paper?
• How to become good at academic research writing?
• 11 Reasons Why Research Papers Are Rejected

You might also like

Consensus GPT vs. SciSpace GPT: Choose the Best GPT for Research

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

Types of Essays in Academic Writing

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Starting the research process
• How to Define a Research Problem | Ideas & Examples

How to Define a Research Problem | Ideas & Examples

Published on November 2, 2022 by Shona McCombes and Tegan George. Revised on May 31, 2023.

A research problem is a specific issue or gap in existing knowledge that you aim to address in your research. You may choose to look for practical problems aimed at contributing to change, or theoretical problems aimed at expanding knowledge.

Some research will do both of these things, but usually the research problem focuses on one or the other. The type of research problem you choose depends on your broad topic of interest and the type of research you think will fit best.

This article helps you identify and refine a research problem. When writing your research proposal or introduction , formulate it as a problem statement and/or research questions .

Table of contents

Why is the research problem important, step 1: identify a broad problem area, step 2: learn more about the problem, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about research problems.

Having an interesting topic isn’t a strong enough basis for academic research. Without a well-defined research problem, you are likely to end up with an unfocused and unmanageable project.

You might end up repeating what other people have already said, trying to say too much, or doing research without a clear purpose and justification. You need a clear problem in order to do research that contributes new and relevant insights.

Whether you’re planning your thesis , starting a research paper , or writing a research proposal , the research problem is the first step towards knowing exactly what you’ll do and why.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

As you read about your topic, look for under-explored aspects or areas of concern, conflict, or controversy. Your goal is to find a gap that your research project can fill.

Practical research problems

If you are doing practical research, you can identify a problem by reading reports, following up on previous research, or talking to people who work in the relevant field or organization. You might look for:

• Issues with performance or efficiency
• Processes that could be improved
• Areas of concern among practitioners
• Difficulties faced by specific groups of people

Examples of practical research problems

Voter turnout in New England has been decreasing, in contrast to the rest of the country.

The HR department of a local chain of restaurants has a high staff turnover rate.

A non-profit organization faces a funding gap that means some of its programs will have to be cut.

Theoretical research problems

If you are doing theoretical research, you can identify a research problem by reading existing research, theory, and debates on your topic to find a gap in what is currently known about it. You might look for:

• A phenomenon or context that has not been closely studied
• A contradiction between two or more perspectives
• A situation or relationship that is not well understood
• A troubling question that has yet to be resolved

Examples of theoretical research problems

The effects of long-term Vitamin D deficiency on cardiovascular health are not well understood.

The relationship between gender, race, and income inequality has yet to be closely studied in the context of the millennial gig economy.

Historians of Scottish nationalism disagree about the role of the British Empire in the development of Scotland’s national identity.

Next, you have to find out what is already known about the problem, and pinpoint the exact aspect that your research will address.

Context and background

• Who does the problem affect?
• Is it a newly-discovered problem, or a well-established one?
• What research has already been done?
• What, if any, solutions have been proposed?
• What are the current debates about the problem? What is missing from these debates?

Specificity and relevance

• What particular place, time, and/or group of people will you focus on?
• What aspects will you not be able to tackle?
• What will the consequences be if the problem is not resolved?

Example of a specific research problem

A local non-profit organization focused on alleviating food insecurity has always fundraised from its existing support base. It lacks understanding of how best to target potential new donors. To be able to continue its work, the organization requires research into more effective fundraising strategies.

Once you have narrowed down your research problem, the next step is to formulate a problem statement , as well as your research questions or hypotheses .

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

Methodology

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

All research questions should be:

• Focused on a single problem or issue
• Researchable using primary and/or secondary sources
• Feasible to answer within the timeframe and practical constraints
• Specific enough to answer thoroughly
• Complex enough to develop the answer over the space of a paper or thesis
• Relevant to your field of study and/or society more broadly

Research questions anchor your whole project, so it’s important to spend some time refining them.

In general, they should be:

• Focused and researchable
• Answerable using credible sources
• Complex and arguable
• Feasible and specific
• Relevant and original

Your research objectives indicate how you’ll try to address your research problem and should be specific:

A research aim is a broad statement indicating the general purpose of your research project. It should appear in your introduction at the end of your problem statement , before your research objectives.

Research objectives are more specific than your research aim. They indicate the specific ways you’ll address the overarching aim.

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.

McCombes, S. & George, T. (2023, May 31). How to Define a Research Problem | Ideas & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 1, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-process/research-problem/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a problem statement | guide & examples, writing strong research questions | criteria & examples, how to write a strong hypothesis | steps & examples, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Children (Basel)

Difficulty in Writing Perceived by University Students: A Comparison of Inaccurate Writers with and without Diagnostic Certification

Chiara malagoli.

1 Department of Education, Languages, Intercultures, Literatures and Psychology (FORLIPSI), University of Florence, Via di San Salvi 12, 50135 Firenze, Italy; [email protected]

Mirella Zanobini

2 Department of Education Sciences (DISFOR), University of Genoa, C.so A. Podestà 2, 16128 Genova, Italy; [email protected] (M.Z.); [email protected] (C.C.)

Carlo Chiorri

Lucia bigozzi, associated data.

Data sharing not applicable. No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Research has shown that academic success is strongly associated with positive academic self-efficacy beliefs and that individuals with learning disabilities (LDs) usually report a lower perception of competence than their peers in most learning domains. The aim of this study was two-fold: (1) To compare the performance of inaccurate writers who were not diagnosed with an LD with that of students who were diagnosed with an LD, in order to identify which tasks were the most challenging for individuals with LDs, and (2) to investigate whether inaccurate writers with and without a diagnosis differ in terms of self-perceived difficulties. Two groups were selected from a total sample of 639 students attending seven Italian universities: The first group included 48 participants (24 females) with scores on writing tasks below the 5th percentile, and the second included 51 participants (24 females) who were diagnosed with an LD. The results showed that the two groups significantly differed in the articulatory suppression condition tasks, but not in the standard condition tasks. When groups were matched for performance on writing tasks, students who were diagnosed with an LD reported significantly more perceived difficulties than students without an LD. The implications of these results in terms of the self-efficacy beliefs of students with an LD are discussed.

1. Introduction

A nonnegligible proportion of students in mainstream higher education have learning difficulties [ 1 ]. Learning disabilities (LDs) are, in fact, a condition of the cognitive asset that is stable across time [ 2 ]; although this condition is permanent across an individual’s life span, the expression of these difficulties evolves and varies throughout development, so the literacy skills profile of a child with LDs can be different from the profile of an adult or a young adult with LDs. Therefore, investigating the evolution of LDs beyond school years appears fundamental for obtaining a broader understanding of development trajectories. Additionally, it is crucial to understand the specific difficulties that may emerge later, in adolescence and beyond. Whereas the literature is quite rich and broad with regard to the early development of LDs and the impact on learning in lower grades of education, e.g., [ 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ], less is known about the possible persistence of specific difficulties in young adulthood, adulthood, and during the transition into higher levels of education. Specifically, regarding writing skills, to date, only a few studies have investigated the evolution of writing abilities in young adults specifically diagnosed with dyslexia, dysgraphia, and/or dysorthography in the past, prior to their entrance at university. Recent studies have outlined how students with writing disorders report more difficulties in specific learning-related tasks, e.g., [ 7 , 8 ]. This topic is particularly important to investigate since many academic assessments are made on the basis of written texts [ 9 ] and because poor spelling is likely to influence school grades, academic results, and possibly the general sense of efficacy of these students [ 10 , 11 ]. Indeed, because students with an LD are expected to achieve the same learning objectives as their peers, these difficulties may impact other important individual dimensions connected to self-efficacy, self-esteem, and self-worth.

