A step-by-step guide to understanding an open-ended scientific question, finding evidence, developing an explanation and writing your team’s research paper.
Stage 1 · Research paperStage 2 · Theory Assessment
FIG. 01 / THE RESEARCH PROCESS
RESEARCH FIELD NOTESUNSO
Observe. Explain. Write.
QUESTIONEVIDENCEINFERENCE
ASSUMPTION ≠ FACT
CLAIM → SUPPORT → LIMIT
THE TWO REGIONAL STAGES
What do teams need to complete?
Stage 1 — Research Paper. Investigate the two problems selected by your team and communicate the research in writing. The problems are open-ended and may be hypothetical. Credible sources, reasoning, calculations and clearly explained assumptions can form a rigorous investigation; an original experiment is not compulsory for every paper.
Stage 2 — Theory Assessment. After the research-paper phase comes a 35-minute team MCQ exercise to check that everyone has understood the research and participated. There is no live PowerPoint defence at Regionals.
Start here. These six lessons teach you to understand the question, research reliable sources, reason scientifically, evaluate evidence and prepare to write a clear paper. Complete the short checkpoint in each lesson to track your progress.
YOUR COURSE MAP completed
The Academy saves your lesson-checkpoint progress on this device only.
MODULE 01 / 06Understand the brief
Understand the research problem.
A research question is not a demand for the first answer that comes to mind. It is an invitation to distinguish what is assumed, what is known and what must be reasoned through.
01
Read the whole brief
Highlight every instruction: investigate, explain, determine, distinguish, predict or propose. Each signals a different intellectual task.
02
Separate assumptions from claims
A hypothetical condition may be deliberately granted. You should not waste the paper disproving an assumption the problem asks you to accept.
03
Break the problem into subquestions
Organise the investigation into a handful of connected questions, rather than attempting a single sweeping answer.
04
Define your scope
Decide which ideal and realistic conditions you will discuss, what can be estimated and where uncertainty remains.
THE SCIENTIFIC HABIT
A hypothetical premise is not automatically a scientific error. Accept the premise where instructed, then investigate its implications rigorously.
Watch for this mistakeWriting many pages of background science without ever answering the particular question.
CHECK YOUR THINKING
A problem explicitly assumes a new material is perfectly transparent. What should the team do?
COURSE / 01 OF 06
MODULE 02 / 06Read with purpose
Find reliable scientific sources.
Literature research is not copying paragraphs from the internet. Use reliable scientific knowledge to build the foundation for your own argument.
01
Build a search map
List the concepts you need to understand. Turn them into focused search terms, including synonyms and related mechanisms.
02
Evaluate every source
Check who produced it, whether it supplies methods or evidence, how current it is and whether its claim matches your research question.
03
Read beyond the abstract
Check what was actually measured or modelled, under which conditions, and whether the conclusion is narrower than the headline.
04
Keep a source register
Record the author, title, publication details, links, what the source supports and what it does not establish.
THE SCIENTIFIC HABIT
A published scientific result is not automatically evidence for every similar-sounding claim. Its conditions and limitations matter.
Watch for this mistakeUsing a confident online summary as proof while never checking the original study or supporting evidence.
CHECK YOUR THINKING
A webpage says “Researchers proved X” but has no author, methods or link to a study. What is your strongest next step?
COURSE / 02 OF 06
MODULE 03 / 06From facts to inference
Develop a scientific explanation.
The real research begins when your team takes established scientific principles and applies them to a situation nobody has neatly explained for you.
01
Choose the relevant principles
Identify laws, mechanisms, relationships or constraints that govern the scenario. Explain why they are relevant.
02
Create a chain of reasoning
For each important conclusion, show the premises, intermediate steps and evidence that make the conclusion reasonable.
03
Quantify when it helps
Use dimensions, estimates, equations, orders of magnitude or numerical examples to test whether an explanation is plausible.
04
Compare alternative explanations
Ask whether another mechanism could produce the same observation or whether changing an assumption alters the answer.
