Allende Esp e Portfolio 2013

RUNNING HEAD: STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES 1
E-portfolio: Stepping Stones to Research A Collection of Tasks Carla B. Allende Centro de Altos Estudios en Ciencias Exactas (CAECE) carbelenallende_efl@hotmail.com
STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES
Outline: Stepping Stones to Research Articles Purpose: This outline is targeted to offer an overview of my tasks during an ESP for which I worked collaboratively in a wiki space. Each new version on the wiki gained more and more detailed analysis and degrees of accuracy. Audience: EFL teachers with ESP orientation. Thesis statement: this portfolio attempts to display the process undergone in describing and analyzing Research Articles (RA) from the medicine and educational field. I. Letter of Presentation II. Evaluating Global Characteristics of Research Articles a-Wiki version b-Draft c-Tutors feedback d-final version for the blog III. Results, Discussions and Conclusions in Professional Research Articles a-Wiki version b-Draft c-Tutors feedback d-final version for the blog IV. Abstracts Features in Education and Medicine a-Wiki version b-Draft c-Tutors feedback d-final version for the blog
V. Letter of introduction for the blog VI. References
Dear readers, I have compiled this portfolio as part of an assignment for the ESP course I am currently attending under the virtual fashion in CAECE University. Apart from merely complying with course requirements, this portfolio has become an excuse to reflect upon my own learning process in becoming a prospective researcher in EFL. Obtaining academic skills is essential in order to further a teachers career, which is essentially why I have started this course of studies. I am a twenty-nine-year old teacher who has worked in diverse institutions so far and who is keen on entering tertiary level education. Among other language teaching organizations, I worked in Asociacin Bahiense de Cultura Inglesa (A.B.C.I.) and Hospital Municipal Lenidas Lucero. Currently, I am working for UTN FRBB in an area which offers courses for the general public; then, in order to grow within this organization I must further my university studies. This portfolio has been prepared to collect three versions of tasks which had been assigned as part of an ESP course in CAECE. For this class, I have worked with two other peers: Alejandra Lacanna and Viviana Rodriguez. Each of us has contributed differently to the task; I believe we have gained knowledge both about ourselves and about peers contributions. This portfolio includes: my wiki groups first version, our first draft, the tutors comments and the final version for my blog for each of the three tasks. Broadly speaking, in the tasks we had to analyse and compare different features and parts in research articles (RAs) from medicine and education. This course has been challenging for me because I have an artistic background and orientation so following writing conventions, for example as regards citation, which are beyond writing in itself, has demanded me to : focus in APA manual, study and re-study rules and consult my peers for proof reading. Hence, writing collaboratively has aided my process in this regard; at the same time, I could reinforce my knowledge that I can contribute with sources and paragraph writing in itself. After this experience, I hope to continue learning in order to enter professional field. Warm regards, Prof. Carla Allende
Task 1: Wiki
Evaluating Global Characteristics of Research Articles Although academic writing papers share some overall characteristics, every field has its own genre as well as community conventions and requirements. Comparing research articles (RAs) offers an interesting opportunity to explore academic discourse strategies common to diverse fields. This paper aims to explore discursive similarities and differences in two articles belonging to two different fields, that is, educational and medicine ones. The sections analyzed within each paper shall be the introduction, the literature review and the methods sections respectively. The medicine paper belongs to Jrgensen, Zahl and Gtzsche (2010); the educational article has been written by Baralt, Pennestri and Selvandin (2011). Overall, the papers outlines are different, probably due to in-house specific requirements. As far as the introduction in each paper is concerned, Baralt et al. (2011) do not overtly express it, but it has been developed by means of a detailed explanation of what data visualization is as well as what Wordle (2009) means to research and education. Conversely, Jrgensen et al. 's (2010) article seems to have a clear introductory section where the three moves that characterize introductions are clearly established, that is, the writers create the needs to run the research and they also establish the reasons for their present study. As regards the tense choice, both articles use similar tenses to attain similar propositional aims. In the introduction to both articles the present perfect tense is used to show studies carried out so far. For instance, Baralt et al. (2011) state "Data visualization tools have recently generated increased interest..." (p. 1); and Jrgensen et al. (2010) assert "Comprehensive systematic reviews of randomised trials of mammography screening have estimated..." (p. 1). In short, this practice may be said to have had the desired effect of showing the utmost importance of the problems under study.
STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES Following Swales and Feak s (1994) "Creating A Research Space" (C.A.R.S.) model for
paper writing examination, three moves should be included in introductions of papers so as to capture readers' attention, and it is sensible to say that both papers successfully create research space by means of reviewing the current state of affairs of their object of study. While Jrgensen et al. (2010) present the effect research has had on prevention and by so doing, acknowledge the importance of carrying out continuous investigation on the subject, Baralt et al. (2011) directly open a new area of inquiry by introducing wordles in the field of EFL teaching. In addition, in Baralt et al. s (2011) paper, there is an expository excerpt within the introduction about Wordle (2009), a technological devise examined for use in the class. Conversely, there are no such clarifications in the other paper perhaps due to the chosen topics themselves. While the medicine article acutely reflects its quantitative nature, the educational one clearly shows its qualitative inclination. The former provides specific details concerning percentages and other quantitative information, such as statistical analyses in relation to changes in mortality trends and comparisons between regions and age groups. In the latter, it is explicitly stated from the very beginning that an action research project was carried out, and the qualitative evaluation of the main findings renders itself more philosophical than empirical. The two diverse natures of the articles are reflected throughout the papers but specifically in the methods sections; the article by Jrgensen et al. (2010) openly delimits it after the introduction to the paper, whereas the article by Baralt et al. (2011) does not explicitly state it, although it can be perfectly located in the description of the classroom context and the steps taken during the research project. All in all, once a thorough exploration of both articles has been carried out, it can be concluded that although the two articles belong to completely different fields - the education and medicine ones - they share some general characteristics as far as discourse organization is
concerned. Thus, both articles contain an introduction, where the importance of their research is weighed, a relevant literature review section where the state of the arts with respect to their objects of study is discussed, and an accurately depicted methods section, where the details concerning the context in which their research has been carried out are stated as well as described. In other words, these papers differ mainly in their nature; while Baralt et al.'s (2011) paper offers their audience more qualitative data by means of an action research project, Jrgensen et al.'s (2010) article provides the scientific field with a rigorous study in which exact as well as accurate information is qantitatively explored and thoroughly examined.
STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES References Baralt, M., Pennestri, S., & Selvandin, M. (2011) Action research: using wordles to teach
foreign language writing. Language Learning and Technology. 15 (2), 12-22. Retrieved April 2013, from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2011/actionresearch.pdf Jrgensen, K., Zahl, P-H., & Gtzsche, P. (2010) Breast cancer mortality in organized mammography screening in Denmark: comparative study. BMJ Online First. Retrieved April 2013, from http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c1241 Swales, J.M., & Feak, C.B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Harbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES Final version (Wiki): Comparative Research Papers Analysis Although academic writing papers share some overall characteristics, every field has its
