Results, Discussions, and Conclusions Sections: A Comparative Analysis

ESP - Unit 3 - Integrative Assignment                     Godoy, B., Goyeneche, X., Furlano, P.

Results, Discussions, and Conclusions Sections: A Comparative Analysis

A research article (RA) is the medium through which people make public the results of their research. They can vary in structure across academic disciplines, but in general, most articles contain the following components: a Title, an Abstract, an Introduction, the Study Methodology, the Study's Results backed up with graphs and tables to report the data, Discussion of the Results, Strengths and Limitations, and a References Section that lists all sources consulted for the article (Swales and Feak, 1994). The aim of this paper is to make a comparative analysis of the Results, Discussions and Conclusions sections of two research articles that belong to two completely different areas, namely educational and medicine field.

Extremely noteworthy is the difference as regards the structure choice, since both articles differ in the way they organize the sections of the papers. While Di Angelantonio, Chowdhury, Sarwar, Aspelund, Danesh and Gudnason’s (2010) medical article exposes the three sections found in RAs separately, Barrs’s (2012) educational paper presents results and discussions jointly, leaving the conclusions in a single section. Nevertheless, both authors include all the information that these sections need to have.

Concerning Discussions section, both of them are descriptive in nature. They summarize their findings relating them to prior studies. The medicine article devotes the section to restate the key findings with reference to the original question as well as reminds the reader of the overall study. On the other hand, in the educational article, there is not a separation between Discussions and Results sections. The author reiterates the hypothesis proposed, points out the most important results and interprets the data making use of tables, formatted according to APA (2007) standards, to present the main findings of the study, delving into interpretation of outcomes in the same section.

Regarding the presentation of data, although both research articles use texts with the past simple tense, as well as tables and figures to state results (Swales and Feak , 1994), they differ from in the way they account for results. While Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) seems to have a more direct way, Barrs (2012) divides this sections into two parts and makes use of persuasive arguments as a useful writing technique to discuss the proposed topic.  This disparity seems to be connected with the purpose of each article. Whilst the medicine article focuses on interpreting statistical data, the educational paper centers its attention in analyzing and interpreting results.

According to Swales (1990), the Results section should summarize the data with text, tables, and/or figures. Both Results sections begin first with text and then refer the reader to tables and figures in order to highlight the evidence needed to answer the questions/hypotheses being investigated. The education research paper interprets and compares results, gives examples and explanations of the information stated in graphics. On the contrary the medicine article author uses a more concise and objective style which may be more complex to understand, particularly if you are not familiarized with the field.         

The American Psychological Association (APA) (2007) establishes some basic rules as regards the formatting of tables. The education research article respects certain requirements; all tables are correctly numbered, and each one has an individual title, which is italicized and correctly capitalized. Contrary to this, the medicine article does not comply with certain rules as tittles are neither italicized nor presented with each word capitalized. Whereas Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) uses notes below tables to clarify the information presented, Barrs (2012) omits them; this may be because the information seems easier to (be understood) understand and also because the author explains, interprets and evaluates results in the same section.

Most typically, persuasive- argumentative texts are used in the Conclusion section to convince the readers that the writer’s findings are of utmost importance. In the educational paper the author analyzes a particular situation, gives his point of view, determines the causes of the obtained results and makes recommendations under the light of certain circumstances. In the medicine article, on the other hand, De Angelantonio et al. (2010) shows his conclusions making use of words that signal his readers to understand and follow his way of thinking.

In the Conclusions sections, both RAs answer the questions or hypotheses previously stated. Furthermore they summarize what they have found and also suggest directions for future research. Particularly remarkable is the difference as regards the length of the conclusion sections; while De Angelantonio et al. (2010) devote just a nine-line paragraph to this section in his medical paper; Barrs (2010) organizes his conclusions in five paragraphs.

In the medicine article the authors limit themselves to state objectively and concisely the main findings whereas in the education paper the author not only points out main findings but also analyzes and reflects upon them. Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) use the present simple tense to show certainty about the statements; conversely, Barrs (2012) utilizes tentative language and modal verbs since in the education field it is not appropriate to show sureness about results and outcomes.

