Research Articles’ Results, Discussions and Conclusions Sections: An Analysis on General Patterns and Conventions

One of the principles of professional writing is the view of communication as the basis of human relations (Professional Writing Online, 2015).  Therefore, one of the most crucial moments in conducting research is the communication of the outcomes. This stage is of utmost importance since it makes effective the very goal of research: to contribute with the academic world. Research Articles (RA) must follow certain regulations to be accepted in academic communities. In order to comply with conventions writers must organize findings and their interpretations into different sections in their papers: Results, Discussion and Conclusions. Such stages might be dealt with separately or merged together, depending on the topic under investigation, the goals being pursued and the researchers’ style. It is the purpose of this paper to delve into the analysis of two Research Articles (RAs) belonging to the medical and educational disciplines respectively: “Designing and Evaluating an Interactive Multimedia Web-Based Simulation for Developing Nurses’ Competencies in Acute Nursing Care: Randomized Controlled Trial” written by Liaw, Wong, Chan, Ho JTY, Mordiffi, Ang, Goh, Ang (2015) and “Applying Communicative Approach in Teaching English as a Foreign Language: a Case Study of Pakistan” written by Ahmad, and Rao, (2013). Results, Discussion and Conclusions sections will be examined separately on each paper, and analyzed according to conventions for RA writing set by Swales’ (1994). This may also implicate identifying significant similarities and differences between them.

     The main findings of the research article are depicted in the Results section. Swales (1994) states that the results section should summarize the data with text, tables, and/or figures. Researchers do not present the raw data they collected but they use text to state the results of their study. This text should be logically ordered and then refer the reader to a table or figure where they can see the data, which allows the writer to present an overall pattern of results at a quick glance, as established by APA (2007). Results section generally does not include interpretation of the meaning of the outcomes.

In the medical article under analysis, the results section is isolated from the rest of the sections. The main findings are exposed through a text and a figure properly numbered and embedded in the passage. Such figure, which is  a multiple bar graph, depicts and emphasizes the differences between the experimental and control groups regarding their clinical performance in pre- and post-test stages, thus comparing data in two different stages of research for  the participants involved. There is a caption beneath the figure, but neither further explanation nor notes or legend following the caption are included, since the symbols used correspond to standard terms, which are, in turn, consistent with the ones used in the body of the paper . Moreover, the word “figure” and the number are not in italicized, which is one of the requirements for the formatting of tables and figures devised by APA (2007). As regards linguistic features, the use of past tense indicates the relation between the results presented and the hypothesis of the paper.

    In the educational RA, conversely, the Results section is embedded in the Methods section, under the heading “research methodology”. It follows the conventions as both descriptive language and past tense are used: “Some interviewees expressed their apprehension [...]” (Ahmad & Rao, 2013, p. 198). As mentioned above, the results section summarizes the data with text, tables, and/or figures. Tables are self-explanatory and highlight the information presented. Ahmad and Rao’s (2013) article presents tables which are correctly numbered but present italicizing problems. On the other hand, titles adequately explain the content of the tables but are not flush left with the table margin. As results are imbedded in the methods section, tables are accompanied by texts and not set in separate pages; not all tables columns and rows have headlines set in sentence caps. The authors followed regulations for empty cells, since they have left them blank. Ahmad and Rao (2013) did not use notes, possibly because the tables are immediately followed by explanations. Table headings are descriptive, brief and explanatory and follow APA guidelines except for their location and for they are in bold. In general terms, tables are consistent the along paper: with similar formats, titles, and headings, the same terminology. Any kind of illustration, except for tables, is considered a figure. Nevertheless, Ahmad and Rao (2013) did not include any kind of figure in their paper.