own genre as well as community conventions and requirements. Comparing research articles (RAs) offers an interesting opportunity to explore academic discourse strategies common to diverse fields. This paper aims to explore discursive similarities and differences in two articles belonging to two different fields, that is, educational and medicine ones. The sections analyzed within each paper shall be the introduction, the literature review and the methods sections respectively. The medicine paper is titled "Breast Cancer Mortality in Organised Mammography Screening in Denmark: Comparative Study", (Jrgensen, Zahl & Gtzsche 2010); the educational article is called "Action Research: Using Wordles to Teach Foreign Language Writing", (Baralt, Pennestri & Selvandin 2011). Overall, the papers outlines are different, probably due to in-house specific requirements. As far as the introduction is concerned, although in Baralt et al. (2011) it is not overtly delimited, it has been developed by means of a detailed explanation of what data visualization is as well as what Wordle means to research and education. On the other hand, Jrgensen et al. 's (2009) article has a clear introductory section where the three moves that characterize introductions are clearly established, that is, the writers create the needs to run the research and they also establish the reasons for their present study. As regards the tense choice, both articles use similar tenses to attain similar propositional aims. In the introduction to both articles the present perfect tense is used to show studies carried out so far. For instance, Barat et al. (2011) state "Data visualization tools have recently generated increased interest..." (p. 1); and Jrgensen et al. (2010) assert "Comprehensive systematic reviews of randomised trials of mammography screening have
STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES estimated..." (p. 1). In short, this practice has the desired effect of showing the utmost importance of the problems under study.
10
Following Swales and Feak s (1994) "Creating A Research Space" (C.A.R.S.) model for paper writing analysis, it would be fair to say that both papers successfully create research space by means of reviewing the current state of affairs of their object of study. While Jrgensen et al. (2010) present the effect research has had on prevention and by so doing, acknowledge the importance of carrying out continuous investigation on the subject, Barat et. al. (2011) directly opens a new area of inquiry by introducing wordles in the field of EFL teaching. In addition, in Baralt et al. s (2011) paper, there is an expository excerpt within the introduction about Wordle, a technological devise examined for use in the class. Conversely, there are no such clarifications in the other paper perhaps due to the chosen topics themselves. While the medicine article clearly reflects its quantitative nature, the educational one clearly shows its qualitative inclination. The former provides specific details concerning percentages and other quantitative information, such as statistical analyses in relation to changes in mortality trends and comparisons between regions and age groups. In the latter, it is explicitly stated from the very beginning that an action research project was carried out, and the qualitative evaluation of the main findings renders itself more philosophical than empirical. The two diverse natures of the articles are reflected throughout the papers but specifically in the methods sections; the article by Jrgensen et al. (2010) openly delimits it after the introduction to the paper, whereas the article by Baralt et al. (2011) does not explicitly state it, although it can be perfectly located in the description of the classroom context and the steps taken during the research project.
STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES All in all, once a thorough analysis of both articles has been carried out, it can be
11
concluded that although the two articles belong to completely different fields, education and medicine, they share some general characteristics as far as discourse organization is concerned. Both articles contain an introduction, where the importance of their research is weighed, a relevant literature review section, and a methods section. These papers differ mainly in their nature, while Baralt et al. (2011) offers more qualitative data, the other provides readers with quantitative information.
12
foreign language writing. Language Learning and Technology. 15 (2), 12-22. Retrieved April 2013, from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2011/actionresearch.pdf Jrgensen, K., Zahl, P-H., & Gtzsche, P. (2010) Breast cancer mortality in organized mammography screening in Denmark: comparative study. BMJ Online First. Retrieved April, 2013, from http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c1241 Swales, J.M., & Feak, C.B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Harbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES ESP - Unit 2 Task 1 Draft 1 Allende, Lacanna & Rodriguez (group 4) Two Different Fields: Discourse Analysis
13
Although academic writing papers share some overall characteristics, every field has its genre and community conventions. Comparing research articles (RAs) offers and interesting opportunity to explore academic discursive strategies common to diverse fields. This paper aims to explore discursive similarities and differences in two articles of two different fields, that is, educational and medicine ones. The sections analyzed within each paper shall be the introduction, the literature review and the methods. Development Overally, the papers outline is different probably due to in-house requirements. Although in Baralt, Pennestri & Selvandin (2011) the introduction is not overtly delimited, it has been developed by means of a detailed explanation of what data visualization is as well as what Jonathan Feinbergs 2013) Wordle means to research and education. On the other hand, Jorgenzen et al's (2009) article presents a clear introduction where the three moves that introductions comprise are clearly established, that is, the writers create the needs to run the research and they also establish the reasons for their present study. As regards the tense choice, both articles use similar tenses to attain similar propositional aims. In the introduction to both articles present perfect is used to show studies carried out so far, for example, "Data visualization tools have recently generated increased interest..." Barat et. al.(2011) p. 1 and "Comprehensive systematic reviews of randomised trials of mammography screening have estimated..." Jrgensen et. al. (2009) ; this practice produces the desired effect of showing the utmost importance of the subjects under study.
14
Swales and Feaks (1994) created the C.A.R.S. model for writing introductions to papers; the three basic steps include establishing the territory, establishing a niche and occupaying this niche. Each moves involves different purposes; in the first one the writer intends to broadly sketch out the subject of the paper. In the next step, the writer inscribes the discussion within a certain school of thought or absolutely outside certain research traditions; finally, the discursive space previously generated is occupied. Within this model, both papers successfully create research space by means of reviewing the current state of affairs of their object of study. While Jorgesen et. al. presents the effect research has had on prevention and by so doing, acknowledge the import of carrying out continuous investigation on the subject, Barat et. al. directly open a new area of inquiry by introducing wordles in the field of EFL teaching. In Baralt et al. (2011) there is an expository excerpt within the introduction about Wordle, a technological devise examined for use in the class. There are no such clarifications in the other paper perhaps due to the chosen topics themselves. While the medicine article acutely reflects its quantitative nature, the educational one clearly shows its qualitative inclination. The former provides specific details concerning percentages and other quantitative information, such as statistical analyses in relation to changes in mortality trends and comparisons between regions and age groups. In the latter it is explicitly stated from the very beginning that an action research project was carried out and the evaluation and discussion renders itself more philosophical than empirical. These two diverse natures are reflected throughout the papers but specifically in the methods sections; the article by Jorgensen et al. (2010) openly delimits it after the introduction to the paper, whereas the article by Baralt et al. (2011) does not explicitly state it although it can be
STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES perfectly located in the description of the classroom context and the steps taken during the research project.
15
Conclusion Once a thorough description of both articles have been carried out, it can be concluded that though the two articles belong to completely different fields, education and medicine, they share some general characteristics as far as discourse organisation is concerned; both articles contain an introduction, where their importance is weighted, a relevant literature review section and a methods section. These papers differ mainly in their nature, while Baralt et al. (2011) offers more qualitative data, the other provides readers with quantitative one.
16
foreign language writing. Language Learning and Technology. 15 (2), 12-22. Retrieved April 2013, from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2011/actionresearch.pdf Jonathan Feinberg, 2013. Wordle. Word Clouds. Jorgensen, K., Zahl, P-H., & Gotzsche, P. (2010) Breast cancer mortality in organized mammography screening in Denmark: comparative study. BMJ Online First. Retrieved April, 2013, from http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c1241 Swales, J.M., & Feak, C.B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Harbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
17
Draft
