As a lecturer and supervisor, I always encourage my students to think critically in their writing, not only in their theses but also in their assignments. According to the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy, the top three levels of cognitive ability are analysing, evaluating, and creating. To reach these higher-order thinking skills, students must proactively analyse journal articles relevant to the assignment topic or the scope of their study. From the information gathered, they must then synthesise the content before constructing their own academic narrative. Achieving this demonstrates mastery at the highest cognitive level.

Of course, this process involves comparing and contrasting a large volume of information from various sources. However, I often notice recurring mistakes especially in students’ misuse of terms like “were supported by,” “was supported by,” “has/have been supported by,” and “support/supports.” A common misunderstanding is assuming that earlier studies support recent ones. In academic logic, it’s the opposite: recent studies support earlier ones.

Here’s an example of correct usage:

“Halim (2024) stated that one of the reasons school students struggle with mathematics is the complexity of word problems. This finding supports Farha (2018), who found that students face difficulties when solving math problems.”

Or

“Halim (2024) provides further support for the findings of Farha (2018), who found that students face difficulties when solving math problems.”

In active voice, the researcher may state: “Halim (2024) supports Farha (2018), who found that school students do face difficulties when solving math problems, and one of the contributing factors is the complexity of the problems.” In passive voice, the researcher may state: “Farha (2018) is supported by Halim (2024), who found that school students do face difficulties when solving math problems, and one of the contributing factors is the complexity of the problems.”

It would be illogical to write:

“Halim (2024) stated that one of the reasons school students struggle with mathematics is the complexity of word problems. This is supported by Farha (2018), who found that students face difficulties when solving math problems.”

Farha (2018) was published before Halim (2024), so it cannot support Halim’s finding. How can a 2018 study support something that didn’t exist yet?

Another common issue arises with hypotheses, especially among students conducting quantitative research. Hypotheses, presented early in the research (often in Chapter One), are tentative assumptions based on preliminary observations. These hypotheses are tested through empirical research. It is the findings that support (or refute) the hypotheses, not the other way around.

For example,

“The findings of this study support the previously stated research hypothesis.”

This sentence is more scientifically accurate because, in research, data determines whether a hypothesis is accepted or rejected. The hypothesis is an initial statement that needs to be tested, while the research findings serve as evidence to support or refute it.

In many social science studies involving module development or learning strategies, students or researchers are required to conduct a preliminary study to justify the need for intervention. Once the issue is identified, an intervention is designed and tested experimentally. When writing about this, students should correctly state that the findings support the preliminary study, not that they are “supported by” it.

For example, the researcher initially conducts a preliminary study to demonstrate that students’ mathematical thinking is very low, and this is confirmed by the findings. Based on insights from both students and teachers, a clear need for a learning module is identified to address the issue. The researcher then develops the module and tests it with students to examine its effectiveness. The findings reveal that the module helps improve students’ mathematical thinking. In conclusion, the researcher may state that the findings support (rather than are supported by) the initial results of the preliminary study, which identified a problem in students’ mathematical thinking, and that the module has proven effective in addressing this issue.

I frequently encounter these mistakes in the final chapters of theses, especially when students are discussing their findings in relation to previous studies. Remember that your findings support previous studies, not the other way around. You may also write that your findings are in line with or aligned with certain studies, and then explain how they are similar or different. This is how you demonstrate critical thinking in writing. Many lecturers, including myself, encourage students to create mind maps or comparison tables to help visualise these relationships clearly.

In conclusion, while the use of phrases like “is/are/were/was/has/have been supported” and “support/supports” may seem minor, they reveal your grasp of academic logic. Precision in language reflects clarity of thought and ultimately, scholarly maturity.

By: Associate Professor Dr. Abdul Halim Abdullah, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Technology, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia