how to write materials and methods in research paper example

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

4 Writing the Materials and Methods (Methodology) Section

The Materials and Methods section briefly describes how you did your research. In other words, what did you do to answer your research question? If there were materials used for the research or materials experimented on you list them in this section. You also describe how you did the research or experiment. The key to a methodology is that another person must be able to replicate your research—follow the steps you take. For example if you used the internet to do a search it is not enough to say you “searched the internet.” A reader would need to know which search engine and what key words you used.

Open this section by describing the overall approach you took or the materials used. Then describe to the readers step-by-step the methods you used including any data analysis performed. See Fig. 2.5 below for an example of materials and methods section.

Writing tips:

• Explain procedures, materials, and equipment used
• Example: “We used an x-ray fluorescence spectrometer to analyze major and trace elements in the mystery mineral samples.”
• Order events chronologically, perhaps with subheadings (Field work, Lab Analysis, Statistical Models)
• Use past tense (you did X, Y, Z)
• Quantify measurements
• Include results in the methods! It’s easy to make this mistake!
• Example: “W e turned on the machine and loaded in our samples, then calibrated the instrument and pushed the start button and waited one hour. . . .”

Technical Writing @ SLCC Copyright © 2020 by Department of English, Linguistics, and Writing Studies at SLCC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Training videos   |   Faqs

Materials and Methods Examples and Writing Tips

Abstract | Introduction | Literature Review | Research question | Materials & Methods | Results | Discussion | Conclusion

In this blog, we look at how to write the materials and methods section of a research paper. In most research papers, the materials and methods section follows the literature review section. This is generally the easiest section to write because you are simply reproducing what you did in your experiments. It is always a good idea to start writing your research paper with the materials and methods section.

1. What is the purpose of the materials and methods section?

Materials and methods should describe how you did your research and detail the experimental procedure. One of the most important things to bear in mind while writing the materials and methods section is that it should have enough detail so that other researchers in your field can replicate your experiments and reproduce your results.  You should provide all the steps in a logical order so that your readers can follow your description easily.

2. Materials and Methods Examples

The structure of the methods section will very much depend on your discipline. If you are not sure about the structure, then the best place to start will be to go through the methods section of some previously published papers from your chosen journal. We will look at some examples of materials and methods structure in different disciplines. 

2.1. Materials & methods example #1 (Engineering paper)

If you are writing an engineering sciences research paper in which you are introducing a new method, your materials and methods section would typically include the following information.

You can start with the top-level summary of the method. You can try to answer these questions. Are you proposing a new method? Or,  Are you using a standard method from the literature?  Or, Are you extending a previously published method? If so, is it your previous work? or work published by a different author?

Then you can talk about the reasons for choosing this method. You can quote previous papers that have used this method successfully to support your arguments. Then, you can talk about the actual implementation details of the methods.

Then you can talk about how the methods were validated to confirm that they are suitable for your research. You can also include information about any pilot or preliminary studies you conducted before the full study. Then you can explain how you propose to test and evaluate the methods to prove that they are better than the existing methods. Here, you can talk about metrics and statistical tests you will be using to evaluate your method.

2.2. Materials & methods example #2 (Measurement paper)

If you are writing a paper that deals with measurements, you would typically include the following information in your materials and methods section.

You can start by talking about the experimental setup. You can try to answer these questions. What equipment was used to perform the measurements? What was the make and the model of the equipment?  How many technicians took the measurements?  How experienced were the technicians?

Then you can talk about the parameters that were measured during the experiment. Then you can talk about the actual measurement procedure. How were the samples prepared for the measurements?  How many measurements were taken? Were the measurements repeated for consistency? Was there a time interval between successive measurements?

Then you can talk about measurement conditions and constraints. Were the measurements performed at room temperature or under special conditions? Were there any practical difficulties while performing the measurements, if so, how did you overcome them?

Most importantly, you must list all the calculations in the form of detailed equations and formulas so that readers know exactly how the data was produced.

2.3. Materials & methods example #3 (Survey questionnaire paper)

If you are writing a survey questionnaire paper , you would typically include the following information in your materials and methods section.

You can start by talking about your participants. Who is your target population? What are their demographics? How did you recruit them?  How did participants provide consent for your study? What sampling method did you use to select the participants?

Then you can talk about the survey type. Was it a phone interview? Was it a personal interview? Was it an online survey? Or, Was it a written survey?

Then you can talk about the questionnaire design. How did you choose the questions? How many questions were there? What type of questions were they? Were they open ended questions, or close ended questions, or rating scale questions, or a mixture of different types of questions?

Then you can talk about how the questionnaire was administered. If it is an online survey, how did you get the questionnaire to the participants? Did you email them? Or did you post the survey forms?

If you are doing a personal interview. How did you conduct the interviews? Was it one to one interview, or was it done in batches, or did you use focus groups? How did the participants behave during the interview?

Then you can talk about questionnaire testing. Did you test your questionnaire before the main study? Did you have to make any changes after initial testing?  Did you have to translate the questionnaire into multiple languages? Then finally you can talk about different types of statistical tests you used to analyze the survey responses.

2.4. Materials & methods example #4 (Medical clinical trial paper)

If you are writing a medical research paper , your materials and methods section would typically include the following information.

You can start by providing information about the study design. Was it a randomized trial, or an observational trial? Was it a prospective study, or a retrospective study? Was the study double-blinded, or single-blinded?

Then, you can talk about how the ethical approval was obtained for the study and clarify if the clinical trial was registered. if so, then provide the registration number.

Then, you can talk about how the participants were recruited for the study, and explain the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Then, you can talk about how the participants were grouped into control and placebo groups, and explain how the medication was administered.

Then, you can talk about what outcomes were measured. What was the primary outcome? What was the secondary outcome? What was the follow up period? You can try to answer these questions. Then you can finish off with some information about the statistical tests you used to analyze the data.

3. Frequently Asked Questions

One of the common mistakes people make is using vague language in materials and methods. Reviewers won’t like it, and they will reject the paper on the basis that the section is not elaborate enough for other researchers to reproduce your experiments.

Make sure you write the materials and methods section in past tense, since you are reporting something that has already happened.

Acronyms & Abbrevations: Try to use acronyms and abbreviations for long method names. Abbreviations and acronyms are a great way to make your writing concise and save time. Define the acronyms and abbreviations during their first occurrence then use the short form in the rest of the text. The common practice is to put the acronym and abbreviations in parentheses after the full term.

Use different layouts: Another problem you are likely to face is that your methods section can sound like manual if you have too much text in it. In particular, if you are dealing with a very complex procedure, the readers might find it dry and tedious. So try to provide some variety to the layout. Try to use bullet points and numberings instead of long paragraphs to make it easy for the readers to understand the procedure. You can use flow diagrams to illustrate the process rather than describing it.

When you are using a standard method that is well described in literature, the standard practice is to reference the paper rather than repeating the entire procedure. You can also provide a brief summary of the procedure in your own words.

For example, you can say something like this, “The details of the procedure have been reported previously in…”, and reference the previous paper. And then, you can follow it up with a brief summary of the method from the previous paper.

If you are extending a previous method, then you can do something like this. You can say that, “Some minor modifications were made to the method described in…” and reference the previous paper.  And then, you can follow it up with the list of refinements you made to the previous method in order to adapt it to your work.

Similar Posts

Literature Review Examples and Writing Tips

In this blog, we will go through many literature review examples and understand different ways to present past literature in your paper.

Conclusion Section Examples and Writing Tips

In this blog, we will go through many conclusion examples and learn how to present a powerful final take-home message to your readers.

How to Write a Research Paper? A Beginners Guide with Useful Academic Phrases

This blog explains how to write a research paper and provides writing ideas in the form of academic phrases.

Formulating Strong Research Questions: Examples and Writing Tips

In this blog, we will go through many research question examples and understand how to construct a strong research question for your paper.

Abstract Section Examples and Writing Tips

In this blog, we will go through many abstract examples and understand how to construct a good abstract for your research paper.

Research Paper Structure – Main Sections and Parts of a Research Paper

In this blog, we explain various topics and sub-topics to be included under each section of a research paper via word cloud diagrams.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• 3 Share Facebook
• 1 Share Twitter
• 3 Share LinkedIn
• 2 Share Email

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

• PLOS Biology
• PLOS Climate
• PLOS Complex Systems
• PLOS Computational Biology
• PLOS Digital Health
• PLOS Genetics
• PLOS Global Public Health
• PLOS Medicine
• PLOS Mental Health
• PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
• PLOS Pathogens
• PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
• PLOS Collections
• How to Write Your Methods

Ensure understanding, reproducibility and replicability

What should you include in your methods section, and how much detail is appropriate?