1.1. Developmental Trajectories of Learning Disabilities (LDs) Later in Development

As mentioned above, LDs tend not to fade with the progression of learning, but the expression of the disorders can change over time. Depending on the resources and characteristics of individuals, it is fairly common for LDs to remain undetected until the beginning of secondary education. Genovese et al. [ 12 ] reported that 17% of students who contact diagnostic centers each year are secondary grade school students, and 92% of these students are confirmed to have a certifiable LD. It is often the case that an elevated IQ, a supportive context, a high level of motivation, a strong effort to pursue learning tasks, high adaptive skills, or other factors linked to the specific manifestations of the condition can contribute to LDs being overlooked. In particular, when the condition is not severe, LDs can be managed up to secondary school, and it is reasonable to imagine that a number of students with LDs may reach higher levels of education without their LDs being detected [ 13 , 14 ]. At university, when task complexity increases, multitasking is often required (e.g., taking notes quickly and accurately, and listening to the lesson without losing information), and the volume of material to be processed increases. As a result, students might not be able to compensate for their difficulties any longer. In addition, young adults face an environmental demand to be more autonomous in studying and managing their academic career. All these factors connected to individual development and environmental changes may contribute to the emergence of difficulties that were not previously evident and might impact students’ learning proficiency, self-esteem, and self-efficacy [ 15 , 16 ]. The observed changes in the pattern of difficulties and the late emergence of specific symptoms contribute to increasing the complexity connected to performing a late diagnostic evaluation. Specifically, regarding the ability of reading and writing, it has been observed how crucial aspects such as difficulties in decoding single words and in applying the rules for a correct grapheme-phoneme conversion tend to decrease through different developmental stages [ 17 ]. Conversely, other difficulties, such as slowness in reading and writing non-existing words, specific terminology, foreign words and, in general, a documented deficit in applying lexical procedures, seem to remain stable over time [ 17 , 18 ]. Accuracy in decoding is generally less compromised and tends to improve over time, possibly reaching a performance level close to that observed in typical development [ 19 ]. Furthermore, the decoding speed plays a very important role in determining, aside from comprehension, performance in all school subjects, even in typically developing students [ 20 ].

As a whole, these characteristics may influence the presence of orthographic errors in the transcription of complex words, which usually require the direct retrieval of the orthographic representation to be accurately written. It has been reported that secondary school dyslexic students showed a significant text-specificity effect that translated into further difficulties whenever these students needed to handle more complex texts, in terms of morphosyntactic components, and with a high number of non-frequent words [ 21 ]. In general, the existing literature on the characteristics of dyslexia later in development outlines a complexity that is also connected to the fact that LDs often co-occur, in particular, dyslexia and dysorthography. Dyslexic and dysorthographic students experience a specific difficulty in automating the orthographic component when the task complexity increases, when a task is new and has never been performed before, or when difficulty and novelty are combined in a task. In this regard, [ 22 ] investigated which task would be the most effective in challenging dyslexic university students with respect to typical controls and documented how, in transparent languages, measures of phonological automaticity are the best indexes of reading and decoding competence, particularly in adults. The literature investigating which characteristics remain stable over time in a transparent orthography system, such as that used in Italy, shows how the slowness in decoding represents one of the core issues that defines the profile of these students [ 1 , 22 , 23 ]. Slowness in writing, in fact, shows a sensible worsening across time and constitutes a parameter for distinguishing dyslexic students with and without dysorthography at higher levels of instruction. In contrast, in this specific population, accuracy in writing does not seem to diverge dramatically with respect to typical peers in standard writing tasks; however, the performance tends to drastically decrease in tasks that interfere with a lack of automation of the writing processes, such as the abovementioned articulatory suppression condition, or during a challenging condition such as an exam. This lack of automation of the writing process also implies a specific difficulty in switching between the lexical route, which allows an individual to retrieve the stored spelling of the target word from the orthographic lexicon, and the sublexical route, which supports an individual’s ability to transcribe unfamiliar words [ 24 , 25 , 26 ].

Due to these characteristics, diagnostic tools must take into account the compensation strategies that students have established over time, and it is necessary to include specific diagnostic assessment tasks that are able to interfere with these compensation strategies (e.g., writing tasks to be executed in articulatory suppression). One important aspect of LDs in adulthood is assessment and diagnosis. Indeed, the majority of assessment batteries and tests are standardized for children, and very few instruments have been adapted and normed for adults. Furthermore, some dyslexic adults who had problems during their school years or were late in learning to read may have developed strategies for decoding with the support of comprehension, so that in adulthood, they may not display obvious literacy difficulties [ 27 , 28 ], but still present difficulties in complex and prolonged reading and writing tasks [ 29 ]. For this reason, specific tasks, such as dictation under a suppression condition, exhibited a very high sensitivity in discriminating between groups, even at a higher level than the one indicated as necessary by the literature [ 22 , 30 , 31 ]. This suggests that this procedure could be effectively used in the routine assessment of dyslexic and dysorthographic university students, as it might interfere with the strategies for compensation that adults and young adults have established over time.

1.2. Self-Efficacy Perception and the Impact on Career Decision Making and the Drop-Out Rate

“Self-efficacy” refers to “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” [ 32 ] (p. 3). Positive academic self-efficacy beliefs are associated with higher levels of motivation, higher levels of persistence, and overall academic success. There is a gap in the literature regarding the way in which young adults with learning disabilities who are enrolled in postsecondary education develop their academic self-efficacy beliefs and corresponding adaptive coping skills. Reed et al. [ 31 ] explained how students with learning disabilities in college display lower levels of self-efficacy beliefs than their non-LD peers. On the basis of their results, the researchers highlighted that students with learning disabilities in higher education reported less confidence in their capabilities to meet academic demands, questioned their overall academic competencies, and demonstrated increased pessimistic attitudes towards completing higher education requirements. Researchers have argued that lower levels of academic self-efficacy beliefs translate into a diminished sense of capacity for learning in challenging academic curricula [ 10 ]. Therefore, it may be argued that individuals with identified LDs are significantly more likely to encounter challenges with performance and motivation due, at least in part, to lower levels of self-efficacy beliefs. In contrast to peers with learning disabilities who express lower levels of self-efficacy beliefs, individuals with LDs who have positive and accurate self-efficacy beliefs are more likely to achieve independence and autonomy within postsecondary learning environments [ 11 ]. In the same vein, Wright et al. [ 33 ] found that a positive relationship involving positive academic self-efficacy, continued enrolment, and academic achievement levels existed for college students with LDs. The research results indicated that the reported levels of self-efficacy at the end of the first semester of college were related to academic success [ 33 ]. Understanding these characteristics in university students is of pivotal importance, not only to allow these students to progress in their learning and career path while lowering their risk of dropping out, but also to possibly identify students with a previously undiagnosed LD. As mentioned previously, undiagnosed students have to compensate for their difficulties to succeed, with a consuming active effort that is often not in line with their performance, and they are likely to internalize a sense of frustration and inefficacy. These feelings may impact dimensions such as self-esteem, self-image, and the general perception of self-efficacy, which, in turn, may impact future and long-term decisions, such as their choice of academic path, career, and job [ 34 ]. The results from interviews, self-reports, and tests with university students have shown that students with dyslexia have problems with a number of common academic tasks, e.g., note taking and expressing ideas in writing. Many of the students reported that their difficulties were long-standing and had already been experienced in elementary school and later during higher education [ 7 , 35 ]. Difficulties have also been reported to change over time [ 35 ], in line with the developmental trajectory that LDs exhibit throughout an individual’s life span [ 2 ].

1.3. The Present Study

The data used in this study were collected during a broad data collection effort performed in seven Italian regions with the participation of seven universities and aimed to standardize a new battery for assessing LDs in adults and young adults. The project was promoted by the University of Padua and coordinated by the curators of the battery. The authors of the present contribution participated in the standardization and collected data at the University of Florence and Genoa.

In the Italian context, the evolution of norms relative to LDs and the enactment of law number 170/2010 [ 36 ], which recognizes dyslexia, dysorthography, and dyscalculia as LDs, have determined a growing interest in increasing the possibility of individualizing the learning context and supporting students with LDs with the use of technologies and other supportive tools, in order to preserve the learning experience of these students not only in early stages, but also later in development, and to extend the use of supportive tools and technologies for college and university students (law number 170/2010, art. 5, subparagraph 4). In addition, the guidelines with regards to the Ministerial Decree of 12 July 2011 clearly express that universities must take the lead in actively promoting solutions and tools in both teaching and assessment to foster proficient learning processes for older students with LDs. At the same time, there is an evident need for new diagnostic instruments adapted for this specific age range that would be able to offer a precise diagnostic process and access to supportive tools for adults and young adults that have not been diagnosed in the past, but who have experienced difficulties in learning. As mentioned, a prolonged experience of learning difficulties may lead to a lower self-efficacy perception and an increased tendency to drop out of colleges and universities.

From this perspective, the aim of this study was two-fold: (1) To compare the performance of inaccurate writers who were not diagnosed with LDs with that of students who were diagnosed with LDs, in order to identify which tasks are the most challenging for individuals with LDs, and (2) to investigate whether inaccurate writers with and without a diagnosis differ in terms of self-perceived difficulties.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. participants.

Two groups were extracted from a sample of 639 university students (380 females, mean age 22.15 years, Standard Deviation (SD) = 2.18) attending seven Italian universities in both scientific and humanities programmes: 48 participants (24 females) who registered scores on writing tasks below the 5th percentile and 51 participants (24 females) who were diagnosed with LDs (dyslexia, dysgraphia, and dysorthography) in the years prior to the administration of the battery and who were included as a control sample in the data collection. The students’ participation in the study was voluntary, and recruitment was organized at the university prior to the study being presented to the students in classes with the help of the professors in charge of the courses. Informed written consent was obtained from participants before data collection began (they were all older than 18). All of the students included in the LD sample were diagnosed with dyslexia, dysgraphia, and dysorthography.

2.2. Procedures

The tasks selected for the present study were extracted from a newly standardized battery [ 37 ]. The complete battery was administered during two test sessions (mean durations of 60 and 40 min) in a quiet, dedicated room or laboratory at the hosting universities. During the first session, reading, writing, and calculation tasks were administered, whereas in the second session, which could be conducted in small groups, with students working independently or individually, a task of text comprehension was administered. The interval between the two sessions ranged from 1 to 2 weeks. Globally, data were collected in a six-month time frame. For the purpose of this study, we exclusively selected and included the writing tasks in the analysis.

2.3. Description of the Selected Tasks

2.3.1. writing tasks, word dictation task.

In this task, the experimenter dictated eight lists of words in two different conditions: Participants were asked to write down four lists in a normal condition (NC) and four in an articulatory suppression condition (ASC). Each list comprised 14 words that varied in length (long and short) and frequency (high and low). The high-frequency short words (HFS), e.g., “bosco” (“woods”), and low-frequency short words (LFS), e.g., “fiele” (“bile”), were composed of two syllables and comprised a total of 75 graphemes and 28 syllables per condition. The high-frequency long words (HFLs), e.g., “avvocato” (“lawyer”), and low-frequency long words (LFLs), e.g., “pianeggiante” (“flat”), were composed of four or five syllables and comprised a total of 144 graphemes and 61 syllables per condition.

Both conditions assessed the orthographic component, specifically the dictation task in the ASC, which allowed the assessment of not only the automation of the writing process, but also the student’s ability to maintain the orthographic characteristics of words in an interference condition.

Normal Condition Administration

In the normal condition, the experimenter dictated each list at a constant rate, typically 2 s per word, but maintained the flexibility needed to address any possible difficulties of the students.

Each error (e.g., each misspelled, omitted, or incomplete words) made by the student was scored as 1. Multiple errors in the same word were scored as 1. The response variable was the total number of errors made across the four lists.

Articulatory Suppression Condition Administration

In this condition, the student was asked to repeat the syllable LA out loud continuously while performing the dictation task. In this condition, the dictation rate was required to be constant, typically 3 s, but the dictation was allowed to be interrupted if the student temporarily suspended the articulation. If the student showed specific difficulties in following the rhythm of the dictation, the task could be paused and restarted at a constant rate. The response variable was the total number of errors made, scored as described above, across the four lists.

Text Dictation Task

The dictation of the text was meant to objectively assess the orthographic component of writing. In this task, the experimenter dictated a text out loud, carefully modulating the rhythm based on the students’ rapidity in writing. It is not possible to give explanations about phrases or words that may have been difficult to understand in any phase of the task administration. The student was required to base their writing solely on the context. Prior to the start of the administration, students were informed that they needed to pay attention to the words, as they could not be repeated, and if they fell behind in writing, they should skip the word and proceed with the task. The response variable was the number of errors, scored as described above.

Writing Numbers in Words Task

This is a classical task relating to the writing speed. The student was required to write down in words, using the preferred graphic font, as many numbers as possible within one minute starting from the number one. This task was also administered in both normal and articulatory suppression conditions.

2.3.2. Vinegrad+ (Adaptation of the Vinegrad Questionnaire)

The Vinegrad+ [ 38 ] is a self-report measure that presents a series of items aimed at investigating the perception of difficulties in everyday life tasks that require the automation of reading and writing processes and associated abilities, also considering the evolution of the documented difficulties of individuals with LDs transitioning into adulthood. It comprises 26 dichotomous items (“yes” and “no” responses), and the total score is the number of positive answers. The items can also be clustered, depending on the area of difficulty they are meant to investigate, thus making it possible to identify specific areas in which the student perceives they have the most severe difficulties. The four areas are (i) the general characteristics of LD, which comprises eight items that investigate the difficulties in everyday tasks that imply reading, writing, and related issues that are possible to automate with respect to social abilities and linguistic components; (ii) the reading score, which comprises six items that assess perceived difficulties in the orthographic and motor-graphic components (speed, accuracy, and comprehension) of reading; (iii) the writing score, which comprises six items that evaluate the orthographic components of writing; and (iv) the calculation score, which comprises six items that tap into the automation of arithmetic facts, mental calculation difficulties, and knowledge of writing calculation task procedures.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics (i.e., means, standard deviations, possible score ranges, skewness, and kurtosis), and zero-order and partial (Pearson) correlations among the measures were calculated ( Table 1 and Table 2 ).

Bivariate correlations between writing tasks and the Vinegrad+ questionnaire subscales.

Note: **: p < 0.01; *: p < 0.05. NC = normal condition; SC = articulatory suppression condition; and Vinegrad_GC = Vinegrad general characteristics sub_scale.

Prematching descriptive statistics and results of the independent sample t -test.

Note: df: degrees of freedom; p : raw p -value; adj- p : false-discovery-rate adjusted p -value [ 43 ]; and d: Cohen’s d, with its 95% confidence interval. NC = normal condition; SC = articulatory suppression condition; and Vinegrad_GC = Vinegrad general characteristics sub_scale.