    The discussion section is characterized by portraying the interpretation of the outcomes introduced in the previous passage of the paper.  It might be fused with the conclusions section, or presented separately from it. In the case of the article written by Liaw et al. (2015), the discussion section appears alone as a separate section.  The first paragraph restates the main findings with reference to the hypotheses and reminds the reader of the overall purpose of the article: “This randomized controlled study provided evidence of the effectiveness of a Web-based simulation in improving hospital nurses’ acute care competencies [...]” (Liaw et al., 2015, Discussion section, para. 1).  As the passage is developed, the results are interpreted in the light of the literature reviewed for the study and reasons for the data patterns are established, as stated in the following excerpt: “Our findings are consistent with several previous studies that demonstrated the effectiveness of WBL in improving learning outcomes when compared with no intervention.”  (Liaw et al., 2015,  para. 4 )

 As opposed to general conventions, this section is not written using the present tense; instead, the past tense is employed, since the results presented are directly related to the hypotheses of the paper, and its literature review. Nevertheless, the conclusions passage, which is embedded in the aforementioned section, was written using the present tense in a few statements: “[...] This study provides evidence for the acceptance of this Web-based simulation for continuing nursing education among hospital nurses.[...]” and “[...] Nurse educators can use Web-based learning technology to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of educational intervention in the face of pedagogical challenges, especially those posed by mannequin-based simulation. [...]” (Liaw et al., 2015, Conclusions section, para. 1).  Another linguistic feature which is not found in this section is the use of modal verbs to indicate advice, or provide suggestions; this is done through the use of present passive voice: “[...] More research is needed [...]” (Liaw et al., 2015, Conclusions section, para. 1).  Moreover, the conclusion points to an aspect stated in the introduction:  the need to ensure the competency of all hospital nurses in acute nursing care for optimal patient care outcomes (Liaw et al., 2015, Conclusions section, para. 1) ; this aids the satisfactory completion of the article.

Ahmad and Rao’s (2013) educational RA displays the Conclusion in a separate section and, embedded on it, it is the Discussion as a subsection. Conclusions present a summary of the whole RA, and make reference to some point mentioned in the introduction. Accordingly, the introduction outlines: “The purpose of the study was to evaluate implementation of a CLT approach in teaching English in Pakistani schools and colleges at a higher secondary level where the Grammar Translation Method (GTM) has been used for long.” (Ahmad & Rao, 2013, p. 188) and it is restated in the conclusion as:  “[...] if provided with suitable conditions, Pakistani learners can increase their communicative ability. The use of the CLT approach has shown to increase motivation for learning.” (Ahmad & Rao, 2013, p. 202, para. 1). Serious academic writing avoids concluding paragraphs that begin with "In conclusion" or its equivalent. However, Ahmad and Rao (2013) did not observe the mentioned guideline for they used: “It can be concluded” (Ahmad & Rao, 2013) in the conclusion of their RA. Discussion sections can be compared to Results sections in that the latter depict a description of the outcomes while the discussion sections depict the interpretation of outcomes. One pattern generally followed in discussions is the set of the situation, the problem and then the suggestion of possible solutions. The first part of a discussion section generally serves the function of reaffirming the outcomes referring to the hypotheses and reminding the reader of the overall aim of the study. The educational RA in question does not follow this structure as Ahmad and Rao (2013) open the discussion with a new idea. The first part of the discussion reads: “Graduates with good communication skills are in a better position to explore new avenues in this highly economized society”(Ahmad & Rao, 2013, p. 202, para. 1). Discussions include suggestions or possible solutions. In order to signal possibility and advice for the possible solutions, it can be used “will” and “should” as in “The examination system should not focus only on writing skills” (Ahmad & Rao, 2013, p. 202, para. 3).  Discussion sections are descriptive in nature and thus use present tenses, seen in the educational RA in: “Further research is needed to explore techniques” (Ahmad & Rao, 2013, p. 202, para. 3).

    After a close scrutiny of results, discussions and conclusions sections of RAs from medical and educational fields, it might be stated that the conventions set for the production of academic articles are generally respected by the authors. These articles present differences as regards the arrangement of such sections which respond to the diversity of topics treated by each RA, as Swales & Feak (1994) assert. The presentation of the three sections in the RAs is done according to the writers’ ease to present the research outcomes. One of the differences between the medical and educational RAs is that whereas the former introduces the outcomes separately, the latter encloses them within the Methods section. Similarly, the Discussion and Conclusions passages are dealt with differently in each article:  while in the educational conclusions stand alone as a separate section, in the medical article it is embedded within the Discussion section. Another difference constitutes the representation and illustration of results; the educational RA uses only tables and the medical article employs just figures. Nevertheless, the compliance with regulations in the three preceding pieces clearly shows that there are also common features to be found between these RAs, regardless of the area of study they intend to contribute to.