Why Methods Matter

The methods section was once the most likely part of a paper to be unfairly abbreviated, overly summarized, or even relegated to hard-to-find sections of a publisher’s website. While some journals may responsibly include more detailed elements of methods in supplementary sections, the movement for increased reproducibility and rigor in science has reinstated the importance of the methods section. Methods are now viewed as a key element in establishing the credibility of the research being reported, alongside the open availability of data and results.

A clear methods section impacts editorial evaluation and readers’ understanding, and is also the backbone of transparency and replicability.

For example, the Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology project set out in 2013 to replicate experiments from 50 high profile cancer papers, but revised their target to 18 papers once they understood how much methodological detail was not contained in the original papers.

What to include in your methods section

What you include in your methods sections depends on what field you are in and what experiments you are performing. However, the general principle in place at the majority of journals is summarized well by the guidelines at PLOS ONE : “The Materials and Methods section should provide enough detail to allow suitably skilled investigators to fully replicate your study. ” The emphases here are deliberate: the methods should enable readers to understand your paper, and replicate your study. However, there is no need to go into the level of detail that a lay-person would require—the focus is on the reader who is also trained in your field, with the suitable skills and knowledge to attempt a replication.

A constant principle of rigorous science

A methods section that enables other researchers to understand and replicate your results is a constant principle of rigorous, transparent, and Open Science. Aim to be thorough, even if a particular journal doesn’t require the same level of detail . Reproducibility is all of our responsibility. You cannot create any problems by exceeding a minimum standard of information. If a journal still has word-limits—either for the overall article or specific sections—and requires some methodological details to be in a supplemental section, that is OK as long as the extra details are searchable and findable .

Imagine replicating your own work, years in the future

As part of PLOS’ presentation on Reproducibility and Open Publishing (part of UCSF’s Reproducibility Series ) we recommend planning the level of detail in your methods section by imagining you are writing for your future self, replicating your own work. When you consider that you might be at a different institution, with different account logins, applications, resources, and access levels—you can help yourself imagine the level of specificity that you yourself would require to redo the exact experiment. Consider:

• Which details would you need to be reminded of? 
• Which cell line, or antibody, or software, or reagent did you use, and does it have a Research Resource ID (RRID) that you can cite?
• Which version of a questionnaire did you use in your survey? 
• Exactly which visual stimulus did you show participants, and is it publicly available? 
• What participants did you decide to exclude? 
• What process did you adjust, during your work? 

Tip: Be sure to capture any changes to your protocols

You yourself would want to know about any adjustments, if you ever replicate the work, so you can surmise that anyone else would want to as well. Even if a necessary adjustment you made was not ideal, transparency is the key to ensuring this is not regarded as an issue in the future. It is far better to transparently convey any non-optimal methods, or methodological constraints, than to conceal them, which could result in reproducibility or ethical issues downstream.

Visual aids for methods help when reading the whole paper

Consider whether a visual representation of your methods could be appropriate or aid understanding your process. A visual reference readers can easily return to, like a flow-diagram, decision-tree, or checklist, can help readers to better understand the complete article, not just the methods section.

Ethical Considerations

In addition to describing what you did, it is just as important to assure readers that you also followed all relevant ethical guidelines when conducting your research. While ethical standards and reporting guidelines are often presented in a separate section of a paper, ensure that your methods and protocols actually follow these guidelines. Read more about ethics .

Existing standards, checklists, guidelines, partners

While the level of detail contained in a methods section should be guided by the universal principles of rigorous science outlined above, various disciplines, fields, and projects have worked hard to design and develop consistent standards, guidelines, and tools to help with reporting all types of experiment. Below, you’ll find some of the key initiatives. Ensure you read the submission guidelines for the specific journal you are submitting to, in order to discover any further journal- or field-specific policies to follow, or initiatives/tools to utilize.

Tip: Keep your paper moving forward by providing the proper paperwork up front

Be sure to check the journal guidelines and provide the necessary documents with your manuscript submission. Collecting the necessary documentation can greatly slow the first round of peer review, or cause delays when you submit your revision.

Randomized Controlled Trials – CONSORT The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) project covers various initiatives intended to prevent the problems of  inadequate reporting of randomized controlled trials. The primary initiative is an evidence-based minimum set of recommendations for reporting randomized trials known as the CONSORT Statement . 

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses – PRISMA The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses ( PRISMA ) is an evidence-based minimum set of items focusing  on the reporting of  reviews evaluating randomized trials and other types of research.

Research using Animals – ARRIVE The Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments ( ARRIVE ) guidelines encourage maximizing the information reported in research using animals thereby minimizing unnecessary studies. (Original study and proposal , and updated guidelines , in PLOS Biology .) 

Laboratory Protocols Protocols.io has developed a platform specifically for the sharing and updating of laboratory protocols , which are assigned their own DOI and can be linked from methods sections of papers to enhance reproducibility. Contextualize your protocol and improve discovery with an accompanying Lab Protocol article in PLOS ONE .

Consistent reporting of Materials, Design, and Analysis – the MDAR checklist A cross-publisher group of editors and experts have developed, tested, and rolled out a checklist to help establish and harmonize reporting standards in the Life Sciences . The checklist , which is available for use by authors to compile their methods, and editors/reviewers to check methods, establishes a minimum set of requirements in transparent reporting and is adaptable to any discipline within the Life Sciences, by covering a breadth of potentially relevant methodological items and considerations. If you are in the Life Sciences and writing up your methods section, try working through the MDAR checklist and see whether it helps you include all relevant details into your methods, and whether it reminded you of anything you might have missed otherwise.

Summary Writing tips

The main challenge you may find when writing your methods is keeping it readable AND covering all the details needed for reproducibility and replicability. While this is difficult, do not compromise on rigorous standards for credibility!

• Keep in mind future replicability, alongside understanding and readability.
• Follow checklists, and field- and journal-specific guidelines.
• Consider a commitment to rigorous and transparent science a personal responsibility, and not just adhering to journal guidelines.
• Establish whether there are persistent identifiers for any research resources you use that can be specifically cited in your methods section.
• Deposit your laboratory protocols in Protocols.io, establishing a permanent link to them. You can update your protocols later if you improve on them, as can future scientists who follow your protocols.
• Consider visual aids like flow-diagrams, lists, to help with reading other sections of the paper.
• Be specific about all decisions made during the experiments that someone reproducing your work would need to know.

Don’t

• Summarize or abbreviate methods without giving full details in a discoverable supplemental section.
• Presume you will always be able to remember how you performed the experiments, or have access to private or institutional notebooks and resources.
• Attempt to hide constraints or non-optimal decisions you had to make–transparency is the key to ensuring the credibility of your research.
• How to Write a Great Title
• How to Write an Abstract
• How to Report Statistics
• How to Write Discussions and Conclusions
• How to Edit Your Work

The contents of the Peer Review Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

The contents of the Writing Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

There’s a lot to consider when deciding where to submit your work. Learn how to choose a journal that will help your study reach its audience, while reflecting your values as a researcher…

Materials and Methods: 7 Writing Tips

• Peer Review
• Research Process

Here are some tips for writing a good Materials and Methods section, which can lead to reproducibility of your results and credibility in the eyes of reviewers and readers.

Updated on January 2, 2011

One critical aspect of publishing research is describing the methods used in enough detail that the experiments can be reproduced by others. Some manuscripts are rejected because there is insufficient detail in the methods section.

In an editorial for the American Journal of Roentgenology , James Provenzale says, “ One of the more common reasons for rejection of a manuscript is that the reviewers cannot fully understand how the study was conducted. ” However, several journals have page limits or page charges, and the Materials and Methods section can take up valuable space.

For more tips on writing the Materials and Methods section of your manuscript, please see our downloadable white paper, Setting the Scene: Best Practices for Writing Materials and Methods .

What are the most important things to include, and how can you be sure that you're being concise AND sufficiently thorough? Here are seven tips for writing a good Materials and Methods section, which can lead to reproducibility of your results and credibility in the eyes of reviewers and readers. This list is not exhaustive; always remember to check the instructions for authors from your target journal for additional requirements or suggestions.

7 Tips for Writing an Effective Materials and Methods Section in Your Research Manuscript:

1. begin writing the materials and methods while you are performing your experiments..

Writing during the research process will prevent you from forgetting important details and save you time when you begin writing the full manuscript. You can also ask co-authors who performed specific experiments to write the corresponding parts of the Methods section.

2. Start with general information that applies to the entire manuscript and then move on to specific experimental details.

Examples of general information that you could begin with are characteristics of the study population, sources and genotypes of bacterial strains, or descriptions of samples or sample sites. Then, you could share more details about your experiment.

3. Match the order in which methods are described to the order of the results that were generated using those methods.

Also, be sure that each method you used is described, even if it is just a quick sentence (e.g., “Toxin assays were performed as described [reference]”). This practice is helpful for transparency, as well as reproducibility.

4. Always include citations for procedures that have been described previously.

If you made any modifications, be sure to list them.

5. Describe statistical tests as fully as possible.

Give as much information about the tests as possible; just mentioning a t -test is not sufficient for the reader to determine if the correct statistical analysis was performed.

6. Avoid discussing the pros and cons of certain methods or results of any kind.

Save evaluations for different methods for the Discussion section of your paper.

7. To save space, be concise, yet thorough, when listing the equipment you used.

You might consider listing all of your equipment purchased from a single company in one sentence. Or, you could create a flowchart figure of the steps in an important procedure.

Before you finish your manuscript, ask yourself the following questions about your Materials and Methods section to ensure that you have included all important information.

1. Is there sufficient detail so that the experiments can be reproduced?

2. Is there excess information that could be removed without affecting the interpretation of the results?

3. Are all the appropriate controls mentioned?

4. Are all appropriate citations included?

5. Is the source of each reagent listed?

Writing the Materials and Methods can be tedious, but a well-written section can enhance your chances of publication and strengthen your conclusions. If you have further questions, download our free white paper on writing the Materials and Methods section or send us an email . Best of luck with your research!

Ben Mudrak, PhD

See our "Privacy Policy"

• Langson Library
• Science Library
• Grunigen Medical Library
• Law Library
• Connect From Off-Campus
• Accessibility
• Gateway Study Center

Email this link

Writing a scientific paper.

• Writing a lab report
• INTRODUCTION

Writing a "good" methods section

"methods checklist" from: how to write a good scientific paper. chris a. mack. spie. 2018..

• LITERATURE CITED
• Bibliography of guides to scientific writing and presenting
• Peer Review
• Presentations
• Lab Report Writing Guides on the Web

The purpose is to provide enough detail that a competent worker could repeat the experiment. Many of your readers will skip this section because they already know from the Introduction the general methods you used. However careful writing of this section is important because for your results to be of scientific merit they must be reproducible. Otherwise your paper does not represent good science.

• Exact technical specifications and quantities and source or method of preparation
• Describe equipment used and provide illustrations where relevant.
• Chronological presentation (but related methods described together)
• Questions about "how" and "how much" are answered for the reader and not left for them to puzzle over
• Discuss statistical methods only if unusual or advanced
• When a large number of components are used prepare tables for the benefit of the reader
• Do not state the action without stating the agent of the action
• Describe how the results were generated with sufficient detail so that an independent researcher (working in the same field) could reproduce the results sufficiently to allow validation of the conclusions.
• Can the reader assess internal validity (conclusions are supported by the results presented)?
• Can the reader assess external validity (conclusions are properly generalized beyond these specific results)?
• Has the chosen method been justified?
• Are data analysis and statistical approaches justified, with assumptions and biases considered?
• Avoid: including results in the Method section; including extraneous details (unnecessary to enable reproducibility or judge validity); treating the method as a chronological history of events; unneeded references to commercial products; references to “proprietary” products or processes unavailable to the reader. 
• << Previous: INTRODUCTION
• Next: RESULTS >>
• Last Updated: Aug 4, 2023 9:33 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uci.edu/scientificwriting

Off-campus? Please use the Software VPN and choose the group UCIFull to access licensed content. For more information, please Click here

Software VPN is not available for guests, so they may not have access to some content when connecting from off-campus.

Research Paper Writing: 5. Methods / Materials

• 1. Getting Started
• 2. Abstract
• 3. Introduction
• 4. Literature Review
• 5. Methods / Materials
• 6. Results / Analysis
• 7. Discussion
• 8. Conclusion
• 9. Reference

Methods / Materials Overview

These sections of the research paper should be concise. The audience reading the paper will always want to know what materials or methods that were used. The methods and materials may be under subheadings in the section or incorporated together. The main objective for these sections is to provide specialized materials, general procedures, and methods to judge the scientific value of the paper.

What to include in the sections

• Described separately
• Include the chemicals, biological, and any equipment
• Do not include common supplies, such as test tubes, pipette tips, beakers, etc. or standard lab equipment
• Single out sources like a specific type of equipment, enzyme, or a culture
• These should be mentioned in a separate paragraph with its own heading or highlighted in the procedure section if there is one
• Refer to solutions by name and describe
• Describes in detail how the analysis was conducted
• Be brief when presenting methods under the title devoted to a specific technique or groups of procedures
• Simplify and report what the procedure was
• Report the method by name
• Use third person passive voice, and avoid using first person
• Use normal text in these sections
• Avoid informal lists
• Use complete sentences

Example of a Methods Section

Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association Sixth Ed. 2010

• << Previous: 4. Literature Review
• Next: 6. Results / Analysis >>
• Last Updated: Nov 7, 2023 7:37 AM
• URL: https://wiu.libguides.com/researchpaperwriting

• SpringerLink shop

Materials and methods

The study’s methods are one of the most important parts used to judge the overall quality of the paper. In addition the Methods section should give readers enough information so that they can repeat the experiments. Reviewers should look for potential sources of bias in the way the study was designed and carried out, and for places where more explanation is needed.

The specific types of information in a Methods section will vary from field to field and from study to study. However, some general rules for Methods sections are:

• It should be clear from the Methods section how all of the data in the Results section were obtained.
• The study system should be clearly described. In medicine, for example, researchers need to specify the number of study subjects; how, when, and where the subjects were recruited, and that the study obtained appropriate ‘informed consent’ documents; and what criteria subjects had to meet to be included in the study.
• In most cases, the experiments should include appropriate controls or comparators. The conditions of the controls should be specified.
• The outcomes of the study should be defined, and the outcome measures should be objectively validated.
• The methods used to analyze the data must be statistically sound.
• For qualitative studies, an established qualitative research method (e.g. grounded theory is often used in sociology) must be used as appropriate for the study question.
• If the authors used a technique from a published study, they should include a citation and a summary of the procedure in the text. The method also needs to be appropriate to the present experiment.
• All materials and instruments should be identified, including the supplier’s name and location. For example, “Tests were conducted with a Vulcanizer 2.0 (XYZ Instruments, Mumbai, India).”
• The Methods section should not have information that belongs in another section (such as the Introduction or Results).

You may suggest if additional experiments would greatly improve the quality of the manuscript. Your suggestions should be in line with the study’s aims. Remember that almost any study could be strengthened by further experiments, so only suggest further work if you believe that the manuscript is not publishable without it.

Back  │  Next

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How to Write a Methods Section for a Psychology Paper

Tips and Examples of an APA Methods Section

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Emily is a board-certified science editor who has worked with top digital publishing brands like Voices for Biodiversity, Study.com, GoodTherapy, Vox, and Verywell.

Verywell / Brianna Gilmartin 

The methods section of an APA format psychology paper provides the methods and procedures used in a research study or experiment . This part of an APA paper is critical because it allows other researchers to see exactly how you conducted your research.

Method refers to the procedure that was used in a research study. It included a precise description of how the experiments were performed and why particular procedures were selected. While the APA technically refers to this section as the 'method section,' it is also often known as a 'methods section.'

The methods section ensures the experiment's reproducibility and the assessment of alternative methods that might produce different results. It also allows researchers to replicate the experiment and judge the study's validity.

This article discusses how to write a methods section for a psychology paper, including important elements to include and tips that can help.

What to Include in a Method Section

So what exactly do you need to include when writing your method section? You should provide detailed information on the following:

• Research design
• Participants
• Participant behavior

The method section should provide enough information to allow other researchers to replicate your experiment or study.

Components of a Method Section

The method section should utilize subheadings to divide up different subsections. These subsections typically include participants, materials, design, and procedure.

Participants 

In this part of the method section, you should describe the participants in your experiment, including who they were (and any unique features that set them apart from the general population), how many there were, and how they were selected. If you utilized random selection to choose your participants, it should be noted here.

For example: "We randomly selected 100 children from elementary schools near the University of Arizona."