Comparative Research Papers Analysis Although academic writing papers share some overall characteristics, every field has its own genre as well as community conventions and requirements. Comparing research articles (RAs) offers an interesting opportunity to explore academic discourse strategies common to diverse fields. This paper aims to explore discursive similarities and differences in two articles belonging to two different fields, that is, educational and medicine ones. The sections analyzed within each paper shall be the introduction, the literature review and the methods sections respectively. The medicine paper is titled "Breast Cancer Mortality in Organised Mammography Screening in Denmark: Comparative Study", (Jrgensen, Zahl & Gtzsche 2010); the educational article is called "Action Research: Using Wordles to Teach Foreign Language Writing", (Baralt, Pennestri & Selvandin 2011). Overall, the papers outlines are different, probably due to in-house specific requirements. As far as the introduction is concerned, although in Baralt et al. (2011) it is not overtly delimited, it has been developed by means of a detailed explanation of what data visualization is as well as what Wordle means to research and education. On the other hand, Jrgensen et al. 's (2009) article has a clear introductory section where the three moves that characterize introductions are clearly established, that is, the writers create the needs to run the research and they also establish the reasons for their present study. As regards the tense choice, both articles use similar tenses to attain similar propositional aims. In the introduction to both articles the present perfect tense is used to show studies carried out so far. For instance, Barat et al. (2011) state "Data visualization tools have recently generated increased interest..." (p. 1); and Jrgensen et al. (2010) assert
18
"Comprehensive systematic reviews of randomised trials of mammography screening have estimated..." (p. 1). In short, this practice has the desired effect of showing the utmost importance of the problems under study. Following Swales and Feak s (1994) "Creating A Research Space" (C.A.R.S.) model for paper writing analysis, it would be fair to say that both papers successfully create research space by means of reviewing the current state of affairs of their object of study. While Jrgensen et al. (2010) present the effect research has had on prevention and by so doing, acknowledge the importance of carrying out continuous investigation on the subject, Barat et. al. (2011) directly open a new area of inquiry by introducing wordles in the field of EFL teaching. In addition, in Baralt et al. s (2011) paper, there is an expository excerpt within the introduction about Wordle, a technological devise examined for use in the class. Conversely, there are no such clarifications in the other paper perhaps due to the chosen topics themselves. While the medicine article clearly reflects its quantitative nature, the educational one clearly shows its qualitative inclination. The former provides specific details concerning percentages and other quantitative information, such as statistical analyses in relation to changes in mortality trends and comparisons between regions and age groups. In the latter, it is explicitly stated from the very beginning that an action research project was carried out, and the qualitative evaluation of the main findings renders itself more philosophical than empirical. The two diverse natures of the articles are reflected throughout the papers but specifically in the methods sections; the article by Jrgensen et al. (2010) openly delimits it after the introduction to the paper, whereas the article by Baralt et al. (2011) does not explicitly state it, although it can be perfectly located in the description of the classroom context and the steps taken during the research project.
STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES All in all, once a thorough analysis of both articles has been carried out, it can be
19
concluded that although the two articles belong to completely different fields, education and medicine, they share some general characteristics as far as discourse organization is concerned. Both articles contain an introduction, where the importance of their research is weighed, a relevant literature review section, and a methods section. These papers differ mainly in their nature, while Baralt et al. (2011) offers more qualitative data, the other provides readers with quantitative information.
STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES References Baralt, M., Pennestri, S., & Selvandin, M. (2011) Action research: using
20
wordles to teach foreign language writing. Language Learning and Technology. 15 (2), 12-22. Retrieved April 2013, from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2011/actionresearch.pdf Jrgensen, K., Zahl, P-H., & Gtzsche, P. (2010) Breast cancer mortality in organized mammography screening in Denmark: comparative study. BMJ Online First. Retrieved April, 2013, from http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c1241 Swales, J.M., & Feak, C.B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Harbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
21
Tutors feedback
Comparative Research Papers Analysis Although academic writing papers share some overall characteristics, every field has its own genre as well as community conventions and requirements. Comparing research articles (RAs) offers an interesting opportunity to explore academic discourse strategies common to diverse fields. This paper aims to explore discursive similarities and differences in two articles belonging to two different fields, that is, educational and medicine ones. The sections analyzed within each paper shall be the introduction, the literature review and the methods sections respectively. The medicine paper is titled "Breast Cancer Mortality in Organised Mammography Screening in Denmark: Comparative Study", (Jrgensen, Zahl & Gtzsche 2010); the educational article is called "Action Research: Using Wordles to Teach Foreign Language Writing", (Baralt, Pennestri & Selvandin 2011). Overall, the papers outlines are different, probably due to in-house specific requirements. As far as the introduction is concerned, although in Baralt et al. (2011) it is not overtly delimited, it has been developed by means of a detailed explanation of what data visualization is as well as what Wordle means to research and education. On the other hand, Jrgensen et al. 's (2009) article has a clear introductory section where the three moves that characterize introductions are clearly established, that is, the writers create the needs to run the research and they also establish the reasons for their present study. As regards the tense choice, both articles use similar tenses to attain similar propositional aims. In the introduction to both articles the present perfect tense is used to show studies carried out so far. For instance, Barat et al. (2011) state "Data visualization tools have recently generated increased interest..." (p. 1); and Jrgensen et al. (2010) assert
22
"Comprehensive systematic reviews of randomised trials of mammography screening have estimated..." (p. 1). In short, this practice has the desired effect of showing the utmost importance of the problems under study. Following Swales and Feak s (1994) "Creating A Research Space" (C.A.R.S.) model for paper writing analysis, it would be fair to say that both papers successfully create research space by means of reviewing the current state of affairs of their object of study. While Jrgensen et al. (2010) present the effect research has had on prevention and by so doing, acknowledge the importance of carrying out continuous investigation on the subject, Barat et. al. (2011) directly opens a new area of inquiry by introducing wordles in the field of EFL teaching. In addition, in Baralt et al. s (2011) paper, there is an expository excerpt within the introduction about Wordle, a technological devise examined for use in the class. Conversely, there are no such clarifications in the other paper perhaps due to the chosen topics themselves. While the medicine article clearly reflects its quantitative nature, the educational one clearly shows its qualitative inclination. The former provides specific details concerning percentages and other quantitative information, such as statistical analyses in relation to changes in mortality trends and comparisons between regions and age groups. In the latter, it is explicitly stated from the very beginning that an action research project was carried out, and the qualitative evaluation of the main findings renders itself more philosophical than empirical. The two diverse natures of the articles are reflected throughout the papers but specifically in the methods sections; the article by Jrgensen et al. (2010) openly delimits it after the introduction to the paper, whereas the article by Baralt et al. (2011) does not explicitly state it, although it can be perfectly located in the description of the classroom context and the steps taken during the research project.
23
All in all, once a thorough analysis of both articles has been carried out, it can be concluded that although the two articles belong to completely different fields, education and medicine, they share some general characteristics as far as discourse organization is concerned. Both articles contain an introduction, where the importance of their research is weighed, a relevant literature review section, and a methods section. These papers differ mainly in their nature, while Baralt et al. (2011) offers more qualitative data, the other provides readers with quantitative information.
STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES References
24
Baralt, M., Pennestri, S., & Selvandin, M. (2011) Action research: using wordles to teach foreign language writing. Language Learning and Technology. 15 (2), 12-22. Retrieved April 2013, from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2011/actionresearch.pdf Jrgensen, K., Zahl, P-H., & Gtzsche, P. (2010) Breast cancer mortality in organized mammography screening in Denmark: comparative study. BMJ Online First. Retrieved April, 2013, from http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c1241 Swales, J.M., & Feak, C.B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Harbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
25
Papers Analysis (APA 6th ed)