Overall both research articles from the two different fields, education and medicine, comply with certain norms required for the design of discussions, results and conclusions sections. The authors describe the situation in a clear and direct way, considering what is relevant to the topic, focusing on the objectives of the research. They provide the necessary explanations, considering the readers’ knowledge and give clear explanations of the literature reviewed as well as the illustrations presented; in this way, they account for the clarity and the reality principles applying for the conventions of proficient academic writing.

References

American Psychological Association (2007). Concise rules of APA style. Washington, DC: British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.

Barrs, K. (2012). Fostering computer- mediated L2 interaction beyond the classroom. Language Learning & Technology, 16 (1), 10-25. Retrieved April 2013 from:http://llt.msu.edu/issues/february2012/actionresearch.pdf

Di Angelantonio, E. ,Chowdhury, R., Sarwar, N., Aspelund, T., Danesh, J., & Gudnason, V. (2010). Chronic kidney disease and risk of major cardiovascular disease and non-vascular mortality: prospective population based cohort study. British Medical Journal, 341: c4986. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c4986.

          

          Swales, J. M.  (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings.(Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

 Swales, J. M., & Feak, C.B.  (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Harbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Welcome again!

Dear all,

I invite you to continue co-constructing knowledge and to keep on sharing experiences so as to reinforce and go on building up our discourse community. From now on I will share with you the analysis of research articles. I expect us to grow professionally together by sharing thoughts, suggestions and knowledge.

I am not alone in this path as I am accompanied by two awe-inspiring peer writers who give me constant support and encouragement. Patricia Furlano and Barbara Godoy are my closest discourse community members and I hope that all may be able to find people like them who provide invaluable help and company.  

Let’s continue growing as professionals, TO BELIEVE IS TO CREATE!

Warmly,

Ximena.

Bailey’s (2006) Book: Academic Writing. A Book Critique

Bailey (2006) defines his book Academic Writing: A handbook for International Students as a “practical and easy-to-use-guide to writing in English” (p.III). This notable work is intended for non-native students studying at colleges and universities, who need to write essays and reports for exams and coursework. To ensure that students’ writing skills meet the necessary academic standards is the purpose of the book.

The innovative book is divided mainly into four parts, namely The Writing Process, Elements of Writing, Accuracy in Writing and Writing Models, planned to cater for the variety of needs of “students of all subjects and levels” (Bailey, 2006, p. III). Information and practice on how to write and organize texts, how to develop writing skills such as the use of comparisons, articles; and models of types of writings needed, among other topics, are provided.

Bailey (2006) states that the book is “clearly organized into four parts…containing explanations, diagrams and practice exercises, for use in the classroom or self-study” (p.I). However, mainly the first part appears to be teacher-dependant, and then more explanations would have been more helpful for students at English-medium colleges and universities to be able to use the book by themselves. Had the author offered more explanations, examples and models at initial stages, the book would have been more appealing for the intended audience it was claimed to be for.

The original book is complemented by a system of cross-references designed to make easier for students to relate units together. Although it is argued that some topics are “organized alphabetically for easy access” (p.III), perhaps it is not practical as students need to jump from one part of the book to another constantly. Had Bailey (2006) organized topics in order of appearance, the work would have been more practical and easy-going as it was stated.

Academic writing also contains a writing tests section, exercises answers and sources. Especially noteworthy is the inclusion of exercises and tests with their respective answers for students to self-check their learning progress. Regarding sources, Bailey (2006) points out that no in-text citations are made throughout the book; yet, in the book students are taught to use references appropriately, either in the texts or at the end of them, to avoid plagiarism. Had the author cited adequately, he would have given more authority to his research.

On the whole, Bailey’s (2006) book allows international students to learn and to practice those academic writing skills which are most important for their studies, specifically conventions of style, referencing and layout.   With teacher guidance and organization of topics throughout different lessons, it seems to be a very interesting resource. However, Bailey’s (2006) book would have been more convincing for students studying by their own, if the author had included more explanations and models for further guidance as well as a clearer organization of cross-references. Had this been successfully accomplished, the book would have been a much more practical and easy-to-use-guide for international students. 