At the very minimum, this part of your method section must convey:

• Basic demographic characteristics of your participants (such as sex, age, ethnicity, or religion)
• The population from which your participants were drawn
• Any restrictions on your pool of participants
• How many participants were assigned to each condition and how they were assigned to each group (i.e., randomly assignment , another selection method, etc.)
• Why participants took part in your research (i.e., the study was advertised at a college or hospital, they received some type of incentive, etc.)

Information about participants helps other researchers understand how your study was performed, how generalizable the result might be, and allows other researchers to replicate the experiment with other populations to see if they might obtain the same results.

In this part of the method section, you should describe the materials, measures, equipment, or stimuli used in the experiment. This may include:

• Testing instruments
• Technical equipment
• Any psychological assessments that were used
• Any special equipment that was used

For example: "Two stories from Sullivan et al.'s (1994) second-order false belief attribution tasks were used to assess children's understanding of second-order beliefs."

For standard equipment such as computers, televisions, and videos, you can simply name the device and not provide further explanation.

Specialized equipment should be given greater detail, especially if it is complex or created for a niche purpose. In some instances, such as if you created a special material or apparatus for your study, you might need to include an illustration of the item in the appendix of your paper.

In this part of your method section, describe the type of design used in the experiment. Specify the variables as well as the levels of these variables. Identify:

• The independent variables
• Dependent variables
• Control variables
• Any extraneous variables that might influence your results.

Also, explain whether your experiment uses a  within-groups  or between-groups design.

For example: "The experiment used a 3x2 between-subjects design. The independent variables were age and understanding of second-order beliefs."

The next part of your method section should detail the procedures used in your experiment. Your procedures should explain:

• What the participants did
• How data was collected
• The order in which steps occurred

For example: "An examiner interviewed children individually at their school in one session that lasted 20 minutes on average. The examiner explained to each child that he or she would be told two short stories and that some questions would be asked after each story. All sessions were videotaped so the data could later be coded."

Keep this subsection concise yet detailed. Explain what you did and how you did it, but do not overwhelm your readers with too much information.

Tips for How to Write a Methods Section

In addition to following the basic structure of an APA method section, there are also certain things you should remember when writing this section of your paper. Consider the following tips when writing this section:

• Use the past tense : Always write the method section in the past tense.
• Be descriptive : Provide enough detail that another researcher could replicate your experiment, but focus on brevity. Avoid unnecessary detail that is not relevant to the outcome of the experiment.
• Use an academic tone : Use formal language and avoid slang or colloquial expressions. Word choice is also important. Refer to the people in your experiment or study as "participants" rather than "subjects."
• Use APA format : Keep a style guide on hand as you write your method section. The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association is the official source for APA style.
• Make connections : Read through each section of your paper for agreement with other sections. If you mention procedures in the method section, these elements should be discussed in the results and discussion sections.
• Proofread : Check your paper for grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.. typos, grammar problems, and spelling errors. Although a spell checker is a handy tool, there are some errors only you can catch.

After writing a draft of your method section, be sure to get a second opinion. You can often become too close to your work to see errors or lack of clarity. Take a rough draft of your method section to your university's writing lab for additional assistance.

A Word From Verywell

The method section is one of the most important components of your APA format paper. The goal of your paper should be to clearly detail what you did in your experiment. Provide enough detail that another researcher could replicate your study if they wanted.

Finally, if you are writing your paper for a class or for a specific publication, be sure to keep in mind any specific instructions provided by your instructor or by the journal editor. Your instructor may have certain requirements that you need to follow while writing your method section.

Frequently Asked Questions

While the subsections can vary, the three components that should be included are sections on the participants, the materials, and the procedures.

• Describe who the participants were in the study and how they were selected.
• Define and describe the materials that were used including any equipment, tests, or assessments
• Describe how the data was collected

To write your methods section in APA format, describe your participants, materials, study design, and procedures. Keep this section succinct, and always write in the past tense. The main heading of this section should be labeled "Method" and it should be centered, bolded, and capitalized. Each subheading within this section should be bolded, left-aligned and in title case.

The purpose of the methods section is to describe what you did in your experiment. It should be brief, but include enough detail that someone could replicate your experiment based on this information. Your methods section should detail what you did to answer your research question. Describe how the study was conducted, the study design that was used and why it was chosen, and how you collected the data and analyzed the results.

Erdemir F. How to write a materials and methods section of a scientific article ? Turk J Urol . 2013;39(Suppl 1):10-5. doi:10.5152/tud.2013.047

Kallet RH. How to write the methods section of a research paper . Respir Care . 2004;49(10):1229-32. PMID: 15447808.

American Psychological Association.  Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association  (7th ed.). Washington DC: The American Psychological Association; 2019.

American Psychological Association. APA Style Journal Article Reporting Standards . Published 2020.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

How to Write an Effective Materials and Methods Section for Clinical Studies

Affiliations.

• 1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rowan University School of Osteopathic Medicine, Stratford, NJ.
• 2 Rothman Institute, Philadelphia, PA.
• PMID: 30256241
• DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000722

The Materials and methods section of a research paper is oftentimes the first and easiest part to write. It details the steps taken to answer a research hypothesis, the success of which determines whether or not the study can be replicated. Arranging the section in chronological order, writing succinctly, and consistently using the third-person passive voice adds clarity and improves readability. Furthermore, utilizing headers, tables, and flow charts to break down difficult and complex experiments into logical subsections makes it easier for the reader to grasp complicated designs.

• Clinical Studies as Topic*
• Peer Review, Research*

Open Book Publishers

• Language and Literature
• History and Culture
• Economics and Politics

Writing and Publishing Scientific Papers

Part ii. writing the paper.

10. How to Write the Material and Methods Section

Texte intégral.

1 Although traditionally, this section is only called “Material and Methods” (rarely: Study Site, Material and Methods), it can be composed of the following parts: study site, study organism, material, methods, statistical evaluation.

2 The aim of this section in scientific papers is to enable readers to assess the reliability of your work, and to be able to repeat it for verification if they want to do so. Science is about unearthing nature’s laws, and the cornerstone of the scientific method requires that experiments are repeatable: if the experiment is repeated under the same conditions, the same result should be obtained. A material and methods section should give enough detail to evaluate and, if needed, to repeat the experiments reported in the article.

3 You should carefully consider your potential readership. This allows you to provide enough, but not superfluous, information. Once you have reflected on what can be assumed as known by this readership about your setting, organisms, methods, etc., you can give detail accordingly: not too little, and not too much.

4 During peer review, this section is closely scrutinised. If the reviewer is in any doubt that the experiments are repeatable, or that the methods are appropriate, the manuscript will be rejected as unreliable, no matter how wonderful the findings are.

5 When describing your study site, consider your potential readership and give details accordingly (geographical particulars, history of the site, location, co-ordinates, maps). The aim is not to enable the reader to find your sampling plot, but to give a general understanding, a “feel” for the environment you worked in. Information on habitat, with photos, maps, drawings, is often useful, or wholly necessary.

Study Organism

6 Here, you should name all the species, strains, cultivars or races that were used in the experiments. You should also give precise information on their origin, storage or husbandry, including temperatures, photoperiod, feeding regimes, control, etc. Depending on the readership, you should consider giving other background information on life history, and the organism’s distribution in nature. If there is a long list of organisms or strains, consider preparing a table with this information.

7 Here, you should list all the materials necessary for your experiments. Give exact names, not generic or trade names, of chemicals used. Give a source (manufacturer with location) if the chemical in question is delicate (e.g. an enzyme), or rare, or its quality is critical. This would give additional information to the reader. This is, however, neither advertisement nor endorsement (for legal reasons, this should often be made explicit in the paper — see, e.g. the US public organisation policy: disclaimer: “The mention of any trade name does not constitute endorsement by XXX organisation”). For equipment used, give the name, specification/type, manufacturer, and conditions of use.

Sampling Methods and Measurements

8 Here, you should detail the procedures: how did you perform the observations, measurements, experiments? How many times, under what conditions? If you use a new method, give all the details necessary so that the reader can repeat your experiment from reading this section. If you used a published method, a reference to the original publication, preferably the one that first published the method, is usually sufficient with minimum description. If you modified a published method, detail the modification only. If the method is published, you should cite it — but consider where it was published? Is it a frequently used method? When was it published? A rarely-used method, published long ago in an obscure journal, needs a more detailed description than a much-used, current one. If the original publication is not widely available, you will have to provide detailed description. Editors often welcome more detail, especially if the published method is not in very wide use (with the appropriate reference, naturally). If you modified a published method that is widely available, detail the modification only.