THE SCIENTIFIC HABIT
A useful model is one whose assumptions are stated, whose consequences are clear and whose predictions can be critically examined.
Watch for this mistakePlacing a complicated equation in the paper without deriving it, defining variables or explaining its relevance.
CHECK YOUR THINKING
Which sentence is a scientific inference rather than merely a background fact?
COURSE / 03 OF 06
MODULE 04 / 06Be appropriately sceptical
Evaluate evidence and limitations.
An open-ended question may have several defensible answers. Scientific quality comes from exposing your reasoning to counterexamples, uncertainties and limitations.
01
Separate kinds of evidence
Distinguish your own calculations, simulated predictions, published measurements, logical deductions and experimental observations.
02
Test the assumptions
Ask how your conclusion changes when ideal assumptions are relaxed or boundary conditions shift.
03
Check contradictions
If a claim conflicts with a conservation law or established mechanism, explain precisely where the conflict arises.
04
Set limits on your conclusion
Say what your approach establishes, what remains unknown and which new evidence would change your view.
THE SCIENTIFIC HABIT
A properly justified conclusion that a claim is impossible can be excellent science. A bold conclusion with no evidence is not.
Watch for this mistakeTreating simulated numbers as if they were independent experimental measurements.
CHECK YOUR THINKING
A computer model predicts an effect, but its assumptions have not been checked against real evidence. What can the team honestly claim?
COURSE / 04 OF 06
MODULE 05 / 06Structure and clarity
Plan and write the research paper.
A good paper is not a decorated file. It is a scientific argument that readers can follow, verify, challenge and understand without your team standing beside them.
01
Plan around the argument
Organise sections according to the research question. Do not add an “experiment” section merely because another report had one.
02
Write what each part contributes
The introduction frames the question; the analysis develops reasoning; the discussion examines limits; the conclusion answers the question.
03
Make scientific visuals work
Explain diagrams, show units on graphs, label equations and cite images and data that are not your own.
04
Reference consistently
Cite important external claims as you write. Use one consistent citation style and verify that every reference exists.
THE SCIENTIFIC HABIT
The strongest paragraph usually makes one claim, provides evidence or reasoning, and explains why that evidence matters.
Watch for this mistakeWriting a long conclusion that introduces new results or repeats background material without answering the problem.
CHECK YOUR THINKING
Which is the better conclusion to a theoretical investigation?
COURSE / 05 OF 06
MODULE 06 / 06Quality and team ownership
Review and prepare your submission.
The final stage is not prettier formatting. It is checking scientific accuracy, academic integrity, consistency and whether every team member understands the submitted paper.
01
Audit the actual question
Check every instruction in the problem statement against the sections in your paper.
02
Audit your evidence
Mark every consequential claim and ask whether a source, calculation, observation or clear scientific argument supports it.
03
Audit integrity and safety
Check all references, attribution, original work, data provenance and any risks created by an investigation.
04
Rehearse team understanding
Each student should explain a key conclusion, its assumptions and the evidence behind it in their own words.
THE SCIENTIFIC HABIT
A well-researched paper is a team achievement, not a document written by one student while the others wait for the assessment.
Watch for this mistakeSubmitting a polished document when some teammates cannot explain its central arguments.
CHECK YOUR THINKING
How should a team check that its members genuinely participated?
Learn the building blocks of a research report, section by section. You will follow one complete worked example from a concluded UNSO 2026 problem, see how each paragraph contributes to the paper, and learn what reviewers may look for. This is suggested teaching structure, not a compulsory official format.
YOUR PAPER · 8 BUILDING BLOCKS
Each section has a different job. Our worked example follows one 2026 problem throughout.
REGIONAL RESEARCH / PAPER STUDIOEDUCATIONAL GUIDE
BUILDING BLOCK 01 / 08WORKED EXAMPLE · UNSO 2026
Abstract
What did the paper investigate and establish?