Name and Surname: Topic:
Draft # Date:
Dimension LAYOUT 1
No headers, no page numbers, no clear margins. Spacing problems. Inappropriate font.
Title:
Criteria 2
No Header included. Page numbers absence. Spacing problems.
Points 3 4
Clear papers presentation. There are page numbers. Respected margins. Correct spacing and type & size of font. 1.5 or double interlining. Included. Precise info is given. Well balanced.
(5 to 20)
Header and page numbers included. Spacing problems. Inappropriate font.
Format
Header
Not included.
Included. Too much information. Or some info missing.
Included. Not well balanced.
Main Title
Not included.
Included. Not suitable. Underlined, highlighted or italicized.
Included. Appealing. Underlined, highlighted or italicized.
2
Included. Appealing. Centered. Upper & lower cases. Sources cited clearly in a reference list at the end of the paper. APA style.
Not mentioned. References Plagiarism.
Mentioned vaguely. Not on a new sheet of paper.

Not clear use of references or erroneous sources acknowledgement
Not clear use of references or erroneous sources acknowledgement.
3
Not included. In-text citations Plagiarism. Little use of intext citations. Incorrect use of required style. Included. Not well balanced. Repeated pattern. (e.g. too many quotes, only paraphrasing, etc). Included. Well balanced. Different techniques applied. It is read smoothly. th APA 6 ed. applied.
CONTENT
(10 to 40)

Not clear analysis. Relationships & comparisons cannot be followed. Too descriptive.
Brief. Not substantial. Some connections can be followed. Too descriptive. Clear. Good analysis. No evidence presented. Inversion. Hedging. Conditionals.
26 3
Data analysis
Very good. Clear analysis. Comparisons can be established. Evidence is provided. Inversion. Hedging & conditionals. Legible terminology. New terms clarification. Effective vocabulary. Good use of connectors. Academic style. All words are spelled correctly.
Difficult to follow. Not understandable. Imprecise language. Terminology/ Word choice No acronyms clarification. Full of errors. Unreadable. Spelling Sentence variety Many sentence fragments. Same pattern and length. Vague ideas. Long & confusing intro. Unrelated development. Blurred conclusion.
Inappropriate terminology. Little clarification. Some terms are not academic.
Legible terminology. Clarification. More academic style. Effective.
Many errors. Some parts unreadable.

Some sentence fragments. Same pattern & length.
Few errors. Readable.
Most sentences are complete and varied in pattern & length. Connected ideas. Clear purpose. Marked transitions. One of the three parts is not clear or too long.
Complete sentences in a variety of patterns and lengths.
Organization
Some ideas connected to each other. Purpose established. No transitions. Main point presented. Two of the three parts are not clear or too long.
Connected ideas: supporting the main topic. Clear and concise introduction. Clear development: good clarification of major points. Clear conclusion.
Punctuation
Frequent and major errors that obscure meaning.
Some frequent or major errors: Readers confusion.
A few errors.
No punctuation errors.
Paragraph content & paragraph length
Not balanced: too long & too short paragraphs are
Some paragraphs relate to the topic. Not balanced: too long or too short paragraphs are
Most paragraphs are related to the topic. Well
Paragraph length has been respected & achieved.