References

   Ahmad, S., & Rao, C. (2013) Applying communicative approach in teaching English as a foreign language: a case study of Pakistan. Porta Linguarum, 20, 187-203.

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

   Liaw, Wong, Chan, Ho, Mordiffi, Ang, Goh  and Ang. (2015). Designing and evaluating an interactive multimedia web-based simulation for developing nurses’ competencies in acute nursing care: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res;17(1). Retrieved from: http://www.jmir.org/2015/1/e5/ May 10, 2015

    Professional Writing Online. (2015). Retrieved from: http://wps.pearsoncustom.com/pls_1256647969_pwo/217/55692/14257225.cw/index.html May 10, 2015

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

An Analysis of the Introduction Section in an Educational Research Article

 Research running begins with the identification of a knowledge gap in the researcher’s field of study which will determine not only the objectives and, in turn,  the type of research to be carried out, but also the communication manner of the resulting findings to the academic community, in order to gain acceptance and recognition. The introduction section plays an important part in the achievement of such aim. By organizing it into a general- specific manner, as established by Swales and Feak in their Create a Research Space Model (C.A.R.S) (1994, p. 174), the reader’s attention is compelled. On account of this, the present paper will analyze the introduction section in one Research Article (RA) from the education field “Supporting In-service Language Educators in Learning to Telecollaborate” written by O’ Dowd (2015), taking into account the aforementioned model, and delving into the examination of linguistic features that characterize the production of such section and the stages of the said model.

According to Swales and Feak (1994), the main feature of introductions is the realization of the three moves outlined by the C.A.R.S. model which go from the general state of affairs to the specific situation under study. These movements are: creating a research space by referring back to what has been done in the field, establishing the niche by stating the motivations for the study, and occupying the niche by stating the purpose of the current research. These three moves can be clearly identified in the RA written by O’Dowd (2015).  Move 1is presented in the first and second paragraphs by means of defining the term telecollaboration and how it evolved and was included in language teaching methodology: “In the literature on CALL, the term telecollaboration has been prevalent since the publication of Mark Warschauer’s “Telecollaboration and the language learner” almost two decades ago (1996).” (O’ Dowd, 2015, para. 1) The third paragraph begins with the indication of the gap in the previous research described in the preceding  paragraphs: “However, telecollaboration is undoubtedly one of the most complex aspects of CALL for in-service teachers to master due to the combination of organisational and pedagogical competences and technological skills […]” (O’ Dowd, 2015, para.3). The following paragraphs accomplish the third and last move by means of both a purposive and a descriptive statement:” With this in mind, this paper sets out to identify the challenges that in-service foreign language educators encounter when they undertake telecollaborative exchange projects with their learners. […]”  (O’ Dowd, 2015, para 4.); “These aims will be achieved in the following way: first, the paper carries out a review of sociocultural approaches to CALL teacher education and presents a model of telecollaborative competence which has been developed by this author (O’Dowd, 2013) to outline which competences teachers need in order to carry out telecollaborative exchanges. Following that, the paper looks at how this model of telecollaborative competence has been reflected in the UNICollaboration platform—an online platform designed to support telecollaboration at university level. […]” (O’ Dowd, 2015, para. 5).

Regarding linguistic features, each of the former moves present the use of different tenses, statements, connectors, and genres. The first move includes the present perfect to indicate that the study is of utmost importance: “The educational activity of engaging foreign language learners in online intercultural collaboration with partners in distant locations has gone under many different terms […]” (O’ Dowd, 2015, para.1). The selection of both present tenses responds to citation patterns: the author wants to refer to what has been found in the field. The establishment of the niche is realized by the use of the negative connector however, which begins the third paragraph. The third move includes a purposive statement to assert the purpose of the paper, and a descriptive statement to explain how the content is organized. The present tense is used to refer to the type of text and investigation.

In conclusion, the present paper has attempted to analyze the introduction section of an article in the education field, by applying the C.A.R.S. model (Swales and Feak, 1994). The three different moves stated in such model have been identified, together with the linguistic features that characterize them. This proves that the organization of such section responds to conventions that writers must follow in order to be respected in their academic communities, thus gaining the recognition of fellow researchers and contributing to their fields of study.

References

O’Dowd, R.  (2015). Supporting In-service Language Educators in Learning to Telecollaborate. Language Learning & Technology http://llt.msu.edu/issues/february2015/odowd.pdf

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

An Analysis of Introduction, Literature review and Methods Sections in Educational and Medical Research Articles

 According to Sampieri, Collado and Lucio (1998), research is defined as a systematic, empirical, controlled and critical activity which reaches its highest peak when the obtained outcomes are published. Research Articles (RA) may not only entail following conventions settled by the academic world but also adjusting to RA to purpose and audience. Writers from different fields “keeping audience's needs in mind will decide over the length, what kinds of data to include (tables, figures, general graphs, or pictures), how much to explain, what positions to defend and the visual sophistication required” (Professional Communication, 2015, para. 3).On account of this, the present paper will analyse the introduction, literature review and methods sections in one RA from the educational field "Research paper writing strategies of professional Japanese EFL writers" written by Matsumoto (1995), and another from another field “3D Patients Simulators and Their Impact on Learning Success: A Thematic Review”written by Kleinert R, Wahba R, Chang DH, Plum P, Hölscher AH, Stippel DL. (2015). Similarities and variations will be outlined in the aforementioned pieces.

 One of the most overriding sections in a RA is the introduction: it is the last written part and probably the most difficult one since it has to attract the readers’ attention. Create a Research Space (C.A.R.S.) is a model that describes a series of “moves” that writers follow in introductions, going from the general topic of discussion towards the specific situation under analysis. Each move is characterized by a number of semantic and syntactic features. In the first move authors create a research space, in the second they establish the reasons for the study, and finally they occupy the gap stating the purposes (Swales & Feak, 1994). After examining both articles, it can be stated that they do follow such model. On the one hand, in the article written by Matsumoto (1995) the research space is created through reference to related areas of inquiry, which is linguistically realised through the use of present perfect; also, the past tense is used to indicate what previous researchers did (paragraphs 1-3). The second move or niche comes to be established as a hypothesis “These studies seem not only to provide evidence for transfer [...] but also to suggest the possibility of"composing universals" [...]” (Matsumoto, 1995, p. 18). And finally, the purpose of the study is outlined in the fourth paragraph: “[...] this article was an attempt to explore and describe research paper writing behaviors and strategies of professional Japanese EFL writers” (Ibid), and in doing so the niche is occupied.

In the introduction of the medical RA, as opposed to the previously studied RA, no preceding studies are included or literature review is embedded in the section. Rather, the state of current knowledge is introduced by using present simple tense; the opening paragraph begins with a generalization mentioning the transfer of declarative knowledge into procedural performance in clinical education, and then, details are given about traditional vs. new educational strategies in clinical education. Introductions often include definitions of specific terms in order to make clear what the writer's main standpoint is. In the case of the second RA, the methods used to define 3D Immersive Patients Simulators are labelling, "new educational strategies" for instance, giving synonyms "skills labs or mannequin simulators" and lastly by direct definition "Web based IPSs are [...]" (Kleinert et al., 2015). The niche in this RA is established right in the first paragraph, 8th sentence, via negative connector however: “[...] however it is questionable whether this factor affects learner's outcome" (Ibid). The niche is occupied in the last paragraph, with a purposive statement “It was the aim of this statement” (Ibid). Two main aims are mentioned: “to give a thematic review of immersive patients simulators in virtual worlds (VWs) and to evaluate whether the use of these simulators has an impact on knowledge gain” (Ibid). On the other hand, sometimes embedded in the introduction, it can be found the literature review just as in Matsumoto’s RA from the first to the third paragraph, where he indicates what previous researchers did (Matsumoto, 1995, p. 17).  In the present analysis, the literature review is the section that is the main contrastive point between the two articles under discussion. Whereas it is embedded in the first move of the introduction in the educational article, in the medical article it is not included at all. A possibility for this may be the fact that the purpose of the medical RA is the very revision of the available literature.  

The second section found in RA is the methods section. Methods sections are mainly written following the principles of process paragraphs. This type of paragraphs shares a series of characteristics, like being clear and concise, and breaking the process into a series of related steps ordered in a chronological manner. Methods section constitutes the key similarity between both papers being studied. It is written under a tittle, method in the medical RA and methodology, in the educational composition. The heading is not centered in either piece. Both articles include three subsections (participants, materials and procedure) which are not explicitly signalled in both RA. In the article written by Matsumoto (1995) the participants were Japanese professors, whereas in the medical article the subjects were reviewers; materials, which are solely described in the paper written by Kleinert R et al. (2015) were articles from 1986 to 2014 on IPSs and eligibility assessment. As regards the procedure, it varies from contact establishing tools- “The informants were contacted directly by telephone [...]” (Matsumoto, 1995, p. 19), type of interviews carried out- “The interviews were semi structured, that is, although they centered around the five research questions stated above, the informants were given opportunities to provide freely any information concerning their writing habits and behaviors [...]” (Ibid) and data analysis in the educational work- “[...]qualitative analysis was done solely by listening to the tape and taking detailed notes [...]” (Ibid) to systematic search of literature in the medical passage- “[...] A systematic literature search via PubMed was performed using predefined inclusion criteria (i.e., virtual worlds, focus on education of medical students, validation testing) to identify all available simulators [...]” (Kleinert R et al., 2015). The tense used in methods section is past passive voice for the two articles. For instance: “IPSs were defined as digital environments” (Ibid), “the informants were contacted directly” (Matsumoto, 1995, p. 19).

In conclusion, the present paper has attempted to analyse the introduction, literature review and methods sections in two papers belonging to two different fields: medicine and education, providing evidence in the form of examples for each case, respectively. The contributions of Swales as regards Research Paper writing have been referred to as a framework for the study of RAs and their sections.The introduction follows the CARS model in both RA although each case presents slight differences on semantic and syntactic features. Authors have adhered to three moves' structure and layout in general terms. With reference to the methods section, it was written similarly in both cases; participants, materials and procedure subsections were included and the format in the title was used likewise. There is also a direct correspondece in linguistic elements, bbth RA using past passive voice in this section. Nevertheless, it s the literature review section that draws a crucial distinction between the RAs: while it can be found enclosed within the introduction in the educational paper, it is completely discarded in thr mrdical piece. All things considered, after the thorough exploration of the aforesaid papers, it can be stated that the format and content included in each RA indicate to be deliberately and profoundly shaped by the purpose to be served and the audience's needs. The common aspects in both pieces far outweigh the differences, fact that comes to prove the systematic character of research running and reporting.

---

References

Hernández Sampieri, R., Fernández Collado, C., & Baptista Lucio, P. (1998).          Metodología de la investigación. (2nd ed.). McGraw Hill: México.

Kleinert R., Wahba R., Chang DH, Plum P., Hölscher AH, Stippel DL. (2015). 3D Immersive patient simulators and their impact on learning success: a thematic review. J Med Internet Res 2015; 17(4):e91

Matsumoto, K. (1995). Research paper writing strategies of professional Japanese EFL writers. TESL Canada Journal,13 (1)

      

 Professional Communication. (2015). Retrieved from: wps.pearsoncustom.com/pls_1256647969_pwo/217/55689/1425653 8.cw/coSntent/index.html 19 April, 2

Swales, J. M., & Feak, C.B. (1994). Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Tasks and Skills. Ann Harbour, MI: The University of Michigan Press. 

Getting started.

Hello everyone and welcome to my blog, Pen in Hand.

First, let me intruduce myself. My name is Julieta Cabrera, I am 26 years old and I live in Quilmes, a big county in the province of Buenos Aires, Argentina. I work as a  remote teacher of English. I have been teaching for six years now, and I intend to do so for many more years, which is why I am taking a course in Language Teaching at CAECE University.

I decided to name this blog Pen in Hand because even though you will get to see what I write on this virtual space, it will most definitely start on a real sheet of paper, "old school" style.  Most of what you will read here will be related to my field of work, particularly in relation to the skill of WRITING, which I have always found quite difficult to approach, but undoubtedly enriching once the process is finished.

In this space you will find papers that have been written collaborativelly as integrative tasks of the different units studied for the course. 

I hope you find it interesting, useful or, at least, not a complete waste of you time. Feel free to leave your comments to help me improve.

Write you soon,

Julieta.