To investigate which differences may exist in terms of the number of errors and speed in subgroups 1 and 2 (see the descriptive statistics reported in Table 2 ), after testing the association pattern between the variables, groups were compared using independent sample t -tests to investigate which tasks were more challenging for the LD group. We then used propensity score analysis (PSA [ 39 ]) to investigate the net group differences in self-perceived difficulties when matched with the writing tasks performance. PSA has been recommended as a more principled method than analysis of covariance to account for the imbalance of groups regarding relevant covariates, as the latter method is likely to provide biased and inconsistent estimates of group differences if not all relevant interactions and nonlinear effects are included in the model [ 40 ]. PSA was performed with the matchit function in the MatchIt [ 41 ] package in R using the genetic method [ 42 ].

3.1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Descriptive statistics and correlations are reported in Table 1 and Table 2 . The writing tasks showed a pattern of significant correlations that supported the association among writing tasks, consistent with the pattern reported in the manual of the battery [ 37 ]. Significant correlations were also found within self-report measures and between writing tasks and self-report measures (see Table 1 ).

3.2. Independent Sample t-Test Results

The results of the independent sample t -tests showed that there were large differences (Cohen’s d > 0.80) in self-perceived difficulties between the 5th percentile and the LD group, but this result could be an artefact of small-to-large differences in writing task scores ( Table 2 ). The two groups significantly differed in the articulatory suppression condition tasks, both in terms of the number of graphemes (a variable that measures slowness vs. fastness in writing) and accuracy (number of errors committed in both the word dictation task and the writing-numbers-in-words task), but not in the standard condition tasks, with the only exception of the dictation task.

3.3. Propensity Score Analysis

When we performed PSA to test net group differences in self-perceived difficulties, we found a large difference in pre-matching distance scores (i.e., the logit-transformed probability of a case of belonging to its actual group given the covariates—in this case, writing tasks scores) (LD group: 0.39 ± 0.23; 5th percentile group: 0.59 ± 0.17; t (87.85) = 4.96, p < 0.001, d = 0.99 [0.56; 1.41]).

3.4. Matching Procedure Results

The matching procedure discarded 31 observations in the LD group that could not contribute to achieving a balance between the groups for the writing task scores. Hence, the final analyses were performed for the original 5th percentile group participants ( n = 48), who were considered the reference group and thus assigned a weight of 1 by the procedure, and 21 participants from the LD group, who were considered the focal group and were assigned a weight ranging from 0.42 to 3.33 (median = 0.62) to reach an adequate balance. After matching, the difference in distance scores was no longer significant (LD group: 0.55 ± 0.16; 5th percentile group: 0.59 ± 0.17; t (67) = 0.20, p = 0.845, d = 0.05 [−0.46; 0.57]), and the groups were adequately balanced in terms of the writing task scores ( Table 3 ). Nevertheless, the first three rows of Table 3 show that even after matching, the group differences in the self-perceived difficulties were still large, suggesting that they could not be accounted for by differences in the writing task performance.

Postmatching descriptive statistics and results of the independent sample t -test.

Note: df: degrees of freedom; p : raw p -value; adj-p: false-discovery-rate adjusted p -value [ 43 ]; and d: Cohen’s d, with its 95% confidence interval. NC = normal condition; SC = articulatory suppression condition; and Vinegrad_gen_char = Vinegrad general characteristics sub_scale.

4. Discussion

This study compared the performance of inaccurate writers who were not diagnosed with LDs with that of students who were diagnosed with LDs in an attempt to identify which tasks are the most challenging for individuals with LDs, while also investigating whether inaccurate writers with and without a diagnosis differ in terms of self-perceived difficulties. An innovative contribution of the present study is that it analysed the difficulties experienced by individuals with LDs that may last until young adulthood using a sample of inaccurate writers, performing below the 5th percentile in the writing tasks, as a control group. Moreover, we studied the impact that being diagnosed with LDs may have on the self-perception of difficulty, particularly with regard to writing skills. The results regarding writing tasks showed that the two groups significantly differed in the articulatory suppression condition tasks, but not in the standard condition tasks, with the only exception of the text dictation task. Furthermore, with regard to the perception of difficulty, students who were diagnosed with LDs reported significantly more perceived difficulties, pertaining to the writing tasks selected for the purpose of this research, than inaccurate peers. Students with LDs also reported significantly more perceived difficulties after the two groups were matched for performance on writing tasks.

The correlation analyses confirmed a homogenous pattern of association among writing tasks and between writing tasks and perceived difficulties assessed by the general and writing-related items and by the total score of the Vinegrad [ 44 ]. Consistent with the literature, the comparisons of the two groups only outlined significant differences in the most challenging tasks, namely, all the tasks administered in the articulatory suppression condition and, to a lesser extent, in the text dictation task in a normal condition. Although university students with LDs are presumably able to compensate for most of their difficulties when reaching higher education and their performance in many tasks can be comparable to that of students belonging to the extreme of the normal distribution, specific characteristics of individuals with LDs emerge when they face tasks that involve a higher cognitive load. In simple tasks such as word dictation and grapheme writing, their performance does not differ from that of inaccurate writers, whereas they encounter particular problems achieving this level of performance in more difficult tasks. The condition of articulatory suppression interferes with the activation of the word subvocal rehearsal strategy during transcription, which usually allows continuous retrieval of the composition of the word. Generally, students diagnosed with dyslexia and dysorthographia compensate by articulating words during transcription, and whenever they are unable to apply this strategy, their performance tends to decline. An inaccurate writer performance, conversely, seems not to be particularly challenged by this condition, in terms of mean scores, possibly because, globally, they managed to establish better access to coding. The rehearsal process implied in the articulatory suppression condition seems to interfere with the normal functioning of working memory: Students who are able to fully automate the writing process and orthographic rules and rely on the lexical representation of the words are not particularly affected by this interference effect. Literature reporting results on adults with dyslexia, on the contrary, documents that dyslexic adults are strongly influenced by this specific interference effect [ 45 ]. From this perspective, students with LDs may need to rely on the sublexical route (accessed via subvocal rehearsal) not having immediate access to intact phonetic representations [ 17 ], which would also support a rapid retrieval of word representations while writing. Overall, considering the same tasks when performed under normal conditions, our results show that students who were diagnosed with LDs did not differ with respect to inaccurate writers.

The text dictation task, in which the two groups showed significant differences, represents an exception to this trend in terms of accuracy. This result may be due to the difficulties that writing under dictation for a more prolonged interval of time may present, in terms of the rhythm that needs to be followed and time, which may not allow the use of the subvocal rehearsal, especially when words are long, infrequent, and dictated continuously. Moreover, during the text dictation task, the students need to follow the experimenter’s dictation rhythm by writing at the same pace, and the perceived need to be fast (although the experimenter was instructed to adapt, to some extent, to the rhythm of the participant) might interfere with the LDs participants’ performance and result in a more inaccurate outcome. Interestingly, when considering standard tasks, such as word dictation and grapheme production, students with LDs did not seem to make more errors than students who were within the tails of the normal distribution. The tasks performed under the articulatory suppression condition cannot be classified as standard everyday tasks that were familiar to the student, but were specifically created to discriminate the specific characteristics of LDs [ 22 ].

The differences between the two groups registered in the Vinegrad+ questionnaire are particularly interesting. This self-report measure specifically focuses on the perception of difficulty, and the results clearly indicate that participants who were already diagnosed with LDs tended to report significantly more perceived difficulties compared to inaccurate writers who had never been evaluated for or diagnosed with LDs.