What is an abstract?
The abstract is a short summary of the whole investigation. It tells a reader what you examined, how you investigated it, what your strongest explanation was and what the limits of your conclusion are. Although it appears at the beginning, write it after finishing the paper.
ABSTRACTThe entire paper in miniature
Question + approach + main finding + qualification. A reader should understand the result even without reading the rest.
INTRODUCTIONThe reason for the investigation
Context + problem + purpose + scope. It leads into the investigation instead of revealing every finding.
WORKED EXAMPLE · 2026 / CHEMISTRYAbstract from the sample paper
Freshly prepared posho (ugali) becomes firmer during storage, sometimes even when kept warm, and reheating may restore only part of its initial softness. This paper examines whether these changes can be explained by molecular rearrangements in maize starch. A literature-based analysis was conducted using scientific reviews of starch gelatinisation, retrogradation and the effects of water and temperature. The evidence indicates that, after cooking, starch chains can reassociate into more ordered structures: amylose contributes to early firming, while amylopectin rearrangement can contribute over longer periods. Changes in the distribution and availability of water may also affect texture. Reheating can disrupt some ordered structures, but it need not reverse moisture loss or all structural changes. Thus, hardening cannot be attributed simply to falling temperature. The investigation provides a mechanism-based explanation but does not measure the relative contributions of these processes in a specific posho recipe.
How this abstract works
1 · Question
Why does posho harden?
2 · Approach
Published research was reviewed and compared.
3 · Finding
Retrogradation and water-related effects help explain firming.
4 · Limitation
No measurements were made on a specific posho sample.
What a reviewer may check
Does the abstract identify the actual question, the genuine method, the central answer and a limitation? Does it avoid reporting experiments or figures that never appear in the report?
BUILDING BLOCK 02 / 08WORKED EXAMPLE · UNSO 2026
Introduction
Why does this question matter, and what exactly will you answer?
The introduction sets up the investigation
A novice should be able to read your introduction and explain: what is being investigated, why it is interesting, and what the paper intends to answer. It may begin with a familiar observation, but it must narrow towards a precise scientific problem. Unlike an abstract, it should not attempt to summarise every finding.
STARTEveryday observation
Fresh posho is soft; stored posho becomes firmer.
NARROWScientific question
Which molecular processes cause the change?
FOCUSPurpose and scope
Explain starch structure, water and reheating using published research.
WORKED EXAMPLEIntroduction
Posho, commonly called ugali in parts of East Africa, is prepared by heating maize flour with water until a thick starch-rich mass forms. It is usually softer and more workable when freshly cooked. After standing, however, it often becomes noticeably firmer. This familiar change raises a scientific question: if the flour remains essentially the same material, why does its texture change with time?
During cooking, maize starch granules absorb water and undergo gelatinisation. After cooking, the gelatinised starch is not a static material. Molecular chains can reorganise, and the location and availability of water can change. Scientific reviews describe these processes under the general term starch retrogradation (Wang et al., 2015; Ning et al., 2025).
This paper investigates how starch rearrangement and moisture-related effects could explain the hardening of posho, and why reheating sometimes produces incomplete softening. The analysis is based on published scientific literature; it does not claim to report a new experiment on a particular batch of posho.
Not this: “Starch is very important to all living things.” →Better: “This paper investigates the molecular causes of firming in cooked maize starch.”
What a reviewer may check
Is the research question identifiable? Is the context relevant rather than a long textbook history? Does the team state the scope and avoid promising work it never carried out?
BUILDING BLOCK 03 / 08WORKED EXAMPLE · UNSO 2026
Scientific background
Which scientific ideas does this investigation depend upon?
Explain only the science needed to solve the problem
This section does not reward collecting the largest number of definitions. Select the concepts that will later explain your findings. Give a scientific definition, connect it to the problem and cite where you obtained the idea. A helpful test is: Will this information be used in our analysis?
