Research question worksheet

Use your actual brief and material. A question is provisional; this worksheet does not verify evidence, novelty or feasibility.

Assignment task and where the instruction appears: 

Broad topic and why it matters for this assignment: 

Initial question: 

Object of inquiry: people, texts, practice or decision: 

Boundary: setting, period, material or comparison: 

Key terms that need a definition: 

Background reading actually checked, with locators: 

Revised question: 

Evidence needed to answer it: 

Access, time or permission constraint: 

What remains unknown; do not call it a research gap yet: 

Next search or clarification: 

Reason for the revision and date: 

Before keeping the question
- Does it ask for the kind of work the assignment requires?
- Are important terms and boundaries clear?
- Can you explain what material would help answer it?
- What have you actually read, rather than planned to read?
- Does the wording assume an outcome you have not established?
- What needs to change if access or the deadline makes the scope unrealistic?

Choose the next action: retain provisionally / narrow / broaden / change material / ask instructor or librarian.
Decision and reason: 

--- Illustrative examples ---

Three original illustrative planning examples. No assignment, source search, institution, study result or research gap is being reported as verified. These are questions to evaluate, not ready-made findings or guaranteed feasible projects.

University library access
Assignment task and where the instruction appears: Illustrative evaluation essay; no real course brief is supplied. Confirm that evaluating a service decision fits the actual task.
Broad topic and why it matters for this assignment: University library access; the intended purpose is to examine a resource-allocation decision, not assume longer access is preferable.
Initial question: Are longer library opening hours better?
Object of inquiry: people, texts, practice or decision: A university decision about staffed support during exam weeks.
Boundary: setting, period, material or comparison: Exam weeks; compare later staffed hours with additional daytime support. No institution or calendar year selected yet.
Key terms that need a definition: Staffed hours; daytime support; student need; justified use of resources.
Background reading actually checked, with locators: None supplied or checked in this example.
Revised question: For a university considering later staffed library hours during exam weeks, what evidence would justify prioritizing the extension over additional daytime support?
Evidence needed to answer it: Comparable service use, staffing constraints, access needs and the decision criteria. Availability and comparability remain unverified.
Access, time or permission constraint: A particular institution must have accessible material; do not assume permission to collect student information.
What remains unknown; do not call it a research gap yet: Whether either option meets documented needs better. This is an unanswered planning question, not a demonstrated gap in published research.
Next search or clarification: Look for accessible library service reports and clarify acceptable evidence with the instructor before selecting an institution.
Reason for the revision and date: The revision specifies a decision and comparator without asserting an outcome. Record your own revision date.
Why the revision helps: Replaces an undefined “better” with a decision between two uses of support. Limits the period to exam weeks and distinguishes staffed support from access to a building.
Still needs checking: The example supplies no university records or student research. Availability of comparable usage, staffing and student-need evidence must be checked; a preference survey alone would not establish learning gains.

AI feedback on writing
Assignment task and where the instruction appears: Illustrative source-based comparison; check that the actual assignment permits a methods-focused question.
Broad topic and why it matters for this assignment: AI feedback on writing; the intended purpose is to examine what a reported improvement actually measures.
Initial question: Does AI improve essays?
Object of inquiry: people, texts, practice or decision: Published comparisons of AI feedback and instructor feedback in first-year university writing.
Boundary: setting, period, material or comparison: First-year university writing; published study reports. Dates, languages and eligible study designs remain to be justified after an initial search.
Key terms that need a definition: AI feedback; instructor feedback; sentence correction; argument quality.
Background reading actually checked, with locators: None supplied or checked in this example.
Revised question: In published studies of first-year university writing, how are AI feedback and instructor feedback compared, and which measures distinguish sentence correction from changes to argument quality?
Evidence needed to answer it: Accessible reports describing writing tasks, comparison conditions, revision measures and limitations.
Access, time or permission constraint: Do not claim a review is comprehensive. Available studies may not use comparable measures or give full methods.
What remains unknown; do not call it a research gap yet: Whether enough relevant, accessible reports exist for this scope. No literature gap or superior feedback method has been established.
Next search or clarification: Run a preliminary search, record the actual reports inspected and decide whether to narrow the task or outcome further.
Reason for the revision and date: The revision asks how evidence is constructed before drawing a conclusion about effectiveness. Record your own revision date.
Why the revision helps: Moves from an all-purpose benefit claim to inspecting the comparisons and outcome measures in a defined body of research. It does not equate fluent sentences with a stronger argument.
Still needs checking: No study set has been assembled here. First check whether suitable studies exist and whether their tasks and measures are comparable; reduce the scope if the assignment cannot cover both outcomes.

Campus sustainability communication
Assignment task and where the instruction appears: Illustrative document-analysis essay; confirm the instructor accepts this material and type of analysis.
Broad topic and why it matters for this assignment: Campus sustainability communication; examine how instructions support a disposal decision.
Initial question: Why is campus recycling ineffective?
Object of inquiry: people, texts, practice or decision: Public recycling instructions from one selected university.
Boundary: setting, period, material or comparison: One institution and a clearly identified set of current pages or signs; the institution and materials have not been selected.
Key terms that need a definition: Acceptable material; contamination; ambiguous instruction; intended user.
Background reading actually checked, with locators: None supplied or checked in this example.
Revised question: How do a university’s public recycling instructions define acceptable materials and explain contamination, and where could the wording leave disposal decisions unclear?
Evidence needed to answer it: The actual instructions with dates, document locations and passages; an explicit basis for explaining possible ambiguity.
Access, time or permission constraint: Public pages may omit signage or be changed. Retain lawful notes and avoid claiming that a small document set covers the whole campus.
What remains unknown; do not call it a research gap yet: Whether ambiguity is present in the selected texts. No ineffective practice, behavior change or research gap is established.
Next search or clarification: Locate a usable document set, note its boundaries and revise the question if the materials do not support the intended comparison.
Reason for the revision and date: The revision makes the premise inspectable and keeps textual evidence separate from measured behavior. Record your own revision date.
Why the revision helps: Removes the unsupported assumption of failure. Defines a textual analysis that can inspect wording without pretending to measure recycling behavior.
Still needs checking: No institution or instruction set is supplied. Select accessible documents and record their dates and intended users. A wording analysis cannot establish actual contamination rates or the effect of a campaign.

Further guidance (the worksheet and examples above are original)
University of Guelph Digital Learning Commons: Developing a Research Question + Worksheet
https://learningcommons.lib.uoguelph.ca/item/developing-research-question-worksheet/

University of Iowa Libraries: Narrowing a Topic and Developing a Research Question
https://guides.lib.uiowa.edu/englishmajor/rq

George Mason University Writing Center: How to Write a Research Question
https://writingcenter.gmu.edu/writing-resources/research-based-writing/how-to-write-a-research-question