9 When describing the procedure, be aware that only SI (Système International) units of measurement are allowed. A few units in common use are not official SI measurements and they cannot be used. Also, be aware of the precise use of measurement units — for example, in common use, weight is often given as grams, kilograms, etc., but these are units of mass, not of weight.

10 Any larger set of samples, measurements, or experiments will have the occasional error, a missing sample, a lost or mislaid tube. Do not keep silent about them. Indicate, clearly, how you dealt with errors, missing data, missing traps. This will not decrease your credibility — on the contrary.

Evaluation Methods/Statistics

11 Data will mostly be evaluated by using a statistical program. In most cases, a reference to the program (indicate the version used) is sufficient; give detail only if the method used is new. However, avoid the neophyte description: what’s new for you may not be new for readers. An experienced colleague can give advice on this matter. In general, it is always a good idea to discuss your chosen statistical method with others. Here, you should give a reason for the choice of statistical test, as well as stating how you tested the eventual conditions for using the chosen test (testing for assumptions for a given statistical test). The mention of the use of a commercial statistical program naturally assumes that you have valid access to the program in question. It is not unheard of program developers to search for the mention of their product in the literature to find out about illegal use.

12 Be careful with details when writing a material and methods section — your reputation is on the line! The reader was not by your side when the studies were done, so she will use the detail and clarity of this section as an indirect indication of your reliability and thoroughness.

13 A common error in this section is not offering enough detail. This does not happen because of the authors’ desire to hide anything — it is simply a mark of routine: many parts of the experimental protocol may become almost routine, and the small details are forgotten as they never change and are taken for granted. When the description is prepared, these details, vital for others, are often not included. A good test is whether a colleague, on reading the section, thinks she can repeat the experiment based on the given description of methods. Such a check is useful, because the writer often is too close to the methods, having done them countless times during the experimental process and, thus, omits some obvious but important, detail.

14 Specifically, take care with numbers, spelling, and punctuation. In this section, many “strange” names will occur: of chemicals, organisms, strains; concentrations, times and units of measurement are important. Meticulousness is the key word here: if you cannot be trusted to do simple things well, such as describing a method that you used hundreds of times, can you expect the readers to trust you when it comes to more significant and complicated aspects of reporting your research?

15 The order of description should be chronological; the description of what was done first should precede the later actions. However, you have to first mention all study sites, then all organisms, followed by a full list of all materials used, experiment-by-experiment and so on. Thus, if someone is only interested in all the details of, for example, your second experiment, she will have to jump from one part of this section to another. This seems a small price to pay for a consistent structure, which is followed by most journals.

16 This section describes your own work and, thus, the past tense is used, mostly, in this section. When describing the details, beware of the syntax. The following description is taken from Day and Gastel’s book (Day and Gastel, 2006), who, tongue-in-cheek, called it “the painful method”: “After standing in hot water for an hour, the flasks were examined”. I hope this was not performed as the sentence implies — probably the flasks, and not the researchers, were standing in hot water that long.

When to Write this Section?

17 It is best to start writing this section first, possibly even while working on the experiments. Otherwise, many details will be lost. Details and precision are vital here, and they are much easier to document during the work, or soon after, than weeks or months later. Additionally, there is often a practical reason, too. Most scientific work is done in teams; it is much easier to convince the team members to write their respective methods section while they are doing the work, or soon afterwards. Once the experiments are completed, and the team moves on to further projects, writing a complete methods section will take longer, and be done less satisfactorily.

18 Meticulousness pays, because, as stated above, reviewers are often of the opinion that if you cannot be trusted in doing simple things, you cannot expect trust in significant and complicated aspects of research. Science, in the view of many of its eminent practitioners is, after all, “99 % perspiration and 1 % inspiration”, so precise work, and the ability to describe things accurately, is a necessary condition of credibility. Science may well comprise a lot of precise work and fewer grand ideas; you prove your mastery of the methods applied by being able to describe them with clarity, in sufficient detail.

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY 4.0 . Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

A Primer for the Non-English Speaker

Vérifiez si votre institution a déjà acquis ce livre : authentifiez-vous à OpenEdition Freemium for Books. Vous pouvez suggérer à votre bibliothèque/établissement d’acquérir un ou plusieurs livres publié(s) sur OpenEdition Books. N'hésitez pas à lui indiquer nos coordonnées : OpenEdition - Service Freemium [email protected] 22 rue John Maynard Keynes Bat. C - 13013 Marseille France Vous pouvez également nous indiquer à l'aide du formulaire suivant les coordonnées de votre institution ou de votre bibliothèque afin que nous les contactions pour leur suggérer l’achat de ce livre.

Merci, nous transmettrons rapidement votre demande à votre bibliothèque.

Volume papier

Référence électronique du chapitre, référence électronique du livre, collez le code html suivant pour intégrer ce livre sur votre site..

OpenEdition est un portail de ressources électroniques en sciences humaines et sociales.

• OpenEdition Journals
• OpenEdition Books
• OpenEdition Freemium
• Mentions légales
• Politique de confidentialité
• Gestion des cookies
• Signaler un problème

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search

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
• J Indian Soc Periodontol
• v.26(3); May-Jun 2022

Materials and method: The “Recipe” of a research

Ashish kumar.

Editor, Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology, Professor and Head, Department of Periodontics, Dental College, Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Lamphelpat, Imphal-795004, Manipur, India. E-mail: moc.liamffider@79ramukhsihsa

In any research article, the detailed description and process of an experiment is provided in the section termed as “Materials and Method.” The Materials and Method section is also called Method section in few journals. This section describes how the experiment was conducted to arrive at the results. The aim of this section in any research article is to describe the process in detail for “reproducibility” which means that procedure of the experiment and related materials should be adequately described so that the other researchers working on the similar topic/area, should be able to conduct a similar experiment and replicate the results to allow corroboration of the inferences of the research. The reproducibility of the results is crucial for their scientific merit.[ 1 ] This section has been equated to “recipe section” which describes what to use, how much to use and how to use to come to the final product.[ 2 ]

Vital details of the research need to be described in this section. At the beginning of the section, the study design needs a description in terms of well-defined commonly used nomenclature (longitudinal, cross-over study”, “randomised controlled trial”, etc). The mention of the study design in the initial part of materials and method section is important as it helps the readers understand the research based on the merits and limitations of study design. The inclusion of study designs also help in understanding the type of statistical tests that can be appropriately applied in evaluating the data.[ 3 ] Randomisation being a crucial aspect of many clinical studies, has to be defined clearly.

The information about sample size, inclusion and exclusion criteria (sample characteristics) also should find a description in this aspect of the material and method section. An adequate sample size of a study would be able to provide the precision of our estimates and thus have adequate power of study to draw conclusions and justify answers to query being explored in the research.[ 3 ] The information of the sample characteristics is important to accomplish the aims of the experiment (hypothesis). Apart from this, the details of the approval from ethical board and trial registration should be mentioned here.[ 4 ]

The next aspect of Materials and Method should incorporate the description of materials in terms of quantity, precise technical descriptions and the method of preparations, if any. The details of the manufacturers of chemical reagents and equipment should also find a mention here. Generic names should be preferred over trade names. If study has usage of microorganisms or experimental animals, a clear description of such entities in terms of species/strains or genus species is required.[ 5 ]

The description of the method of the experiment should be accurate, concise but complete. The process should be written as a explanation of a process, not as a laboratory manual procedure. If the methods, devices, or techniques which have been used by authors, are in routine usage, and are widely known and published, then such methods do not require detailed description. But the authors should compulsorily mention the original article or references from where the readers can get information about the method in detail to replicate the procedure. If any treatment is being investigated, then exact treatment protocol should be described. Techniques/method which are new or uncommon should be explained fully and any related references should also be mentioned.

The statistical aspects should mention the statistical tests and the statistical computer packages that were used for data analysis. Use of an uncommon statistical test needs an explanation of its usage in the context of the study and a reference to the method for readers to refer.[ 5 ]

The material and method section may or may not have subheadings, depending upon the journal guidelines. The subdivisions can be: Study design, setting, subjects, data collection and data analysis[ 2 ] or overall design of the study, inclusion and exclusion criteria, sample sizes and statistical power.[ 6 ]

It is of paramount importance that a consistency is maintained between the “Materials and Method” section and “Results” section of the article. Procedures described in Methods section should correlate with the results described in the Results section for readers to understand the association of the specific methodology to results.[ 4 ]

Often, few issues arise while writing Materials and Method like inclusion of unnecessary details or results. Limitations on number of references that can be cited in journals, many times, leads to this section being extremely concise and lacks details required for the “reproducibility”.[ 7 ] The details of the procedure are not completely mentioned by authors sometimes because of commercial reasons.[ 7 ] These situations result in compromise with the basic principle of “reproducibility” while writing this section.