References

Bailey, S. (2006). Academic Writing: A handbook for international students. (2nd ed.). Taylor & Francis e-library. Retrieved from http://npu.edu.ua/!e-book/book/djvu/A/ii_kgpm_27.pdf

Annotated Bibliography: Stockwell’s (2012) Response to Ballance (2012).

Source: Stockwell, G. (2012). Working with constraints in mobile learning: A response to Ballance.  Language Learning & Technolog. 16 (3), 24-31. Retrieved from  http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2012/stockwell.pdf

In his article Stockwell (2012) response to Ballance’s (2012) commentary by explaining the vocabulary learning system described in Stockwell’s article in 2010 and the purpose of his research as regards the use of Mobile-assisted Language Learning (MALL) in the classroom as well as the design of the activities proposed.

Ballance’s (2012) claims that the nature of the activities were not appropriate to a functional exploitation of MALL, and that technology used has become obsolete by the time Stockwell’s research was finished. Considering these points Stockwell (2012) expresses that activities were carefully selected to suit the particular environment in which they would be used and that he focused on the technology available in that particular setting. 

Stockwell (2012) reports that to give students a wider exposure to the target language was the purpose of his research. He declares that “pedagogy must take a primary role” (Stockwell, 2012,p.30). He adds that students’ needs and preferences were of primary concern, so technology, vocabulary items and activities were selected to to suit the particular learning environment.

References

Ballance, O.J. (2012). Mobile language learning: More than just “the platform”. Language Learning & Technolog. 16 (3), 21-23. Retrieved from  http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2012/ballance.pdf

Stockwell, G. (2012). Working with constraints in mobile learning: A response to Ballance.  Language Learning & Technolog. 16 (3), 24-31. Retrieved from  http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2012/stockwell.pdf 

Ballance (2012) commentary on Stockwell’s (2010) article: Outline.

Purpose: To describe Ballance’s (2012) position towards Stockwell’s (2010) empirical research on the use of Mobile-assisted Language Learning (MALL) for vocabulary activities in classroom settings.

Audience: Second language teachers and students, educational and technological professionals. 

Thesis statement: According to Ballance (2012), Stockwell’s (2010) research does not give evidence of valid exploitation of MALL’s potential in classroom settings, not only because of the rapid pace of technological developments but also in terms of its scope.

I.  Stockwell’s (2010) findings have little relevance regarding the use of MALL.

a.       Rapid pace of technological innovations

b.      Pre-smart phones problems

i.            Internet access costs

ii.         Scrolling time

iii.       Small screens and keypads

c.       Smart-phones advantages

i.        Wi-fi connection

ii.      Touch screen

iii.    Applications integrated

d.       Longitudinal research benefits

II.   Activities presented do not much communicative MALL

a.  Pen and paper completion activities

b.  Mobile phone and PC platform were the same

  i.   Students’ platform choice

c.  “Dead time” (p.22) was not the previous focus of the research.

III.  Conclusion

a.  More evidence is needed to analyze the effect of MALL in classroom settings

  

References

Ballance, O.J. (2012). Mobile language learning: More than just “the platform”. Language Learning & Technology. 16 (3), 21-23. Retrieved from  http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2012/ballance.pdf

Stockwell, G. (2010). Using Mobile Phones for Vocabulary Activities: Examining the Effect of the Platform. Language Learning & Technology, 14(2), 95–110. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol14num2/stockwell.pdf 

A Wikipedia Project to Improve Academic Writing: An Academic Summary of Tardy’s (2010) Article

The issue that many undergraduate-level second language (L2) students do not posses good academic literacy skills is presented in “Writing for the World: Wikipedia as an Introduction to Academic Writing” (Tardy, 2010). Tardy (2010) states that a good way to help students acquire these skills is by introducing them in writing an article for the online encyclopedia Wikipedia (p.13).

According to Tardy (2010), for students to write academically, they should “adopt the styles and genres of academic discourse” (p. 12). A useful way to teach academic skills is through a genre-based approach (Hyland, 2007; cited in Tardy, 2010, p. 17) in which students are offered the possibility to analyze the characteristics of Wikipedia articles; such as their purpose, language and content.

By proposing students to write an article for Wikipedia and by guiding them through the process, they will acquire not only academic researching skills, appropriate forms of citation, paraphrasing and summarizing skills, technical terminology, grammatical patterns but also the style and genre of the field.