presented.
presented.
27
balanced.
Smooth. Clear and precise.
Grammar
Grammar choices are confusing. Mixture of tenses.
Some grammar mistakes. Grammar choices sometimes confuse the readers.
Appropriate grammar choice. No meaning interference.
Completely appropriate grammar choice: Help readers understand meaning.
Details
No or little details (such as explanations, examples, etc) to support & explain the topic.
Some accurate details. Do not always support topic.
Accurate info that supports the topic.
Accurate and relevant info that fully support the topic.
Tone & audience
Unclear & inappropriate tone. Audience not considered.
Inconsistent tone. Incomplete idea of audience.
Appropriate tone. Audience is considered.
Appropriate & consistent tone. Audience correctly identified.
Total
Comments: Dear girls, Well done! You are on the right track. Work on our comments in the wiki for Task 1 and prepare a final version for your blogs. Remember you have to update your blogs to clarify you are working collaboratively. Your mark is 8 (eight). Kindly, Yanina
28
Final version for the blog Evaluating Global Characteristics of Research Articles Although academic writing papers share some overall characteristics, every field has its own genre as well as community conventions and requirements. Comparing research articles (RAs) offers an interesting opportunity to explore academic discourse strategies common to diverse fields. This paper aims to explore discursive similarities and differences in two articles belonging to two different fields, that is, educational and medicine ones. The sections analyzed within each paper shall be the introduction, the literature review and the methods sections respectively. The medicine paper belongs to Jrgensen, Zahl and Gtzsche (2010); the educational article has been written by Baralt, Pennestri and Selvandin (2011). Overall, the papers outlines are different, probably due to in-house specific requirements. As far as the introduction in each paper is concerned, Baralt et al. (2011) do not overtly express it, but it has been developed by means of a detailed explanation of what data visualization is as well as what Wordle (2009) means to research and education. Conversely, Jrgensen et al. 's (2010) article seems to have a clear introductory section where the three moves that characterize introductions are clearly established, that is, the writers create the needs to run the research and they also establish the reasons for their present study. As regards the tense choice, both articles use similar tenses to attain similar propositional aims. In the introduction to both articles, the present perfect tense is used to show studies carried out so far. For instance, Baralt et al. (2011) state "Data visualization tools have recently generated increased interest..." (p. 1); and Jrgensen et al. (2010) assert "Comprehensive systematic reviews of randomised trials of mammography screening have estimated..." (p. 1). In short, this practice may be said to have had the desired effect of showing the utmost importance of the problems under study. Following Swales and Feak s (1994) "Creating A Research Space" (C.A.R.S.) model for paper writing examination, three moves should be included in introductions of papers so as to capture readers' attention, and it is sensible to say that both papers successfully create research space by means of reviewing the current state of affairs of their object of study. While Jrgensen et al. (2010) present the effect research has had on prevention and by so doing, acknowledge the importance of carrying out continuous investigation on the subject, Baralt et al. (2011) directly
29
open a new area of inquiry by introducing wordles in the field of EFL teaching. In addition, in Baralt et al. s (2011) paper, there is an expository excerpt within the introduction about Wordle (2009), a technological devise examined for use in the class. Conversely, there are no such clarifications in the other paper perhaps due to the chosen topics themselves. While the medicine article acutely reflects its quantitative nature, the educational one clearly shows its qualitative inclination. The former provides specific details concerning percentages and other quantitative information, such as statistical analyses in relation to changes in mortality trends and comparisons between regions and age groups. In the latter, it is explicitly stated from the very beginning that an action research project was carried out, and the qualitative evaluation of the main findings renders itself more philosophical than empirical. The two diverse natures of the articles are reflected throughout the papers but specifically in the methods sections; the article by Jrgensen et al. (2010) openly delimits it after the introduction to the paper, whereas the article by Baralt et al. (2011) does not explicitly state it, although it can be perfectly located in the description of the classroom context and the steps taken during the research project. All in all, once a thorough exploration of both articles has been carried out, it can be concluded that although the two articles belong to completely different fields - the education and medicine ones - they share some general characteristics as far as discourse organization is concerned. Thus, both articles contain an introduction, where the importance of their research is weighed, a relevant literature review section, where the state of the arts with respect to their objects of study is discussed, and an accurately depicted methods section, where the details concerning the context in which their research has been carried out are stated as well as described. In other words, these papers differ mainly in their nature; while Baralt et al.'s (2011) paper offers its audience more qualitative data by means of an action research project, Jrgensen et al.'s (2010) article provides the scientific field with a rigorous study in which exact as well as accurate information is quantitatively explored and thoroughly examined.
30
References
Baralt, M., Pennestri, S., & Selvandin, M. (2011) Action research: using wordles to teach foreign language writing. Language Learning and Technology. 15 (2), 12-22. Retrieved April 2013, from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2011/actionresearch.pdf Jrgensen, K., Zahl, P-H., & Gtzsche, P. (2010) Breast cancer mortality in organized mammography screening in Denmark: comparative study. BMJ Online First. Retrieved April 2013, from http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c1241 Swales, J.M., & Feak, C.B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Harbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
31
Wiki
Results, Discussions and Conclusions in Professional Research Articles Research Articles (RAs) writing is of vital importance in every professional field. Consequently, a deep analysis of diverse papers components may render itself useful both to explore thorough investigations as such, and to aid prospective RAs writers when dealing with discursive structure. The present papers deliberate intention is to analyze and compare three sections of two RAs, that is, Results, Discussions and Conclusions. The selected papers belong to different fields, the medicine and the education ones. The article written by Barrs (2012) specifically deals with the challenge of "how to maximise target language interaction both inside and outside of the classroom, mainly with the aid of "digital technologies" (p.10). Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) are the authors of the medical article, and their cohort studys main objective is to quantify associations of chronic kidney disease stages with major cardiovascular disease and non-vascular mortality in the general adult population (p. 1). First and foremost, the very nature of these papers studies is utterly different; while Barrs (2012) epitomizes an experimental report, fostering as it does changes in practicum, Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) present an interventional clinical study defined by Chapman and Hall (as cited in Rhrig et al., 2009, p. 3) as "...The aim of an interventional clinical study is to compare treatment procedures within a patient population, which should exhibit as few as possible internal differences, apart from the treatment." Besides, ethical issues related to randomization of data in order to avoid bias in results are much more regulated by law in the medicine field. Moreover, the medicine paper activates a specialists schemata in order to respond cooperatively to it, whereas Barrs (2012) research does not demand such a specialists understanding. Medicine papers, in general, present a high degree of
32
nominalization; the educational field, in turn, demands more narrative because the discussions seem to be more philosophical than otherwise. In relation to the three moves meant to be found in introductions to Research Articles (RAs) or Research Papers (RPs), Swales and Feak (1994) present the Create a Research Space Model, according to which the three portions of text within the introductory paragraphs to the topic of study should be clearly grasped by readers. These cycles have the purpose of creating a research space, in other words, of showing the relevance of the research carried out, presenting what other researchers have done in the field so far, establishing a niche or gap in previous research, and finally occupying this niche, where the nature and purpose of the study should be stated. To exemplify, Barrs (2012) article expresses the gap in previous research by means of an inversion statement, followed by the introductory negative connector However (p. 11); in the case of Di Angelantonio et al.s (2010) paper, the niche is established by the negative connector However (p. 1), followed by an extended definition of what the difficulty in previous studies has been so far. Both Research Papers (RPs) include the Results section within a separate set of paragraphs; this aids the reader in his or her scanning of the text. Besides, the hitherto mentioned section offers the audience useful information to evaluate the investigation. The data are presented not only in the text, but also through the use of tables and figures, as it is usually the case with RPs. According to the American Psychologica l Association, tables and figures enable authors to present a large amount of information and to make their data more comprehensible (APA, 2010, p. 125). More precisely, APA (2010) asserts that tables should be integrated within the text, but they should be designed in such a way that they can be understood on their own. As regards the use of figures in papers, APA (2010) declares, If the figure does not add substantively to the understanding of the paper or duplicates other elements of the paper, it sho uld not be included (p.160).
STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES Admittedly, while Barrs (2012) seems to employ mainly tables, Di Angelantonio et al.
33
(2010) use tables as well as figures. Indeed, Barrs' (2012) tables are appropriately numbered and they have an individual, italicized title including each word capitalized. Equally, Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) include figures which are equitably numbered, and they all include a title with a legend and caption giving enough explanations to offer the readers the opportunity to estimate results. Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) make use of these tools to accurately represent the data collected, and by so doing, they acutely reflect the quantitative nature of their study. In the case of Barrs (2012), the author has included eight tables as well as some examples of exchanges in his papers Results section. For instance, there is a sample three-part interaction exchange, a single initiation-reply example, and an excerpt of a continued threaded discussion. Di Angelantonio et al.s (2010) paper has a separate Discussions section, whereas the article by Barrs (2012) contains two sub-sections devoted to analysis and reflection. For instance, in its first period of action research, there is a Reflection section where the data collected have been thoroughly analyzed and reflected upon. Moreover, in the second period of action research, Barrs (2012) presents a detailed reflection of its main findings. In brief, the medicine article by Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) has a separate main Discussions section where there is a detailed interpretation of the outcomes of their research, whereas the education article by Barrs (2012) has its two periods of action research with their corresponding interpretation of outcomes embedded in them. Additionally, an overall evaluation of the exploration which has already been conducted is done in order to establish future research actions. Modals verbs are mostly used to signal possibility and advice respectively. On average, multiple comprehensive RAs features were deeply considered so as to have a better overview of papers whose main function is to provide data corresponding to distinctive