The analysis performed on the matched samples allowed us to test whether the differences found between the perceptions of the two groups were linked to the actual differences found in the performance of specific tasks that we described above. The results confirmed that even when balancing the performance of the two groups for all tasks under the articulatory suppression condition, which emerged as the most discriminative for students with a diagnosis of LDs, participants with LDs reported significantly more perceived difficulties than students identified as inaccurate writers—who, in some cases, possibly had an LD that had not yet been detected. This result, in particular, may be of specific interest in discussing the all-around implications of being diagnosed with LDs and the need to work not only on the learning cognitive mechanism, but also on more general aspects, such as self-esteem, self-efficacy, and self-worth. The literature indicates how students with LDs benefit more from specific activities, such as first-year preparation courses, before entering university [ 31 ], as they show greater improvement in terms of academic self-efficacy compared to their typical peers. In general, these results highlight the importance of analysing all the emotional aspects that may be connected to and triggered by a diagnosis of an LD in depth. Being diagnosed with an LD can increase students’ awareness of their own difficulties, with possible positive effects on the use of effective learning and metacognitive strategies [ 46 , 47 ]. Nevertheless, it is important not to underestimate the possible negative impact of the diagnosis on self-efficacy and self-esteem, which must be taken into account when guiding students at any level of schooling.

The emerged enhanced perception of difficulty is a finding consistent with the limited existing literature on the topic. The results from a comprehensive study on the efficacy of university preparation courses by Reed et al. [ 31 ] outlined that students with learning disabilities in college report lower levels of self-efficacy beliefs than their non-LD peers. Reed et al. [ 31 ] highlighted that students with learning disabilities in higher education tend to report less confidence in their capabilities to meet academic demands, question their overall academic competencies, and show increased pessimistic attitudes towards completing higher education requirements. Lower levels of academic self-efficacy beliefs are argued by researchers to translate into a diminished sense of capacity for learning challenging academic curricula [ 10 ]. Consistent with the limited existing literature on the topic, these results support the idea that individuals with identified LDs are significantly more likely to encounter challenges in maintaining a good level of motivation and persistence in trying to overcome the difficulties they face, on a daily basis, due to lower levels of self-efficacy beliefs. In the long run, unlike peers with LDs who express lower levels of self-efficacy beliefs, individuals with LDs who have positive and accurate self-efficacy beliefs are more likely to achieve independence and autonomy within postsecondary learning environments [ 11 ].

The results presented in the current study show that the enhanced perception of difficulty concerns not only specific difficulties related to writing skills, but also general learning features (considering everyday activities that imply reading and writing processes, e.g., consulting a map, and one’s abilities relative to linguistic components that can be automated) and the overall learning experience assessed by the Vinegrad+ total score. These results suggest important areas for intervention that not only take into account the cognitive features and challenges that individuals with LDs face, but also the emotional impact of a diagnosis on the general perception of ability that, in turn, may influence future outcomes, such as career choice and the drop-out rate in higher levels of education [ 48 ]. This attitude towards education and learning, in fact, may negatively influence one’s career path choice, directing individuals towards something that they perceive as easier and/or less demanding, instead of something that is truly of interest to them and that they feel passionate about, with a subsequent impact on their future work life and, possibly, an enduring sense of general frustration and low-self efficacy beliefs. From this perspective, working on this emotional facet of the condition would not only magnify the effectiveness of the cognitive training on the implementation of strategies, but would also result in a protective factor that could reasonably reduce feelings, such as anxiety, and a perceived lack of efficacy, increasing the ability to tolerate fatigue and frustration; working on this facet of the condition would also preclude the creation of negative emotional anticipation associated with learning and education.

In conclusion, the results of the present study are consistent with previous findings on the compensation that university students with LDs are able to implement, on one hand, and on the tendency of these students to internalize an experience of difficulty and fatigue with regard to learning, on the other hand [ 30 , 31 ].

Some limitations of this study warrant mentioning. First, as students with LDs are relatively rare in Italian universities, the sample size was inevitably not very large, and this might have impacted the statistical power. Future research in this domain should attempt to replicate these results using larger samples. Second, we only used one self-report measure for perceived difficulties: The use of multiple measures and the collection of data from observers, such as peers, teachers, tutors, and/or parents, will help to provide a more comprehensive assessment of the phenomenon. Despite these limitations, this study adds knowledge to a relatively less investigated stage of development and the features of LDs in young adulthood. In addition, it provides evidence of differences in the individuals’ perception of difficulties while controlling for performance, suggesting important areas for intervention. From this perspective, these results address the crucial role that receiving a diagnosis has in guaranteeing that students with LDs have access to all the instruments and tutelage that can allow them to proficiently experience learning at university. Moreover, the results provided by the present study highlight the importance of investing in practices that support students emotionally, with a specific focus on self-efficacy and self-esteem beliefs, which, together with the above mentioned tutelages and instruments, constitute a core protective factor for preventing drop-out, allowing students to confidently persevere in their careers. An important advancement in this regard would be the implementation of a specific support service at university to work with LD students on both the emotional impact of diagnosis and specific strategies and methodologies for supporting them in studying. These practices would increase and support student’s self-efficacy and self-esteem, working on both performance and academic “identity” at the same time.

5. Conclusions

Overall, in this study, we showed how students with LDs and writing difficulties can reach a certain level of efficient compensation. Nevertheless, students with LDs perceived significantly more difficulties with respect to their undiagnosed peers. This result was also confirmed when matching the two groups in terms of writing task scores, suggesting the importance of addressing self-perception and self-efficacy issues in these students.

Author Contributions

M.Z. and L.B., conceptualization; C.M., M.Z., and. L.B., participated in the investigation for the standardization of the battery used; C.M., participated in the data curation; C.C., ran the analysis; C.M., writing—original draft preparation; C.M., M.Z., C.C., and L.B.; writing—review and editing, M.Z. and L.B., supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of the University of Genoa (official communication received on 20 March 2017).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Problems and Strategies in Developing Writing Undergraduate Thesis: A Study in EFL Students

Loquen: English Studies Journal

The research aimed at finding out the problems faced by undergraduate students and strategies they used to overcome problems during the process of research and writing thesis. This research generally employed a qualitative approach, but some data were analyzed quantitatively. The sample of the research involved the eighth and tenth semester students of English Education Department at Islamic State University of Sultan Maulana Hasanuddin Banten. The data were obtained through questionnaire and interview. The result revealed that most of the students got problems in how to begin the research while only few students got difficulty in working with the advisors. In addition, strategies mostly used by the students to overcome the problems were reading many books, journals and articles related to the topic whereas the strategy of asking somebody to analyze the data was at the lowest rate. Therefore, it could be concluded that the students could be able to solve their problems they faced du...

Related Papers

Journal of English Language Teaching and Education (JELTE)

Finny Anita

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui kesulitan mahasiswa S1 dalam penulisan skripsi pada mahasiswa semester IX IKIP-PGRI Pontianak tahun ajaran 2020/2021). Penelitian ini menerapkan desain penelitian deskriptif dengan metode kuantitatif. Ada 40 mahasiswa semester sembilan yang berpartisipasi untuk mengumpulkan data primer. Penelitian yang dilakukan menggunakan teknik komunikasi tidak langsung dengan menggunakan alat bantu berupa kuesioner online (close-ended) yang terdiri dari 23 pertanyaan. Item kuesioner diadopsi dari Dwihandini (2013). Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa ditemukan tiga temuan dalam penelitian ini. Temuan pertama menunjukkan bahwa aspek yang paling dominan dalam faktor psikologis yang mempengaruhi kesulitan mahasiswa dalam menulis skripsi adalah harga diri. Temuan kedua menunjukkan aspek yang paling berpengaruh terhadap faktor sosial budaya adalah kompetensi komunikatif. Dan temuan terakhir menunjukkan analisis kesalahan tingkat merupakan faktor linguistik yan...