Tardy (2010) says that “in producing a text for Wikipedia, students gain a real sense of audience” (p. 18). Thus, they may be eager to publish their writings in a global site.  Besides, as anyone can edit papers online, peer feedback can be profitable to improve writing.  

To sum up, “Students can begin to develop academic literacy skills through small-scale research projects” (Tardy, 2010, p.18). The Wikipedia-writing project offers students the possibility to publish for a real and global audience; they move from within the classroom towards the outside world with plenty of tools to fit in the academic field.

References

Hyland, K. 2007. Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction.

Journal of Second Language Writing 16 (3): 148-64. as cited in Tardy, C. M.

(2010). Writing for the world: Wikipedia as an introduction to academic

writing. English Teaching Forum, 1, pp. 12-19, 27.

Tardy, C. M. (2010). Writing for the world: Wikipedia as an introduction to academic                       writing. English Teaching Forum, 1, pp. 12-19, 27.

Characterizing Discourse Community

So as to function effectively in a discourse community and to promote professional growth, members have to be acquainted with the specific use of speech and writing of this professional academic community. This paper focuses on defining the characteristics of discourse community, departing from Swales’ (1990) definition, looking for evidence to support it in different articles. He establishes six basic characteristics: common goals, participatory mechanisms, information exchange, community-specific genres, highly specialized terminology, and high general level of expertise.

Members of a discourse community share common goals as well as a high level of expertise (Swales, 1990). According to Kutz (1997), “its members have, over time, developed a common discourse that involves shared knowledge, common purposes, common relationships, and similar attitudes and values” (as cited in Kelly-Klesse, 2004 p. 2). Moreover people involved should possess a high level of knowledge to be recognized as an authorized writer by the group itself. Zito (1984) argues that “an author is granted a certain binding authority to his intended meaning; this is legitimated by academic credentials, professional associations, and the division of knowledge within the academy” (as cited in Kelly- Klesse, 2001, p. 3)

A discourse community holds some conventions for participatory mechanisms and information exchanges (Swales, 1990). The interchange of information and feedback among members encourages positive collaborative professional development. “A feeling of ownership and commitment through self-improvement allows ongoing teachers’ development to flourish” (Mycue, 2001; cited in Wenzlaff & Wieseman, 2004). Furthermore if teachers are immersed in a collaborative culture it will allow them to learn from one another as colleagues. Wenzlaff and Wieseman (2004) state that “for teacher learning to occur, teachers need opportunities to participate in professional communities that discuss learning theories, and various teacher materials and pedagogy” (p. 2). In the same way, Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles and LopezTorres (2003) argue that that “teachers function as resources for one another, providing each other with guidance and assistance on which to build new ideas” (p.5).

Member of these communities share community specific genres and highly specialized terminology. Kelly-Kleese (2004) also states that “In order to have their work deemed worthy, community college faculty and administrators must understand the convention of writing and the standards by which their work will be judged” (p.9).

In conclusion, Hoffman-Kipp et al., Kelly-Kleese, and Wenzlaff and Wieseman’s articles give evidence to support Swales’ (1990) characteristics of discourse communities. So it is important to consider these six basic characteristics, which are well-grounded in theory, when attempting to enter or to keep on in this particular professional community.

References 

Hoffman-Kipp, P., Artiles, A. J., & Lopez Torres, L. (2003). Beyond reflection: teacher

learning as praxis. Theory into Practice. Retrieved October 2007, from

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NQM/is_3_42/ai_108442653

 Kelly-Kleese, C. (2001). Editor’s Choice: An Open Memo to Community College Faculty  

and Administrators. Community College Review. Retrieved October 2007, from

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HCZ/is_1_29/ai_77481463

Kelly-Kleese, C. (2004). UCLA community college review: community college scholarship

and discourse. Community College Review. Retrieved October 2007, from

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HCZ/is_1_32/ai_n6361541

Wenzlaff, T. L., & Wieseman, K. C. (2004). Teachers Need Teachers To Grow.Teacher

Education Quarterly. Retrieved October 2007, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3960/is_200404/ai_n9349405

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.