34
fields. Basic distinctions have to do with subject-dependant characteristics like nominalization in medicine papers, and with the different nature of the aims of the research under study. By and large, in spite of the fact that Barrs (2012) article presents statistical data, the qualitative nature inherent in the action research that guided the study may make its results not generalisable to large populations, but just applicable to certain specific and reduced contexts. While Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) explain the potential limitations of their study, Barrs (2012) asserts that gathering data in such an investigation may result extraordinarily difficult, given the conditions under which the action research project was carried out. Ultimately, Barrs (2012) and Di Angelantonio (2010) give emphasis to the necessity of exploring new and valuable areas of inquiry that have emerged as a consequence of their present studies. Therefore, both papers contributions to each field should not be underestimated but highly valued.
35
American Psychological Association (2010). Publication Manual (6th ed.). Washington, DC: British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data. Barrs, K. (2012). Action research: Fostering computer-mediated L2 interaction beyond the classroom. Language Learning and 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. and Gudnason, V. (2010). Chronic kidney disease and risk of major cardiovascular disease and non-vascular mortality: prospective population cohort study. BMJ Online First. doi:10.1136/bmj.c4986 Retrieved April 2013, from http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c4986.pdf%2Bhtml Rhrig, B., Prell, J. d, Wachtlin, D. and Blettner, M. (2009). Types of study in medical research. Part 3 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications. Aerzteblattinternational.d. NCBI. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2009.0262 Retrieved April 2013, from http://www.aerzteblatt.de/int/archive/article?id=64227 Swales, J.M., & Feak, C.B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Harbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES Wiki task 2: final version ESP-Draft 1- Allende, Lacanna, Rodriguez Results, Discussions and Conclusions in Professional Research Articles Research Articles (RAs) writing is of vital importance in every professional field.
36
Consequently, a deep analysis of diverse papers components may render itself useful both to explore thorough investigations as such, and to aid prospective RAs writers when dealing with discursive structure. The present papers deliberate intention is to analyze and compare three sections of two RAs, that is, Results, Discussions and Conclusions. The selected papers belong to different fields, the medicine and the education ones. The article written by Barrs (2012) specifically deals with the challenge of "how to maximise target language interaction both inside and outside of the classroom , mainly with the aid of "digital technologies" (p.10). Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) are the authors of the medical article, and their cohort studys main objective is to quantify associations of chronic kidney disease stages with major cardiovascular disease and non-vascular mortality in the general adult population (p. 1). First and foremost, the very nature of these papers studies is utterly different; while Barrs (2012) epitomizes an experimental report, fostering as it does changes in practicum, Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) present an interventional clinical study defined by Chapman and Hall (as cited in Rhrig et al., 2009, p. 3) as "...The aim of an interventional clinical study is to compare treatment procedures within a patient population, which should exhibit as few as possible internal differences, apart from the treatment." Besides, ethical issues related to randomization of data in order to avoid bias in results are much more regulated by law in the medicine field. Moreover, the medicine paper activates a specialists schemata in order to respond cooperatively to it whereas Barrs (2012) research does not demand such a
STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES specialists understanding. Medicine papers, in general, present a high degree of
37
nominalization; the educational field, in turn, demands more narrative because the discussions seem to be more philosophical than otherwise. Both Research Papers (RPs) include the Results section within a separate set of paragraphs; this aids the reader in his or her scanning of the text. Besides, the hitherto mentioned section offers the audience useful information to evaluate the investigation. The data have been presented not only in the text, but also through the use of tables and figures, as it is usually the case with RPs. Admittedly, while Barrs (2012) seems to employ mainly tables, Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) use tables as well as figures. Indeed, Barrs' (2012) tables are appropriately numbered and they have an individual, italicized title including each word capitalized. Equally, Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) include figures which are equitably numbered, and they all include a title with a legend and caption giving enough explanations to offer the readers the opportunity to estimate results. As regards the presentation of data in terms of figures and tables, Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) make use of these tools to accurately represent the data collected, and by so doing, they acutely reflect the quantitative nature of their study. In the case of Barrs (2012), the author has included eight tables as well as some examples of exchanges in his papers Results section. For instance, there is a sample three -part interaction exchange, a single initiation-reply example, and an excerpt of a continued threaded discussion. Di Angelantonio et al.s (2010) paper has a separate Discussions sectio n, whereas the article by Barrs (2012) contains two sub-sections devoted to analysis and reflection. For instance, in its first period of action research, there is a Reflection section where the data collected have been thoroughly analyzed and reflected upon. Moreover, in the second period
38
of action research, Barrs (2012) presents a detailed reflection of its main findings. In brief, the medicine article by Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) has a separate main Discussions section where there is a detailed interpretation of the outcomes of their research, whereas the education article by Barrs (2012) has its two periods of action research with their corresponding interpretation of outcomes embedded in them. Additionally, an overall evaluation of the exploration which has already been conducted is done in order to establish future research actions. Modals verbs are mostly used to signal possibility and advice respectively. On average, multiple comprehensive RAs features were deeply considered so as to have a better overview of papers whose main function is to provide data corresponding to distinctive fields. Basic distinctions have to do with subject-dependant characteristics like nominalization in medicine papers, and with the different nature of the aims of the research under study. By and large, in spite of the fact that Barrs (2012) article presents statistical data, the qualitative nature inherent in the action research that guided the study may make its results not generalisable to large populations, but just applicable to certain specific and reduced contexts. While Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) explain the potential limitations of their study, Barrs (2012) asserts that gathering data in such an investigation may result extraordinarily difficult, given the conditions under which the action research project was carried out. Ultimately, Barrs (2012) and Di Angelantonio (2010) give emphasis to the necessity of exploring new and valuable areas of inquiry that have emerged as a consequence of their present studies. Therefore, both papers contributions to each field should not be underestimated but highly valued.
39
American Psychological Association (2010). Publication Manual (6th ed.). Washington, DC: British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data. Barrs, K. (2012). Action research: Fostering computer-mediated L2 interaction beyond the classroom. Language Learning and 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. and Gudnason, V. (2010). Chronic kidney disease and risk of major cardiovascular disease and non-vascular mortality: prospective population cohort study. BMJ Online First. doi:10.1136/bmj.c4986 Retrieved April 2013, from http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c4986.pdf%2Bhtml Rhrig, B., Prell, J. d, Wachtlin, D. and Blettner, M. (2009). Types of study in medical research. Part 3 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications. Aerzteblattinternational.d. NCBI. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2009.0262 Retrieved April 2013, from http://www.aerzteblatt.de/int/archive/article?id=64227 Swales, J.M., & Feak, C.B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Harbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES Draft Results, Discussions and Conclusions Sections in Research Articles. Research Articles (RAs) writing is of vital importance in every professional field.
40
Consequently, a deep analysis of diverse papers components may render itself useful both to explore thorough investigations as such and to aid prospective RAs writers in dealing with discursive structure. The present papers deliberate intention is to analyze and compare a ims at analysing and comparing three section of two RAs' , that is, results, discussions and conclusions. The selected papers belong to different fields, the medicine and the education ones. The education article has been written by Barrs (2012), while Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) are the authors of the medical article. First and foremost, the very nature of these papersstudies is utterly ly different; while Barrs (2012) epitomises an experimental report, fostering as it does changes in practicum, DiAngelantonio at. al.s (2010) presents an interventional clinical study which aim, as defined by Chapman & Hall (as cited in Rhrig et. al. , 2009, p. 3) is to "...to compare treatment procedures within a patient population, which should exhibit as few as possible internal differences, apart from the treatment " . Besides. ethical issues related to randomization of data in order to avoid bias in results are much more regularised by law in the medicine field. Moreover, the medicine paper activates specialists schemata in order to respond cooperatively to it whereas Barrs research does not demand such an specialist understanding. Medicine papers in general present a high degree of nominalization; the educational field in turn demands more narrative because the discussions are more philosophical than otherwise. Both RPs include the results within a separate set of paragraphs; this aids the reader in his or her sacanning of the text. Besides, the hitherto mentioned section, offers the
STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES audience useful information to evaluate the investigation. The data has been presented not
41
