The contribution check asks one question of every section: what does this let the reader decide about my research question? Run it after your outline and ledger exist, and again whenever you add or move a section.
A section that cannot answer that question is drifting. Drift is hard to see from the inside because every drifting section feels interesting.
How do you run the check?
Use the same four steps for every section.
- Write the question in full at the start of a page, with its command words, such as “to what extent”.
- For each section, write its job in one phrase and the sources that serve it.
- Finish this sentence: “Without this section, the reader could not judge ___.” If you cannot finish it, mark the section as a doubt.
- Decide: keep, rename by its job, merge into another section, or move to a notes file.
Worked example
All details are invented. The question: “To what extent has a fictional town, Kampung Seri, benefited from a weekend night market?” The learner’s draft plan has five sections.
| Section | Job in one phrase | Without it, the reader could not judge… | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|
| History of night markets in the region | Background | nothing about Kampung Seri | Doubt |
| Stallholder earnings at the market | Supports benefit | whether traders gained | Keep |
| Residents’ views on noise and litter | Challenges benefit | whether the benefit has costs | Keep |
| Comparison with a market in another town | Tests whether results transfer | whether Kampung Seri is typical | Keep, trim |
| Judgement | Answers “to what extent” | the overall conclusion | Keep |
The doubtful section. The history section took the learner two days, but the reader can judge the question without it. The learner keeps two sentences of context inside the first section and moves the rest to a notes file.
The result. Four sections, each with a job. The question is now visible in the plan’s shape.
What mistake goes wrong most often?
The learner keeps a section because it took effort.
Mistaken reasoning: “I spent two days on the history, so it has to go in.”
Time spent measures the learner’s effort, not the reader’s need.
The correction is to judge a section only by what it lets the reader decide. Effort can feed into context or into a sentence, but it does not earn a full section.
Check yourself
1. A plan for the question “How far do school uniforms affect student behaviour?” includes a section on the history of uniforms. Apply the test.
Show answer
Finish the sentence: “Without this, the reader could not judge ___.” A history of uniforms does not help judge their effect on behaviour. Reduce it to a line of context, unless it explains why the evidence differs between schools.
2. A section’s job is written as “Information about recycling”. Why is this weak, and what would be better?
Show answer
It names a topic, not a job. A stronger version is “Supports the claim that bins reduce waste, using S1 and S2”. The job tells you how the section serves the question.
3. After the check, the judgement section uses a point that no section builds. What should the learner do?
Show answer
Either add or rebuild a section that supports the point with evidence from the ledger, or remove the point from the judgement. A conclusion should only rest on what the earlier sections established.
Where this leads next
Once each section has a job, use a self-review checklist to check the whole plan. The source ledger lesson shows how to back each section, and the module overview places this step in the full route.
In online one-to-one Global Perspectives tuition, a teacher can ask these questions aloud and let you decide what to keep.