Syayid Sandi Sukandi

English Language Teaching for EFL Learners

Citra Dwi Safitri

Thesis writing as one of final year students’ assignment is not a simple work. It involves hard work and effort to complete. This research addresses issue of the students’ challenges to thesis writing among the eighth semester students of English Education Department at UIN Alauddin Makassar. The research questions were asking about the challenges faced by the eighth semester students to thesis writing of English Education Department at UIN Alauddin Makassar and the causal factors of the challenges faced by the eighth semester students to thesis writing of English Education Department at UIN Alauddin Makassar. Descriptive qualitative design was used in this research. The subject of this research consisted of 30 students of English Education Department intake year 2016. The subjects were chosen purposively including several criteria. The data of this research was obtained from two kinds of instruments, namely interview with supporting data from questionnaire. The data analysis techni...

Journal of Information Management and Practices

Nareen Hashmi

The purpose of this study was to investigate the challenges faced by research students during thesis writing. Qualitative research methodology was adopted to conduct this study. Research questions were developed to achieve the research objectives. The population of the study was comprised of research students working on their thesis or recently passed out. Purposive sampling technique was adopted. The research tool of the study was interview guide. Interviews were conducted with a sample of 40 research students studying in Library and Information Science/Information Management Departments in public and private sector universities of Punjab province. Thematic approach was adopted to analyze the interview data. The results showed that it is challenging for research students to select the topic for research, develop focus on study, acquiring knowledge of information sources, developing online searching skills, developing data analysis skills and time management skills. They also faced ...

JELT: Journal of English Language Teaching

Fitria Yani

This research was included in quantitative research which aims to find out the problems and factors experienced by students so that it affects their difficulties in completing the thesis. The subjects of this study were 19 students of the 2018 English Department of Batanghari Jambi University who had completed their thesis. This research collected data through questionnaires distributed online using Google form. In this research, three main factors are identified that affecting undergraduate thesis writing. First, psychological factors which include self-esteem, anxiety, and motivation. Furthermore, the second factor is socio-cultural factors which include the social distance among each student and the social distance between students and supervisors. Lastly, linguistic factors which include domain error analysis and extent of error analysis. The results showed that psychology factors got a percentage of 40.36%, socio-cultural factors got a percentage of 29.66%, and linguistic facto...

Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Learning

Yustinus Calvin Gai Mali

The literature has overwhelmingly explained challenges in writing the undergraduate thesis from students' perspectives. Yet, there is a scarcity of research that presents the perspectives of thesis supervisors about the challenges experienced by their EFL students and, at the same time, on possible solutions to solve them. This qualitative study presented two English as a Foreign Language (EFL) lecturers' narratives on challenges EFL students experienced when writing their undergraduate thesis and on solutions to deal with those challenges. The research data was collected through a reflective essay written by the lecturers, who then met in an online synchronous meeting to discuss what they wrote in the essay. While the data analysis communicated various things, the students' challenges in writing their undergraduate thesis were commonly about finding a research topic, writing the literature review, and using various academic vocabulary. In light of the results, possible solutions to solve the challenges, practical recommendations for EFL thesis writing and teaching activities, and guiding questions for further research were presented. This study should benefit EFL thesis supervisors to reflect on their own experiences, find areas for improvement and enhance their thesis supervisory practices. This study also hopes to benefit EFL students who wish to learn practical strategies to progress with their undergraduate thesis.

International Journal of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences

IJHASS Journal

The current study aims at investigating the difficulties encountering Jordanian EFL students in the writing problem statement section. The study grouped those difficulties into two main categories, namely academic skills difficulties and language skills difficulties. It has been noticed that undergraduate as well as postgraduate students, lack the required skills enabling them to conduct a well-constructed research article, which sparkles the idea of this study. In addition, no previous study has examined the challenges encountered by Jordanian EFL students when conducting a research paper in general and the problem statement section in particular. For the purpose of collecting the required data of the present study, twenty Jordanian EFL students had a teaching program about research writing skills. They were introduced thoroughly to all sections of the research article, with special emphasis on the research problem, section which is the main concern of this study following that the participants were given a month period to accomplish their research papers before submission. The results of the study reveal that the participants lack the academic skills enabling them to conduct a well-constructed problem statement section. More specifically, the vast majority of the participants fail to provide an overview of their topics and to identify their research gap within the current literature. The study also shows that the participants face serious grammatical errors when writing research problem section. It could be concluded that conducting a scholarly research article in general and problem statement, in particular, is a demanding issue and need to be further highlighted by researchers and academicians to identify the challenges facing learners.

International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews

Undergraduates faced difficulties when the students were in the process of writing a thesis in order to obtain a bachelor's degree This study was aimed to examine the factors affecting undergraduates' difficulties in writing thesis and identify the dominant factors. This study based on the primary data gathered through questionnaire survey based on a five point Likert scale from a sample of 80 undergraduates of Faculty of Management and commerce of South Eastern University of Sri Lanka academic year 2014/2015. Descriptive quantitative design was used in this research. For the data analysis, this study used descriptive analysis and graphical presentation by using SPSS software and Excel to analyze. The result revealed that mainly, there are three factors affecting undergraduates' difficulties in writing thesis, they are Psychological, Socio-cultural and Linguistics factors. (1) undergraduates' difficulties in psychological factors 3.55 as a mean value., (2) undergraduates' difficulties in sociocultural factors 3.25 as a mean value. (3) undergraduates' difficulties in linguistic factors 3.48 as a mean value. From the three factors it is concluded that psychological factor is the highest difficulties faced by undergraduates. Finally, it was found that first, dominant score of psychological factor is the self-esteem (35.14%) and they were difficulty in gaining the data of thesis (3.79) and difficulty in choosing the title of thesis (3.71). Second, dominant score of socio-cultural factor is the students-lecturer relationship (34.32%), and they were communication problems with supervisors (3.39). Third, dominant score of linguistic factor is the diction (34.64%), and they were difficulty choosing the right vocabulary (3.65) and difficulty using punctuation, capitalization (3.61).

English Review: Journal of English Education

This is a report of a study designed to examine the process of thesis—a final (research-based) paper for undergrads prior to academic completion—writing of English Department students who graduated in Academic Year 2007/2008. Using a descriptive method, this case study aimed to describe the stages, to identify the problems, and to explore the techniques of solving problems used by respondents in the thesis writing by involving six students who had engaged in writing and research project course. The data concerning writing stages, problems, and coping with strategies were collected by using questionnaires, interviews, and documentation (thesis). The results showed that all participants went through the thesis writing stages determined by Faculty of Adab of UIN Sunan Gunung Djati, Bandung, namely: 1) Starting process; 2) Researching; 3) Reporting; and 4) Doing consultation. These also showed that all respondents encountered: 1) Procedural problems, which were likely to be the major problems shared by all respondents; 2) Academic problems; and 3) Non-academic problems. However, whatever problems they dealt with, each of them had his/ her own strategies to cope with. The procedural and academic problems were coped with by reading, doing consultation, and peer-collaboration. Meanwhile, non-academic problems were solved by having a rest and managing time.