01 / COOKINGGelatinisation
When starch is heated with sufficient water, granules swell and their original ordered organisation changes. This is part of how a thick posho paste forms.
02 / MOLECULESAmylose
A mostly linear starch component that can reassociate relatively quickly after cooking, contributing to early formation of a firmer network.
03 / MOLECULESAmylopectin
A highly branched starch component. Its chain segments can form ordered structures over longer storage periods.
04 / CONDITIONSWater and temperature
Water content, moisture movement and storage conditions alter how starch chains reorganise and how firmness is perceived.
WORKED EXAMPLEScientific background
Maize starch contains amylose and amylopectin, two polymers made of linked glucose units but differing in branching and molecular organisation. Heating starch in water disrupts aspects of its granular organisation; during subsequent storage, some chains reassociate into more ordered arrangements. Wang and colleagues (2015) review this process as starch retrogradation and identify the contributions of molecular structure, water and processing conditions.
Retrogradation is not necessarily a single event occurring at one constant rate. Different molecular components reorganise on different timescales. A review by Ning and colleagues (2025) also identifies moisture content and storage temperature as factors influencing firming in starch-based foods. These findings provide a scientific basis for evaluating changes in posho texture.
Source → idea → relevance
Wang et al. (2015) → starch chains can reassociate after gelatinisation → supports a molecular explanation for hardening. The authors did not study your own batch of posho, so do not describe their review as your experiment.
What a reviewer may check
Are key terms accurate, relevant and explained in the team's own words? Are important factual claims cited? Can the reader follow the later analysis using the science introduced here?
BUILDING BLOCK 04 / 08WORKED EXAMPLE · UNSO 2026
Approach & assumptions
What reasoning or evidence route did you choose, and why?
Show exactly how your team investigated the question
Even a paper with no original laboratory experiment needs a transparent method. State whether your work is a literature-based explanation, a theoretical calculation, a comparative analysis or an experiment. Describe what information was considered and how conclusions were reached. Never invent a practical experiment to fill space.
Research question
What causes posho to harden?
↓
Evidence selected
Scientific reviews of starch retrogradation and storage effects.
↓
Analysis method
Relate molecular processes to observed firming and reheating.
↓
Scope
Mechanism-based explanation, not measured firmness for a recipe.
WORKED EXAMPLEApproach and assumptions
This study used a structured literature-based analysis. First, the problem was divided into three questions: (1) what changes in starch after cooking; (2) why those changes may increase firmness during storage; and (3) why heating may not fully restore the fresh texture. Second, published reviews addressing starch gelatinisation, retrogradation, moisture and temperature were examined. Third, the mechanisms described in those sources were compared with the reported behaviour of posho.
The analysis assumes that the principal structure-forming ingredient is maize starch. It does not assume that all posho recipes contain identical water content or that storage temperatures are the same. No texture measurements were performed; therefore, claims about the magnitude or exact rate of hardening in a particular sample are outside the study's scope.
Specify assumptions, source-selection approach, calculations or comparisons and how you judged competing explanations.
What a reviewer may check
Is the approach stated and scientifically justified? Can the evidence be traced or the reasoning followed? Are original data clearly distinguished from published information, calculations and assumptions?
BUILDING BLOCK 05 / 08WORKED EXAMPLE · UNSO 2026
Investigation & analysis
What does your analysis show, step by step?
This is where you actually answer the scientific question
For many Regional Qualifier papers, the Investigation and Analysis section should be the longest and most carefully reasoned. Organise it around subquestions, not around copied paragraphs. For each subquestion, move from evidence to explanation, and from explanation to a conclusion you can justify.
CLAIM→SCIENTIFIC BASIS→APPLICATION TO THE PROBLEM→QUALIFIED INFERENCE
WORKED EXAMPLEInvestigation and analysis
4.1 Why can posho become firmer?
Cooking changes the structure of maize starch in the presence of water. Once cooking stops, the dispersed chains may begin to reassociate. The formation of a more ordered or interconnected network can reduce mobility within the paste and increase its resistance to deformation. This offers a molecular explanation for why freshly cooked posho and stored posho can have different firmness even though the major ingredient has not changed (Wang et al., 2015).