In certain cases, the authors are apprehensive of results being reproduced and validity of their results being challenged. To avoid any questions being raised on the methodology and results, the authors provide insufficient details in this section to avoid reproducibility.[ 7 ]

The aim of any research is progression of knowledge in that particular field. One of the essential requirement for progression of scientific knowledge is “reproducibility” and the assessment of the validity of available results. This is achievable only if the authors provide sufficient details in the “Materials and Method section”.[ 7 ]

Writing this section should be simple and easy especially when this part is written after the completion of the study, as the authors would have performed the experiment themselves. This is one of the first sections written while writing a research article.

“History has repeatedly shown that when a new method or material becomes available, new uses for it arise.”

Wilson Greatbatch

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

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

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

Each section of a lab report has its own purpose.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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

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

Experimental design

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

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

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

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

List of materials

35 Tomato seeds

15 plant pots (15 cm tall)

Light lamps (50,000 lux)

Nitrogen fertilizer

Measuring tape

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The main results to report include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this section, you can:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 (AI) Tools

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

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

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

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

A lab report is usually shorter than a research paper.

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

Bhandari, P. (2023, July 23). How To Write A Lab Report | Step-by-Step Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved March 21, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/academic-writing/lab-report/

Is this article helpful?

Pritha Bhandari

Other students also liked, guide to experimental design | overview, steps, & examples, how to write an apa methods section, how to write an apa results section, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

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

How to Practice Academic Medicine and Publish from Developing Countries? pp 213–217 Cite as

How to Write the Material (Patients) and Methods Section

• Samiran Nundy 4 ,
• Atul Kakar 5 &
• Zulfiqar A. Bhutta 6  
• Open Access
• First Online: 24 October 2021

27k Accesses

1 Citations

In this segment, you should describe exactly and in detail how you did the study so that the readers will be able to (Fig. 19.1):

The method of science is logical and rational; the method of the humanities is one of imagination and sympathetic understanding. Andrew Louth British Theologian (1944–…).

Download chapter PDF

1 What Should be Included in the Material and Methods Section?

In this segment, you should describe exactly and in detail how you did the study so that the readers will be able to (Fig. 19.1 ):

Assess how the research was done.

How they might repeat the study, if they wish to do so [ 1 ].

The section should be like following the instructions in a cookbook

You must mention ‘what’, ‘how much’, ‘how often’, ‘where’, ‘when’ and ‘why’ clearly to provide a step-by-step tutorial for your reader. It may not be possible to provide all the technical details while writing this section for a print journal, but these may perhaps be included in an online version of the article.

James Provenzale, in an editorial for American Journal of Roentgenology, stated, ‘One of the more common reasons for rejection of a manuscript is that the reviewers cannot fully understand how the study was conducted’ [ 2 ]. Many journals have page limits for the Materials and Methods section so we would suggest that only important steps should be included. Journals nowadays do provide an electronic access for their articles and all the extra information describing the methodology and results in detail can go into the supplementary online file. Most journals will also ask for clearance from an ethical committee or an Institutional Review Board (IRB) for studies involving human subjects and this should be recorded here.

2 What Are the Important Steps that Should be Followed?

The Material (or preferably Patients if it is a clinical study) is defined as any subjects, matter, investigations, chemicals, drugs or devices which have been included.

The Methods has been defined as the ‘particular procedures for accomplishing or approaching something’.

Describe which experimental animals, patients, volunteers or control subjects will be included. For a drug mention how the drug was taken and through which route it was administered stating the name of the source and the supplier in brackets. For immunological tests the technique used and the name of the manufacturer should be mentioned. The reagents used should also be mentioned in this section. For a surgical technique describe how it was different from a standard one in some detail [ 3 ].

We would recommend a five-step approach for writing this section for a journal. Open this section by stating the research question you wish to answer. Then mention how many patients were screened for the study, the number of patients who fulfilled the criteria for inclusion and how many were excluded. A CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) flow chart may be a useful guide at this stage (Fig. 19.2 ).

CONSORT Flow chart

3 In Which Tense Should the Methodology Be Written?

All the methodology should be written in the past tense preferably in an active voice [ 4 ]. According, to this you should use verbs like ‘investigated’, ‘evaluated’ or ‘performed’. Recently, terms showing the ownership of the investigation as ‘we performed’, ‘we evaluated’, ‘we implemented’ have taken priority. The communication to the reader should be clear and there should not be any cluttered thought. This section should be written in simple English and should be comprehensive.

4 What Are the Points Which Should Not be Missed in Methodology Section in a Biomedical Research Paper?

These include:

Date of initiation and termination.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Outcome measure with the definitions.

Statistics used.

Type of study design.

5 What Are the Common Errors Seen in this Section?

Many authors write this section as a set of instructions but what is required is a description of the experiments.

Mingling the results with the methods. Results should be discussed and analyzed in a subsequent section.

Including explanatory information and background—save these for the discussion section.

In this section include information relevant to the reader and minute details such as who helped to set up the experiment or who helped to input the data are not relevant. Many journals provide links for supplemental information which is available online but not in the print version.

Writing the pros and cons of the technology used to study the experiment in this section. This should be done in the discussion section.

6 Conclusions

Include in this section ‘What was done, how it was done, how the data was collected, and how the data was analyzed’.

Organize your methodology as what was the first step and then what were the subsequent steps.

Avoid writing stories in the methodology when the same can be conveyed in a flow chart.

Describe in detail the statistics used in the study.

Arceci RJ. The art and science of writing manuscripts. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2004;43:207–10.

Article   Google Scholar  

Tips for writing material and method section: introduction. Last accessed on 13th August 2020. Available on https://blog.scipress.com/posts/tips-for-writing-material-and-method-section-introduction .

Ng KH, Peh WC. Writing the materials and methods. Singap Med J. 2008;49:856–9.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Erdemir F. How to write a materials and methods section of a scientific article? Turk J Urol. 2013;39(Suppl 1):10–5.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Surgical Gastroenterology and Liver Transplantation, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi, India

Samiran Nundy

Department of Internal Medicine, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi, India

Institute for Global Health and Development, The Aga Khan University, South Central Asia, East Africa and United Kingdom, Karachi, Pakistan

Zulfiqar A. Bhutta

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Nundy, S., Kakar, A., Bhutta, Z.A. (2022). How to Write the Material (Patients) and Methods Section. In: How to Practice Academic Medicine and Publish from Developing Countries?. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5248-6_19

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5248-6_19

Published : 24 October 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-16-5247-9

Online ISBN : 978-981-16-5248-6

eBook Packages : Medicine Medicine (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

How to Write a Research Paper: A Classical Guide

Feeling overwhelmed by the prospect of a lengthy research paper looming on the horizon? You’re not alone! This guide is here to equip you with the tools and strategies to not just survive but thrive during this project. Whether you’re a Classical Conversations student, parent, or Director, or simply someone looking for a little help, we’ll break down the process into manageable steps, ensuring a successful and enriching research paper experience.

This guide goes beyond just “how-to.” We’ll expound upon the classical perspective, showing how this assignment fosters valuable skills like critical thinking, research, and communication. Plus, we’ll share tips for overcoming common challenges like finding reliable sources and avoiding plagiarism.

Ready to transform that research paper anxiety into research paper confidence? Let’s dive in!

(But first, a quick note on terminology: Classical Conversations is a classical, Christian homeschool program. The Challenge levels are equivalent to the high school years in traditional schools. This article was written by a Challenge graduate.)

  Table of Contents

I. How to Write a Research Paper

Ii. the fundamentals of writing a research paper, iii. the steps to writing a research paper, iv. the value of writing a research paper.

  “Wait, what? I have to write a 10–15-page formal research paper?”

This was the question that went through my mind during Challenge I orientation. The assignment was both exciting and terrifying to me, but mostly, I just felt unprepared for it.

Something I wish I’d realized when I began my research paper was that no one expected me to already know how to accomplish this task. I was going to learn a lot about researching and writing through this project and Classical Conversations (CC) was not going to turn me loose to figure it out on my own. The same is true for you.