only in the text but also through the use of tables and figures, as it usually the case with RPs. While Barrs (2012) seems to employ mainly tables, Di Angelantonio (2010) uses tables as well as figures. Indeed, Barrs' (2012) tables are appropriately numbered and they have an individual, italicized title including each word capitalized. Equally, Di Angelantonio (2010) includes figures, which are equitably numbered and they all include a title with a legend and caption giving enough explanations to offer the readers the opportunity to estimate results. In Barrs (2012) paper, the Results section is isolated and it has been subdivided into two different periods of action research, each with its corresponding subheadings and development. In Di Angelantonio et al.s (2010) article, the Results section has also been isolated as well as subdivided into sub-sections. Di Angelantonio et al.s (2010) paper has a separate Discussions section, whereas the article by Barrs (2012) contains two sub-sections devoted to analysis and reflection. For instance, in its first period of action research, there is a Reflection section where the data collected have been thoroughly analyzed and reflected upon. Moreover, in the second period of action research, Barrs (2012) presents a detailed reflection of its main findings. In brief, the medicine article by Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) has a separate main Discussions section where there is a detailed interpretation of the outcomes of their research, whereas the education article by Barrs (2012) has its two periods of action research with their corresponding interpretation of outcomes embedded in them.Additionally, overall evaluation of the exploration which has been already conducted is done in order to establish future research actions. Modals verbs are mostly used to signal possibility and advice respectively. Of course Barras (2012) and Di Angelantonio (2010) give emphasis to the necessity of explorating new valuable areas of inquiry that have appeared as a consequence of the present study.
42
As regards the presentation of data in terms of figures and tables, Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) make use of these tools to accurately represent the data collected, and by so doing, they acutely reflect the quantitative nature of their study. In the case of Barrs (2012), the author has included eight tables as well as some examples of exchanges in her papers Results section. For instance, there is a sample three-part interaction exchange, a single initiation-reply example, and an excerpt of a continued threaded discussion. In spite of the fact that Barrs (2012) article presents statistical data, the qualitative nature inherent in the action research that guided the study may make its results not generalisable to large populations, but just applicable to certain specific and reduced contexts. While Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) explain the potential limitations of the study, Barrs (2012) asserts that gathering data in such an investigation may result extraordinarily difficult. All the same, its contribution to the field should not be ignored. On average, multiple comprehensive RAs features were deeply considered so as to have a better overview of papers whose main function is to provide data corresponding to distinctive fields. Basic distinctions have to do with subject dependant characteristics like nominalization in medicine papers and with the different nature of this researchs aims. By and large, in spite of the fact that Barrs (2012) article presents statistical data, the qualitative nature inherent in the action research that guided the study may make its results not generalisable to large populations, but just applicable to certain specific and reduced contexts. While Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) explain the potential limitations of their study, Barrs (2012) asserts that gathering data in such an investigation may result extraordinarily difficult, given the conditions under which the action research project was carried out. Ultimately, Barrs (2012) and Di Angelantonio (2010) emphasize the need to explore new and valuable areas of inquiry that have emerged as a consequence of their present studies. As a
STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES consequence, both papers contributions to each field should not be ignored but highly valued.
43
STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES References Barrs, K. (2012). Action research: fostering computer-mediated L2 interaction beyond the classroom. Language Learning and Technology. 16(1), 10-25. Retrieved April 2013, from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/february2012/actionresearch.pdf
44
Di Angelantonio, E., Chowdhury, R., Sarwar, N., Aspelund, T., Danesh, J. and Gudnason, V. (2010). Chronic kidney disease and risk of major cardiovascular disease and non-vascular mortality: prospective population cohort study. BMJ Online First. Retrieved April 2013, from http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c4986.pdf%2Bhtml Rhrig, B. , du Prel, Wachtlin, D. and Blettner, M. (2009). Types of Study in Medical Research. Part 3 of a Series on Evaluation of Scientific Publications. NCBI. Retrieved in April 2013, from http://www.aerzteblatt.de/int/archive/article?id=64227
STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES Tutors feedback
45
Results, Discussions and Conclusions in Professional Research Articles Research Articles (RAs) writing is of vital importance in every professional field. Consequently, a deep analysis of diverse papers components may render itself useful both to explore thorough investigations as such, and to aid prospective RAs writers when dealing with discursive structure. The present papers deliberate intention is to analyze and compare three sections of two RAs, that is, Results, Discussions and Conclusions. The selected papers belong to different fields, the medicine and the education ones. The article written by Barrs (2012) specifically deals with the challenge of "how to maximise target language interaction both inside and outside of the classroom, main ly with the aid of "digital technologies" (p.10). Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) are the authors of the medical article, and their cohort studys main objective is to quantify associations of chronic kidney disease stages with major cardiovascular disease and non-vascular mortality in the general adult population (p. 1[DMC1]). First and foremost, the very nature of these papers studies is utterly different; while Barrs (2012) epitomizes an experimental report, fostering as it does changes in practicum, Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) present an interventional clinical study defined by Chapman and Hall (as cited in Rhrig et al., 2009, p. 3) as "...The aim of an interventional clinical study is to compare treatment procedures within a patient population, which should exhibit as few as possible internal differences, apart from the treatment." Besides, ethical issues related to randomization of data in order to avoid bias in results are much more regulated by law in the medicine field. Moreover, the medicine paper activates a specialists
46
schemata in order to respond cooperatively to it, whereas Barrs (2012) research does not demand such a specialists understanding. Medicine papers, in general, present a high degree of nominalization; the educational field, in turn, demands more narrative because the discussions seem to be more philosophical than otherwise. Both Research Papers (RPs) include the Results section within a separate set of paragraphs; this aids the reader in his or her scanning of the text. Besides, the hitherto mentioned section offers the audience useful information to evaluate the investigation. The data have been presented not only in the text, but also through the use of tables and figures, as it is usually the case with RPs[DMC2]. While Barrs (2012) seems to employ mainly tables, Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) use tables as well as figures. Indeed, Barrs' (2012) tables are appropriately numbered and they have an individual, italicized title including each word capitalized. Equally, Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) include figures which are equitably numbered, and they all include a title with a legend and caption giving enough explanations to offer the readers the opportunity to estimate results. As regards the presentation of data in terms of figures and tables, Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) make use of these tools to accurately represent the data collected, and by so doing, they acutely reflect the quantitative nature of their study. In the case of Barrs (2012), the author has included eight tables as well as some examples of exchanges in his papers Results section. For instance, there is a sample three-part interaction exchange, a single initiationreply example, and an excerpt of a continued threaded discussion[DMC3]. Di Angelantonio et al.s (2010) paper has a separate Discussions section, whereas the article by Barrs (2012) contains two sub-sections devoted to analysis and reflection[DMC4]. For instance, in its first period of action research, there is a Reflection section where the data collected have been thoroughly analyzed and
STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES reflected upon. Moreover, in the second period of action research, Barrs (2012)
47
presents a detailed reflection of its main findings. In brief, the medicine article by Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) has a separate main Discussions section where there is a detailed interpretation of the outcomes of their research, whereas the education article by Barrs (2012) has its two periods of action research with their corresponding interpretation of outcomes embedded in them. Additionally, an overall evaluation of the exploration which has already been conducted is done in order to establish future research actions. Modals verbs are mostly used to signal possibility and advice respectively. On average, multiple comprehensive RAs features were deeply considered so as to have a better overview of papers whose main function is to provide data corresponding to distinctive fields. Basic distinctions have to do with subject-dependant characteristics like nominalization in medicine papers, and with the different nature of the aims of the research under study. By and large, in spite of the fact that Barrs (2012) article presents statistical data, the qualitative nature inherent in the action research that guided the study may make its results not generalisable to large populations, but just applicable to certain specific and reduced contexts. While Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) explain the potential limitations of their study, Barrs (2012) asserts that gathering data in such an investigation may result extraordinarily difficult, given the conditions under which the action research project was carried out. Ultimately, Barrs (2012) and Di Angelantonio (2010) give emphasis to the necessity of exploring new and valuable areas of inquiry that have emerged as a consequence of their present studies. Therefore, both papers contributions to each field should not be underestimated but highly valued[DMC5].
STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES References Barrs, K. (2012). Action research: fostering computer-mediated L2
48
interaction beyond the classroom. Language Learning and 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. and Gudnason, V. (2010). Chronic kidney disease and risk of major cardiovascular disease and non-vascular mortality: prospective population cohort study. BMJ Online First. doi:10.1136/bmj.c4986 Retrieved April 2013, from http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c4986.pdf%2Bhtml Rhrig, B., Prell, J. d, Wachtlin, D. and Blettner, M. (2009). Types of study in medical research. Part 3 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications. Aerzteblatt-international.d. NCBI. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2009.0262 Retrieved April 2013, from http://www.aerzteblatt.de/int/archive/article?id=64227
STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES Rubrics for Task 2:
49
Papers Analysis (APA 6th ed)