4.2 Why can hardening occur over different timescales?
Starch contains components with different molecular architectures. Amylose can reassociate relatively rapidly, contributing to early network formation. Amylopectin's branched structure supports slower reorganisation of some chain segments. Therefore, changes observed shortly after cooking and those developing over longer storage periods need not have exactly the same dominant mechanism. Their relative importance depends on the food's composition, moisture and storage conditions (Wang et al., 2015; Ning et al., 2025).
4.3 Why does warming not guarantee permanent softness?
Reheating may disrupt some structures formed during storage, but the effect depends on the temperature reached and the amount of water available. Changes in water distribution or loss of moisture are not necessarily reversed by warming alone. This means that a partially softened sample need not return to the original texture of freshly prepared posho. Importantly, the report does not claim that one mechanism explains all recipes or every storage condition.
Follow one argument
Evidence
Published studies describe reassociation of starch chains after gelatinisation.
Reasoning
A reorganised network can resist deformation more strongly.
Conclusion
Retrogradation is a plausible important contributor to posho firming.
Boundary
The review does not measure its contribution in a particular recipe.
What a reviewer may check
Does each subquestion receive an evidence-based answer? Are calculations, models or citations interpreted rather than merely displayed? Are statements proportionate to the quality of evidence? Does the team answer every part of its assigned problem?
BUILDING BLOCK 06 / 08WORKED EXAMPLE · UNSO 2026
Discussion & limitations
Under what conditions might your conclusion be different?
Test the strength of your own explanation
Analysis develops an explanation; Discussion asks how far that explanation can be trusted. Compare alternative explanations, conditions that might change the result, unresolved questions and missing evidence. A limitation is not a confession of failure—it is a sign that the team understands what its research can establish.
POSSIBLE FACTORWHY IT MATTERSWHAT WE CAN SAY
Moisture loss
Drying can change texture independently of molecular ordering.
May contribute, but its effect was not measured here.
Storage temperature
Can affect the behaviour of starch chains and water.
Affects the mechanisms; cannot infer one rate for all temperatures.
Recipe composition
Flour type, water ratio and cooking may vary.
Our general mechanism may not rank factors in every recipe.
WORKED EXAMPLEDiscussion and limitations
The literature supports starch retrogradation as a strong explanation for changes in firmness, but other mechanisms may operate simultaneously. In particular, water loss and redistribution can affect texture, and the proportions of amylose and amylopectin, cooking method and storage temperature may alter the rate or extent of firming. The relative contributions of these factors cannot be calculated from published reviews alone for a specific household preparation.
A stronger follow-up study could prepare equal-mass posho samples under controlled water content and cooking conditions, store them for defined periods, record temperature and mass changes, and quantify firmness with a consistent compression method. Such an experiment could help distinguish moisture-related effects from structural changes, although specialised methods would be needed to observe starch crystallinity directly.
What a reviewer may check
Has the team considered alternative mechanisms and the assumptions most likely to change its conclusion? Does it identify missing evidence and explain how a future investigation could test it?
BUILDING BLOCK 07 / 08WORKED EXAMPLE · UNSO 2026
Conclusion
What can you responsibly conclude?
Return to the original question and answer it
A conclusion is not a fresh essay or a place for new references and facts. Briefly state the answer, the strongest scientific reasons for it and the main qualification. Use language such as “the evidence supports”, “under these assumptions” or “the literature suggests” when complete certainty is not warranted.
1 · ANSWERWhat explains the observed change?
2 · SUPPORTWhich mechanisms justify the answer?
3 · LIMITWhat remains unverified?