Whether you are a student, parent, or Director, there are many resources, tools, and tips that are available to help you through this assignment. However, sometimes it’s difficult to decipher which ones will help, and which ones are just unnecessary.

Why do CC students write research papers? What is classical about this assignment? How does this assignment benefit students? Questions like these—and many others—are likely going through your mind as you approach this monumental task. Because it is important to have clarity in every assignment, CC has provided answers to these questions.

1. Why write research papers?

“Students naturally have lots of questions. In the Research strand, we train students how to find the answers to their questions and to record their findings” (Classical Conversations Challenge I Guide, 18). By Challenge I, students have transitioned into the Dialectic stage of the Trivium . This naturally results in the development of many questions about the world around them, and about the things they have learned. Whether a student has questions about the American Revolution or meteorology, a research paper will give them the opportunity to ask and explore their important questions and will teach them how to find true answers.

2. What is classical about this assignment?

Research papers are inherently classical because they require students to use the 15 Tools of Learning as they work through the three stages of the Trivium.

Students use the Five Core Habits of Grammar , which are naming, attending, memorizing, expressing, and storytelling, as they learn about the topic they choose to research and write about.

A knowledge of grammar will naturally lead students to apply the Five Common Topics of Dialectic as they ask questions about the grammar they have learned. The skill of inquiry is the bedrock of classical education. Made popular by the philosopher Socrates, questioning in order to challenge assumptions, test ideas, and arrive at truth is known today as Socratic questioning. This is the process that takes place during the invention stage of a research paper. Students will consider definitions, comparisons, circumstances, relationships, and testimonies concerning their topic of research to gain a deeper understanding and mastery of their subject.

Once students have found the answers to their research questions, they will use the Five Canons of Rhetoric to compose a paper that explains and analyzes their topic to an audience. The canons of invention, arrangement, elocution, memory, and delivery will equip them to communicate clearly and accurately.

3. How does this assignment benefit students?

The skills that students gain and practice throughout the process of researching and writing their paper are invaluable. This assignment “[Allows] students to present research in an orderly, logical manner that prepares them for writing in college” (Guide, 19). The intention of this assignment is not to finish with the perfect paper. It is to practice the classical skills of learning, to prepare for future education, and to develop the character of Challenge students.

  Let’s be honest. Writing a ten-to-fifteen-page paper is a daunting task. Because of this, it is essential that students have a good step-by-step process for researching and writing. CC believes that the 5 Canons of Rhetoric provides students with the best tools to use as they work to craft their lengthy paper. The canons give students direction as they invent their ideas; clarity as they arrange an outline; and style as they communicate to others through writing. Though there are five canons, for our purposes, we will make use of the first three. These are:

Arrangement

The invention stage begins with brainstorming a topic. From the Cold War to veganism, the possibilities for a topic are endless. Students should be encouraged to choose a topic that they are already interested in. They are going to spend a lot of time thinking, researching, and writing about their topic. So, to make that process enjoyable, it’s best to choose something that excites them. They should also select something that they have not previously researched. For example, if a student is interested in the history of automobile manufacturing, encourage them to research a car make that they have not previously studied.

It is during this stage of invention that the Five Common Topics are essential. By defining the terms involved; comparing their topic to similar concepts; researching the circumstances surrounding their subject; recognizing relationships in their research; and listening to testimonies about their topic, students will gain a deeper understanding of what they are interested in researching. This will ensure that students pick a reliable and exciting topic.

However, while the topic of their paper is important, students should not be anxious about which one they choose. It’s importance should be secondary to learning the skills of research and practicing the invention, arrangement, and elocution of their paper.

After a student has chosen a topic, they must write their topic in the form of a research question. A research question is a self-explanatory term, and can be defined as the question which you seek to answer through research. An example of this is “Is there value in assigning research papers to students in high school?” A research paper would then present evidence to prove a calculated answer to the question. Remember, the answer to the question in a research paper is completely dependent upon the evidence found and not on the writers opinion.  

How to Find Research

CC requires students to have at least five sources for their research paper. At first, this may seem like a simple task–five google searches. But the amount of research required to write a reliable paper will likely lead to many more. Remember, five is the minimum, not the encouraged maximum. It is not uncommon to have ten to fifteen sources by the time students have completed compiling all their facts and information. And this is a good thing! More sources lead to more evidence which means more credibility for their work.

Nowadays, it is very easy to find an abundance of information on almost any topic through the internet. This poses both advantages and disadvantages to the researcher. An advantage is that research has been made accessible to the average individual. No longer do we have to comb through shelves and shelves of library books to hopefully find information on a topic. Now, research can be done by typing a few words into the google search bar–easy, efficient, effective.

However, we must also keep in mind the significant disadvantages that this results in. Quality in research is hard to maintain when many sources that can be found with the click of a button are entirely unreliable and sometimes, just downright false. I am sure we are all familiar with Wikipedia. But despite the abundance of unreliable research, it is still possible to find authoritative and accurate information, if we know where and how to look.

CC encourages students not to forsake the practice of turning to books and journals for their information. Though these books and journals can be intimidating at times, they often contain the best research because they go through a much more rigorous process of editing and fact checking than the average google search result. Despite this, it is not wrong for students to use the internet to their advantage. There are good digital articles that provide valuable information. Students just need to be taught the steps to evaluate the articles they read.

How to Evaluate Research

CC provides four questions in the Challenge I Guide (190) to use when vetting sources:

• What are the authors credentials? Does he or she have a doctorate or other advanced degree in the field?
• What are the organizations credentials? Is it a national organization? Is it accredited? What are its political affiliations? (Check the “About Us” page if there is one.)
• Do other sources confirm the information?
• How recently was the website updated?

Inexperienced authors, unreliable or politically charged websites, fringe evidence, or outdated posts are all indicators that an article contains unreliable research and should be discarded. By asking these questions, students will have the ability to recognize false information when they come across it. This is perhaps the most important step in the research phase, because without it you are likely to be relying on false facts which will discredit your work and render it worthless.

How to Organize Research

The question then becomes—what should they do with all this research once they find it? There have been many times during writing where I have frantically asked myself the question “Where did that source go?” Sources can easily get lost in pages and pages of notes or in a search history. That is why it is very important for students to have a system to organize their research.

There are many available methods to utilize when organizing research. Annotation can be used to highlight information in printed sources in order to keep track of key quotes and statistics.

Students can create digital lists with links and source summaries as an easy and efficient way to keep all of their digital research in one place, Or they can summarize and group research together on notecards to have quick access to source evidence and summaries. CC encourages students to use notecards because they are the simplest and most concise method out of the three. Notecards are also the preferred system because students can create both bibliography cards and research cards for their sources. Below is an example of a bibliography card and a research card.

The bibliography card contains all the information that will need to be cited in the students paper. This practice greatly benefits students later on when they go to complete their bibliography. Because they have already cited their sources on cards, they will not need to go back through to hunt down all necessary information. It will already be prepared for them to simply transfer into their paper. More instructions on how to rightly cite sources can be found in the following section of this article.

A research card contains all the information students have gleaned from their sources. This includes all quotes, statistics, polls, data charts, and facts. It is important that students limit each notecard to one piece of evidence. Every quote or fact should have its own notecard, this will make the process of topical organization even simpler later on in the arrangement stage.

How to Cite Research

Plagiarism is quite possibly the greatest offense in the research realm. CC defines plagiarism as “the failure to give proper credit [for information].” (192) Keep in mind that it is possible, and even likely, that those who commit this offense do it unintentionally and in complete ignorance. That is why it is important that students are taught to guard against plagiarism by citing their work well.

The first step to good citation is determining which citing style you must use. Citation style will fluctuate from assignment to assignment and from teacher to teacher. So, in order to know which to use, make sure to direct students to the proper authorities.

Citation Styles: MLA vs. APA

There are many citing methods they may come across, however, the two most prevalent are the Modern Language Association (MLA) and the American Psychological Association (APA).

While citing style is dependent upon the specific assignment or teacher, there are definitions of these styles that give us clues as to which may be used depending on the purpose or topic of a paper. MLA is broadly defined by Purdue University as the citation “used to cite sources within the language arts, cultural studies, and other humanities disciplines.” Purdue also defines APA as the style “most commonly used to cite sources within the social sciences.” So, for example, if students are researching the history of art during the Renaissance Period, they will most likely use MLA. If they are researching the functions of the brain, APA will commonly be the style used.

Both MLA and APA are extremely specific and require students to set up their paper with certain margin sizes, font choices, paragraph indentations, and so on. It is important that they understand the requirements pertaining to each style and become familiar with using them. More information on formatting requirements can be found here .

The Dreaded Bibliography

While citing is very important within a paper, the stakes are raised when students begin their bibliography.

Personally, the bibliography is the section of a paper that I dread working on. For years, I lacked a method for composing this seemingly dry and redundant piece of my work. I did not take the time to learn and master it and so, it mastered me. It wasn’t until I stepped back and began to learn the grammar of a bibliography that it became much simpler and less stressful. I encourage students, if they are like me, to review this article by Purdue University on the basics of bibliographies. Another resource that is helpful to use when writing a bibliography is a citation generator . This tool allows students to put in all relevant information from their sources, choose the citation style, and generate a bibliography with the click of a button.

Rather than waiting till the end of the assignment to create the entire bibliography, students may find it helpful to distribute the task as they find articles that they plan on incorporating in their paper. This will lighten the load and prevent it from becoming a last-minute burden.

Once they have compiled a minimum of five sources, it is time to begin arranging the information into an outline. CC instructs its students to have three to five main proofs (or main points) with at least three sub proofs under each main proof. Below is an example of an outline format commonly used in CC.

• Sub-Proof 1
• Sub-Proof 2
• Sub-Proof 3

Each main point is an answer to the research question and each sub proof is the support or evidence of the answer. For example, the research question is, “Is there value in assigning research papers to students in high school?” and the evidence points to the fact that there is value in high school research papers. So, Proof I could be “It develops research skills.” Each sub proof under that would then be either a quote or statistic supporting the fact that research papers develop students research skills.

It is very important that students arrange their outline so that the paper will make sense to someone who knows nothing about their topic. If there is information or background that needs to be explained before the research question can be understood, students should be sure to include it in their introduction. If there are terms not commonly used or understood, include the definitions when they are used. This allows the audience to read and enjoy the final paper with ease.

Arrangement is a tedious process of configuration, but it is vital if students want to end up with a paper that makes any sense to an outside reader.

If you or your student want more information on how to create an outline, I encourage you to review the Lost Tools of Learning curriculum. If you do not have this curriculum, you can purchase it at the Classical Conversations Bookstore here .

The last canon to use when assembling a research paper is elocution. This canon focuses on the process of writing the paper. For some, this is the most difficult stage (I know it was for me). While writing my research paper, I was overwhelmed with reaching perfection on my first draft. I learned the hard way that writing is a process that is made up of many drafts, and that is okay. However, we do not want to end up with a poorly written paper. And so, CC has provided its students with five steps to go through as they edit and improve their work:

1. Check the content.

Does their paper answer it’s research question? It is clear, compelling, and constructive? At this point in the process, all the information should check out as accurate and true, but it is never too late to triple check. Students must ensure that they are providing good and credible research to the audience.

2. Check the organization.

Now that their paper is written, does the outline make sense? Could someone who had never heard of the topic before read through their paper and understand it? It is helpful to have a peer or parent, who has not previously been invested in their assignment, to read the paper. If they understand it, students have successfully done their job!

3. Check the transitions between proofs and paragraphs.

Are they abruptly jumping from one idea to the next or are there gentle transitions throughout? Smooth transitions will help the reader follow the writers train of thought as they read.

4. Check for clarity.

Does what the student is saying make sense? At this point in the process, they will be somewhat of an expert on their topic and paper. This is good because it shows that they have done their work well. However, it also means that they may overlook parts of their paper that do not make sense to an outside reader. Once more, this is when it is helpful to have someone unfamiliar with the topic read through the paper. Students should be encouraged to take head of any suggestions and critics their reader may have to offer because they are looking at the paper with fresh eyes and will probably notice errors that the student may have missed. This will help to ensure that the final paper provides clarity to the audience.

5. Check the grammar.

Spelling, word choices, and grammar must all be taken into account at this final stage of editing. Did students select the best words to explain their thoughts? Are they using the right “there” (or should it be “their” …)? This final process is the most tedious, but it is absolutely essential if students want to present a professional paper to their audience.

Through all of their writing and editing, remind students that they are writing a long paper. It is easy to get burnt out while writing, much more so when reading. Because of this, it is their job, as the writer, to engage their audience so that they are encouraged to continue reading. This means that it is important to take advantage of stylistic devices. When I first learned about grammar dress ups in CC’s Essentials program, I thought they were boring and unhelpful. But I have learned that that couldn’t be farther from the truth! The structure of a sentence has the ability to make it dull or delightful. Therefore, it is important that students use dress ups to make their paper an enjoyable read!

If they are unfamiliar with these tools of elocution, consider reviewing CC’s Essentials curriculum, which will give them step by step instructions on how to apply a wide variety of grammatical devices. If you are interested in purchasing the curriculum, you can visit the Classical Conversations Bookstore here .

After students have gone through this canon of Rhetoric, they will have completed their research paper!

It is clear that the Challenge I research paper requires a lot of work from students. Once they are done, an honest question to ask is “What now?” They have done all this work for a paper that, years later, will probably not be read. This is when we remember that CC’s aim is not for student to check off assignments in their guide, it is for their character and capabilities to grow and develop through their education. Because education is the means to an end, not the end itself. So, the value of the research assignment far surpasses the assignment itself.

Believe me, the Challenge I research paper will be a milestone in your child’s education. It was in mine. It is a very valuable assignment that will foster in your student perseverance, responsibility, and discipline. Additionally, this task will equip your student with the skills they will need to accomplish future assignments as they continue their classical education.

What life skills did I cultivate through this assignment?

1. i learned how to research..

This has proved to be an essential skill through the rest of my CC education. It was especially relevant during the Challenge IV Senior Thesis project. Along with learning how to research, the methods or organization (specifically the note card method), taught me how to keep track of all my research. Once more, this was very helpful later on in my education, specifically during the Challenge I and Challenge II formal debates . If your student hoped they would never have to make another notecard after their research paper, I am sorry to disappoint them.

2. I grew significantly in my writing capabilities.

Writing did not come naturally to me in my early Challenge years. Every time I had to write an essay, speech, or 1AC, I struggled. But through the rigorous process of writing my research paper, I learned how to maintain my audiences focus through pages and pages of information.

4. Most importantly, I grew in discipline.

The theme of Challenge I is “Discipline is the cornerstone of freedom.”

There is no better assignment to build discipline than writing a research paper. The discipline to go through the right steps that result in a rewarding final paper is hard to maintain through the entire assignment but is worth it in the end. By practicing the virtue of discipline in researching, writing, and responsibility, I achieved the freedom that rests on the other side of the hard work.

Now, I am free to face a world where facts are often flawed because I know how to discover the truth of any topic. Additionally, I now have the freedom to communicate true facts to others through writing. And the need for these skills do not end after high school.

So, if you’re like me and you’ve exclaimed “Wait, what? I have to write a 10–15-page formal research paper?” —take heart. You can do it, because I did.

Written by:

Elise DeYoung

Challenge Graduate and PR and Communications Intern

Elise DeYoung is an eighteen-year-old CC graduate who has applied CC’s maxim to know God and make Him known in all aspects of her life. She went through two years of CC’s Foundations and Essentials programs and completed all six Challenge levels. She is an accomplished pianist, avid reader of great literature, professional nap-taker, debater at heart, and music enthusiast (especially when it comes to her favorite artist, John Mayer). She is determined to gain wisdom and understanding wherever it can be found as she walks through life as a lifelong learner. Soli Deo gloria!

I want to start homeschooling!

A Classical Conversations team member will contact you shortly to help you learn more about enriching your child’s classical, Christian homeschool education.

• 9 Reasons to Attend Practicum 2024
• What Is Challenge III?
• The Spirit of Freedom: A Glimpse into National Events Weekend 2024
• High School Latin: A Guide to Mastering the Challenge of Language Learning
• Classical Christian Education
• Classical Conversations Programs
• Encouragement
• Homeschooling
• Impact Your Community
• International Spotlight

Join the Conversation

Community is at our core, with families doing life together as they learn.

Related Posts - Resources

Feeling overwhelmed by the prospect of a lengthy research paper looming on the horizon? You’re...

6 Tips for Planning a Successful Homeschool Graduation

The following blog post was originally published by Homeschool Diploma. The Challenges and Rewards of...

10 Great Read-Alouds for the Homeschool Family

Reading aloud is a favorite pastime of many homeschool families. It’s not just fun; reading...

What can we help you find?