Poppy Rahayu

RELATED PAPERS

Carlos San Juan Mesonada

Sofia Iliadou-Tachou

Discussion Papers of Diw Berlin

Ingrid Tucci

Tuvia Liran

Proceedings of ISES World Congress 2007 (Vol. I – Vol. V)

negin manavizadeh

Hendrik Bosman

Chemical Engineering Journal

Husnul aulia Alamudy

Aleksandra Gvozdanovic Debeljak

Ad machina: l'avenir de l'humain au travail

Amelie Bernier

Peter Rogers

Inorganic Chemistry

Daniel Carmona

Iranian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences

Vahid Razban

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

Carol Brenner

Open-File Report

Jordan Hastings

Cadernos do Desenvolvimento Fluminense

Rejane Cristina de Araujo Rodrigues

Revista Eixo

Hiata Anderson Silva do Nascimento

Cancer Medicine

Andy Morgan

Antonio Fernández Martínez

Physical Review Letters

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Brian H Spitzberg

Grosir Tas Spunbond Ungaran

aris tuwapansong

Canadian journal of statistics

Joseph Gastwirth

Dammam Abortion Tec..+27685896589 Abortion Pills For Sale In Dammam.

turbo mazinga

MAP Education and Humanities

Lamija Huseinovic

Moslem mansour lakouraj

See More Documents Like This

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Research process
• How to Define a Research Problem | Ideas & Examples

How to Define a Research Problem | Ideas & Examples

Published on 8 November 2022 by Shona McCombes and Tegan George.

A research problem is a specific issue or gap in existing knowledge that you aim to address in your research. You may choose to look for practical problems aimed at contributing to change, or theoretical problems aimed at expanding knowledge.

Some research will do both of these things, but usually the research problem focuses on one or the other. The type of research problem you choose depends on your broad topic of interest and the type of research you think will fit best.

This article helps you identify and refine a research problem. When writing your research proposal or introduction , formulate it as a problem statement and/or research questions .

Table of contents

Why is the research problem important, step 1: identify a broad problem area, step 2: learn more about the problem, frequently asked questions about research problems.

Having an interesting topic isn’t a strong enough basis for academic research. Without a well-defined research problem, you are likely to end up with an unfocused and unmanageable project.

You might end up repeating what other people have already said, trying to say too much, or doing research without a clear purpose and justification. You need a clear problem in order to do research that contributes new and relevant insights.

Whether you’re planning your thesis , starting a research paper , or writing a research proposal , the research problem is the first step towards knowing exactly what you’ll do and why.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

As you read about your topic, look for under-explored aspects or areas of concern, conflict, or controversy. Your goal is to find a gap that your research project can fill.

Practical research problems

If you are doing practical research, you can identify a problem by reading reports, following up on previous research, or talking to people who work in the relevant field or organisation. You might look for:

• Issues with performance or efficiency
• Processes that could be improved
• Areas of concern among practitioners
• Difficulties faced by specific groups of people

Examples of practical research problems

Voter turnout in New England has been decreasing, in contrast to the rest of the country.

The HR department of a local chain of restaurants has a high staff turnover rate.

A non-profit organisation faces a funding gap that means some of its programs will have to be cut.

Theoretical research problems

If you are doing theoretical research, you can identify a research problem by reading existing research, theory, and debates on your topic to find a gap in what is currently known about it. You might look for:

• A phenomenon or context that has not been closely studied
• A contradiction between two or more perspectives
• A situation or relationship that is not well understood
• A troubling question that has yet to be resolved

Examples of theoretical research problems

The effects of long-term Vitamin D deficiency on cardiovascular health are not well understood.

The relationship between gender, race, and income inequality has yet to be closely studied in the context of the millennial gig economy.

Historians of Scottish nationalism disagree about the role of the British Empire in the development of Scotland’s national identity.

Next, you have to find out what is already known about the problem, and pinpoint the exact aspect that your research will address.

Context and background

• Who does the problem affect?
• Is it a newly-discovered problem, or a well-established one?
• What research has already been done?
• What, if any, solutions have been proposed?
• What are the current debates about the problem? What is missing from these debates?

Specificity and relevance

• What particular place, time, and/or group of people will you focus on?
• What aspects will you not be able to tackle?
• What will the consequences be if the problem is not resolved?

Example of a specific research problem

A local non-profit organisation focused on alleviating food insecurity has always fundraised from its existing support base. It lacks understanding of how best to target potential new donors. To be able to continue its work, the organisation requires research into more effective fundraising strategies.

Once you have narrowed down your research problem, the next step is to formulate a problem statement , as well as your research questions or hypotheses .

Once you’ve decided on your research objectives , you need to explain them in your paper, at the end of your problem statement.

Keep your research objectives clear and concise, and use appropriate verbs to accurately convey the work that you will carry out for each one.

I will compare …

The way you present your research problem in your introduction varies depending on the nature of your research paper . A research paper that presents a sustained argument will usually encapsulate this argument in a thesis statement .

A research paper designed to present the results of empirical research tends to present a research question that it seeks to answer. It may also include a hypothesis – a prediction that will be confirmed or disproved by your research.

Research objectives describe what you intend your research project to accomplish.

They summarise the approach and purpose of the project and help to focus your research.

Your objectives should appear in the introduction of your research paper , at the end of your problem statement .

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 Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. & George, T. (2022, November 08). How to Define a Research Problem | Ideas & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 1 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/the-research-process/define-research-problem/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, dissertation & thesis outline | example & free templates, example theoretical framework of a dissertation or thesis, how to write a strong hypothesis | guide & examples.

6 Best Paper Writing Services: Legitimate Essay Writing Services

A re you searching for essay assistance or a legitimate company that can compose your essay? There are hundreds or even thousands of essay writing services available online. Each claims to be the preeminent essay writer for pupils. Difficulty may arise when attempting to discern a legitimate writing service from a fraudulent one.

You did indeed read that accuratelyIf you are at a loss for words and the due date is quickly approaching, you can seek the assistance of reputable essay writing services.

A person might query, "How can I ascertain which service merits my confidence?" That is a valid concern. Because there are so many online options, becoming perplexed and uncertain about which ones to believe is simple.

At this point, we enter the picture. By navigating you through the bewildering world of these services, we will assist you in locating the finest paper writing services. We will discuss every aspect, from reputable companies with a track record of delivering high-quality work to websites that provide affordable prices without compromising standards.

This page addresses your inquiry regarding the optimal approach to obtaining an essay from a reputable academic service.

6 Best Paper Writing Services:

• ProWritingCrew 
• EssayMasterz 
• EssayScribez  
• SkilledEssayWriter
• EssayLegend
• QualityEssayWriter 

The sites were ranked by how good the papers were, how helpful the customer service was, and how much they cost. They don't use ChatGPT or any other AI tools to write material, so the papers they give you are original and can't be copied.

Difficulties In Writing

Writer's block: .

Writer's block, arguably the most infamous barrier, can manifest abruptly, devoid of any discernible path or strategy, leaving the author blank-spaced.

Lack of Inspiration: 

Even when ideas flow, writers may need help finding inspiration or motivation to develop their thoughts into coherent writing pieces.

Time Constraints: 

Balancing writing with other responsibilities such as work, school, or family commitments can be challenging, leading to limited time for writing or research.

Perfectionism: 

The pursuit of perfection may induce writerly paralysis, wherein they laboriously revise and edit their work rather than progressing along the writing process.

Organization and Structure:

Determining a coherent framework and systematically arranging ideas can prove challenging, particularly when confronted with intricate subjects or protracted undertakings.

Research Challenges: 

Conducting thorough research and finding credible sources can be time-consuming and overwhelming, particularly for topics that are unfamiliar or require in-depth analysis.

Self-Doubt: 

Doubting one's writing abilities or fearing criticism from others can hinder creativity and confidence, making it difficult to express ideas effectively.

Procrastination: 

Putting off writing tasks until the last minute can result in rushed and subpar work, which can lead to increased stress and lower-quality outcomes.

Editing and Proofreading: 

Polishing and refining written work through editing and proofreading requires attention to detail and a critical eye, which can be challenging for some writers.

Writer's Fatigue: 

Writing for extended periods can be mentally and physically exhausting, decreasing productivity and creativity over time.