WORKED EXAMPLEConclusion
Posho can harden after cooking because its gelatinised starch is capable of molecular reorganisation during storage. Reassociation of amylose and amylopectin chains, together with changes in water availability and distribution, provides a scientific explanation for increasing firmness. Reheating may partially reverse some structural changes, but it need not restore the original texture when moisture conditions or structural organisation have changed. Published studies support these mechanisms in starch-based foods; determining their relative contribution in a particular posho sample would require a controlled empirical investigation.
Check the ending:
Can your conclusion stand beside your research question and demonstrate that you answered it? Have you stayed within the evidence presented earlier in the report?
What a reviewer may check
Does the conclusion answer the question directly, reflect the analysis faithfully, avoid new unsupported claims and acknowledge material limitations?
BUILDING BLOCK 08 / 08WORKED EXAMPLE · UNSO 2026
References & appendices
Could someone locate your sources and verify your methods?
Allow another researcher to trace your evidence
References show which scientific ideas and data came from other people's work. Cite a source near the claim it supports, and give enough details in the reference list to find it. Use one consistent recognised citation style. Appendices are for extra material, not for hiding the core argument.
IN YOUR PARAGRAPH
“Starch chains can reassociate after gelatinisation (Wang et al., 2015).”
IN YOUR REFERENCE LIST
Wang, S., Li, C., Copeland, L., Niu, Q. and Wang, S. (2015). Starch Retrogradation: A Comprehensive Review. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 14, 568–585.
WORKED EXAMPLEReferences used in the sample paper
Wang, S., Li, C., Copeland, L., Niu, Q. and Wang, S. (2015). Starch Retrogradation: A Comprehensive Review. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 14(5), 568–585. doi:10.1111/1541-4337.12143 ↗
Ning, J., Fu, B., Tang, X., Hao, Y., Zhang, Y. and Wang, X. (2025). Starch retrogradation in starch-based foods: Mechanisms, influencing factors, and mitigation strategies. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, 300, 140354. doi:10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2025.140354 ↗
When do you need appendices?
Use them for labelled supplementary calculations, longer data tables, instrument settings or extended source notes when they truly help someone check your work. This worked example is literature-based and does not invent a raw-data appendix.
What a reviewer may check
Do the in-text citations match the reference list? Are the sources real and appropriately used? Are borrowed figures, quotations and data attributed? Can another person locate the supporting evidence?
Examples, not the official marking rubricSOFU / REGIONAL QUALIFIERS
STAGE 1 · RESEARCH PAPER / PART C
Templates and a final report checklist.
Download the report template, compare it with our fully worked 2026 example, and use the planning notebook and checklist to review your team’s own paper before submission.
Tick the checks only once your team has actually completed them. Your selection stays on this device.
0/ 12 ready
A credible paper is built one justified claim at a time.
STAGE 1 · COMPLETEResearch Paper
Your team has investigated its two problems, written the scientific explanations and checked its submitted work.
→
STAGE 2 · NEXTTheory Assessment
Now every teammate must show that they understand the research. There is no new research report or PowerPoint to prepare.
STAGE 2 · THEORY ASSESSMENT
How the 35-minute Theory Assessment works.
This is the second stage of the Regional Qualifiers, separate from the written research paper. Every team receives two MCQ papers based on its two selected research problems. The exercise tests individual understanding first, followed by teamwork and a shared answer sheet.
ILLUSTRATIVE ONLYMCQ SESSION
Two papers. One team response.
RESEARCH PROBLEM AMCQ PAPER 01Question leaflets
RESEARCH PROBLEM BMCQ PAPER 02Question leaflets
TEAM ANSWER SHEET
01ABCD
02ABCD
03ABCD
The visuals show the concept, not the official leaflet layout, question count or answer-sheet format. The actual examination documents are issued by SOFU.
AFTER THE REGIONAL QUALIFIERS
What happens at Nationals?
At Regionals, your team submits a research paper and attends the Theory Assessment. The National Tournament is a separate event: qualified teams then prepare for experimental investigation and live Science Fights with the Fight Academy.