1.ProWritingCrew

ProWritingCrew is a preeminent provider of academic papers recognized for its professionalism, dependability, and outstanding quality. They offer a vast array of services to accommodate the requirements of both students and professionals, utilizing a group of seasoned writers and editors. ProWritingCrew provides superior essays, research papers, dissertations, and individualized presentations to meet each client's needs.

Why I Think They Are the Best:

ProWritingCrew sets itself apart with its commitment to excellence and customer satisfaction. Its writers are highly qualified and proficient in various subjects, ensuring that every paper is well-researched and expertly written. Additionally, its transparent communication and prompt delivery make it a trusted choice for students and professionals worldwide.

Countries They Write For:

ProWritingCrew provides writing services to students and professionals worldwide, including the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and many more.

What Do They Offer Exactly:

ProWritingCrew offers a comprehensive range of writing services, including essay writing, research paper writing, dissertation writing, thesis writing, editing, proofreading, and more. They also provide custom writing services tailored to each client's needs and requirements.

Competitive rates.

In conclusion, ProWritingCrew is an exceptional option for individuals seeking dependable and superior paper writing services. They guarantee client satisfaction throughout the entire process through the utilization of their knowledgeable writers, clear and candid communication, and timely delivery.

2. EssayMasterz

EssayMasterz is a trustworthy paper writing service that helps students all over the world with their schoolwork. With a team of experienced writers and editors, EssayMasterz offers a wide range of services tailored to meet the diverse needs of students across various academic levels and disciplines.

EssayMasterz stands out as one of the best paper writing services due to its commitment to excellence, reliability, and customer satisfaction. Their team of expert writers possesses the necessary skills and expertise to deliver top-notch essays, research papers, dissertations, and more. Additionally, EssayMasterz prioritizes communication with clients to ensure that every paper meets their specific requirements and expectations.

EssayMasterz provides writing services to students from around the globe, including but not limited to the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Europe.

EssayMasterz's pricing is reasonable and transparent. Rates vary depending on factors such as the type of paper, academic level, deadline, and word count. 

In conclusion, EssayMasterz is a reliable and reputable paper writing service that excels in delivering high-quality academic assistance to students worldwide. With its experienced team of writers, commitment to customer satisfaction, and competitive pricing, it is a top choice for 

students seeking expert writing support.

3. EssayScribez 

EssayScribez is a trusted paper writing service that provides students high-quality academic assistance. With a team of skilled writers and editors, EssayScribez offers a range of services tailored to meet the diverse needs of students across various academic disciplines.

EssayScribez stands out as one of the best paper writing services due to its commitment to excellence, reliability, and customer satisfaction. Their team of expert writers possesses the necessary skills and expertise to deliver top-notch essays, research papers, dissertations, and more. Additionally, EssayScribez prioritizes communication with clients to ensure that every paper meets their specific requirements and expectations.

EssayScribez provides writing services to students from around the world, including the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and other countries.

The pricing at EssayScribez is competitive and transparent, with rates varying depending on factors such as the type of paper, academic level, deadline, and word count. 

In conclusion, EssayScribez is a reputable paper writing service that delivers high-quality academic assistance to students worldwide. With its experienced team of writers, commitment to customer satisfaction, and competitive pricing, it is a top choice for students seeking expert 

writing support.

4. SkilledEssayWriter 

SkilledEssayWriter is a reputable paper writing service that provides high-quality academic assistance to students worldwide. With a team of experienced writers and editors, SkilledEssayWriter offers a wide range of services tailored to meet the diverse needs of students across various academic levels and disciplines.

SkilledEssayWriter stands out as one of the best paper writing services due to its commitment to excellence, reliability, and customer satisfaction. Their team of expert writers possesses the necessary skills and expertise to deliver top-notch essays, research papers, dissertations, and more. Additionally, SkilledEssayWriter prioritizes communication with clients to ensure that every paper meets their specific requirements and expectations.

SkilledEssayWriter provides writing services to students from around the globe, including but not limited to the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Europe.

The pricing at SkilledEssayWriter is Student-friendly, with rates varying depending on factors such as the type of paper, academic level, deadline, and word count. 

In conclusion, SkilledEssayWriter is a reliable and reputable paper writing service that delivers high-quality academic assistance to students worldwide. Their experienced team of writers, commitment to customer satisfaction, and competitive pricing make them a top choice for 

5. EssayLegend 

About essaylegend:.

EssayLegend is a trusted paper writing service committed to providing students with top-quality academic assistance. With a team of skilled writers and editors, EssayLegend offers various services tailored to meet the diverse needs of students across different academic disciplines.

EssayLegend stands out as one of the best paper writing services due to its dedication to excellence, reliability, and customer satisfaction. Their team of expert writers possesses the necessary skills and expertise to deliver high-quality essays, research papers, dissertations, and more. Moreover, EssayLegend strongly emphasizes communication with clients to ensure that every paper meets their specific requirements and expectations.

EssayLegend provides writing services to students from various countries worldwide, including the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and other international locations.

EssayLegend offers competitive and transparent pricing, with rates dependent on factors such as the type of paper, academic level, deadline, and word count. 

In conclusion, EssayLegend is a reputable and reliable paper writing service known for delivering top-notch academic assistance to students worldwide. With its skilled team of writers, dedication to customer satisfaction, and competitive pricing, it is a preferred choice for students seeking expert writing support.

6. QualityEssayWriter 

QualityEssayWriter is a distinguished paper writing service that provides students with exceptional academic assistance. With a team of proficient writers and editors, QualityEssayWriter offers a comprehensive range of services tailored to meet the diverse needs of students across various academic disciplines.

QualityEssayWriter earns its reputation as one of the best paper writing services due to its unwavering commitment to excellence, reliability, and customer satisfaction. Their team of seasoned writers possesses the requisite skills and expertise to deliver top-quality essays, research papers, dissertations, and more. Additionally, QualityEssayWriter prioritizes effective communication with clients to ensure that every paper meets their specific requirements and expectations.

QualityEssayWriter caters to students from across the globe, including but not limited to the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and other international locations.

The pricing at QualityEssayWriter is transparent and competitive. Rates vary based on factors such as the type of paper, academic level, deadline, and word count. They offer flexible pricing options to accommodate different budgets and needs, ensuring affordability without compromising quality.

How do I know if a paper writing service is legitimate?

Legitimate paper writing services typically have transparent policies, customer reviews, and clear communication channels. Look for services with verified testimonials and secure payment options to ensure legitimacy.

What factors should I consider when choosing a paper writing service?

Consider factors such as reputation, quality of writing, pricing, customer support, turnaround time, and guarantees offered by the service.

What if I need more than the quality of the paper I receive?

Reputable paper writing services typically offer revisions or refunds if you want more than the quality of the work. Check the service's policies regarding revisions and refunds before placing an order.

Do these paper-writing services provide any assurances?

Undoubtedly, authentic paper writing services frequently offer assurances, including confidentiality, money-back, and satisfaction. Consult the service's guarantee policies to understand your customer rights.

Do these paper writing services specialize in particular subject matters or academic levels?

Most paper writing services assist with various academic levels and topics. Whether one is a high school student or a doctoral candidate, there are services available that provide individualized educational support.

Conclusion:

Remember to use these services ethically and responsibly, adhere to academic integrity guidelines, and utilize the papers as valuable learning resources. With the support of these legitimate essay writing services, you can overcome educational challenges, excel in your studies, and embark on a path to success.

So, whether you're a student striving for academic excellence or a professional seeking expert writing assistance, the seven best paper writing services highlighted in this guide are your trusted partners in achieving your goals. Harness the power of these reputable services and confidently embark on your journey to academic and professional success.

Note: This article is for information purposes only and does not contain any recommendation from us for the readers.