Name and Surname: Carla Allende, Alejandra Lacanna, Viviana Rodriguez (Group 4) Topic: Results, Discussions and Conclusions Sections in ARs
Draft 1 Date: 27-04-13

D im en sio n Criteria
Title: Exploring RAs
P o i n t s
L A Y O U T
4
5
t o
2 0 )
N N
eade H

o F orm at header s, no page numbe rs, no clear margin s. Spacin g proble ms. Inappr opriate font. o Head er inclu ded. Page numb ers absen ce. Spaci ng probl ems.
r and page num bers inclu ded. Spac ing probl ems. Inap prop riate font.
50
lear papers presentati on. There are page numbers. Respecte d margins. Correct spacing and type & size of font. 1.5 or double interlinin g.
I nclude
I nclu ded. Not well bala nced . ncluded. Precise info is given. Well balanced.
H ead er ot includ ed.
d. Too much inform ation. Or some info missin g.
I M ain T ot includ ed. N nclud ed. Not suitab nclu ded. App eali
I I ncluded. Appealin g.

itle le. Unde rlined , highli ghted or italici zed. ng. Und erlin ed, high light ed or itali cize d. M N R efer enc es lagiari sm. P ot mentio ned. ly. Not on a new sheet of paper .
N ot clear use of refere nces or errone ous source s N ot clear use of refer ence s or erron eous sour ces ackn owle dge ment .
51
Centered. Upper & lower cases.
S ources cited clearly in a reference list at the end of the paper. APA style.
entio ned vague

ackno wledg ement
52
2
N I ntext cita tion s lagiari sm. ot includ ed. P ittle use of intext citati ons. Incor rect use of requir ed style. L nclu ded. Not well bala nced . Rep eate d patt ern. (e.g. too man y quot es, only para phra sing , etc). I ncluded. Well balanced. Different technique s applied. It is read smoothly. APA 6th ed. applied. I
C O
4
1 0

N TE N T
t o
53
4 0 ) N ot clear D analysi s. Relati onship s& compa risons cannot be follow ed. Too descri ptive.
ondit ional s. C rief. Not substa ntial. Some conne ctions can be follow ed. Too descri ptive. B lear. Goo d anal ysis. No evid ence prese nted. Inver sion. Hed ging. C
V ery good. Clear analysis. Comparis ons can be establishe d. Evidence is provided. Inversion. Hedging & condition als.
ata anal ysis
D ifficult to T erm inol ogy / follow. Not unders tandab le.

ittle nappr opriat e termin ology.
L egib le term inol ogy. egible terminolo gy. New terms clarificati on. C Effective

Wo rd cho ice Imprec ise langua ge. N o acrony ms clarific ation.
ome terms are not acade mic. clarifi cation. S
54
vocabular y. Good use of
larif icati on. M ore acad emi c style . Effe ctiv e.
connector s. Academic style.
F S pell ing ull of errors. Unrea dable. any errors . Some parts unrea dable. S ente nce vari ety any senten ce fragme nts. Same pattern and length. M
ome senten ce fragm ents. Same patter n& length .
M ew erro rs. Rea dabl e.
F ll words are spelled correctly.
M ost sent ence s are com plet e and vari ed omplete sentences in a variety of patterns and lengths.

in patt ern & leng th. O rga niza tion ague ideas. Long & confus ing intro. Unrela ted develo pment. Blurre d conclu sion.
ain point presen ted. Two of the three parts are not clear or too long. M
55
V
ome ideas conne cted to each other. Purpo se establi shed. No transit ions.
C onn ecte d idea s. Clea r purp ose. Mar ked tran sitio ns. One of the thre e part s is not clea r or too long
C onnected ideas: supporti ng the main topic. Clear and concise introduct ion. Clear develop ment: good clarificat ion of major points. C lear conclusi

.
56
on.
P unc tuat ion requen t and major errors that obscur e meani ng.
F
ome freque nt or major errors: Reade rs confus ion.
A few erro rs. o punctuati on errors.
P arag raph cont ent & para grap h leng th
N ot balanc ed: too long & too short paragr aphs are presen ted.
ome paragr aphs relate to the topic. Not balanc ed: too long or too short paragr aphs are presen ted.
M ost para grap hs are relat ed to the topi c. Wel l bala nced . lear and precise. mooth. aragraph length has been respected & achieved.
57
G ram mar ramma r choice s are confus ing. Mixtur e of tenses.
G
ome gram mar mistak es. Gram mar choice s someti mes confus e the reader s.
A ppro priat e gra mm ar choi ce. No mea ning inter fere nce.
C ompletely appropria te grammar choice: Help readers understan d meaning.
D etai ls
o or little details (such as explana tions, exampl es, etc) to support & explain the
N ome accura te details . Do not alway s suppor t topic.
A ccur ate info that supp orts the topi c. ccurate and relevant info that fully support the topic.

topic.
58
T one & aud ienc e nclear & inappr opriate tone. Audie nce not consid ered.
U
nconsi stent tone. Incom plete idea of audien ce.
A ppro priat e tone . Aud ienc e is cons ider ed. ppropriat e&
consistent tone. Audience correctly identified .
T otal
Comments:
Dear girls, Much better. Your intro is very well achieved! Good job! You have to work harder in your analysis. Your mark is 7 (seven).
STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES Final version for the blog Results, Discussions and Conclusions Sections in Research Articles. Research Articles (RAs) writing is of vital importance in every professional field.
59
Consequently, a deep analysis of diverse papers components may render itself useful both to explore thorough investigations as such and to aid prospective RAs writers in dealing with discursive structure. The present papers deliberate intention is to analyse and compare aims at analysing and comparing three section of two RAs' , that is, results, discussions and conclusions. The selected papers belong to different fields, the medicine and the education ones. The education article has been written by Barrs (2012), while Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) are the authors of the medical article. First and foremost, the very nature of these papers studies is utterly different; while Barrs (2012) epitomises an experimental report, fostering as it does changes in practicum, DiAngelantonio at. al.s (2010) presents an interventional clinical study which aim, as defined by Chapman & Hall (as cited in Rhrig et. al. , 2009, p. 3) is to "...to compare treatment procedures within a patient population, which should exhibit as few as possible internal differences, apart from the treatment " . Besides, ethical issues related to randomization of data in order to avoid bias in results are much more regularised by law in the medicine field. Moreover, the medicine paper activates specialists schemata in order to respond cooperatively to it whereas Barrs research does not demand such a specialist understanding. Medicine papers in general present a high degree of nominalization; the educational field in turn demands more narrative because the discussions are more philosophical than otherwise. Swales & Feak (1994) do not distinguish between discussions and conclusions, but rather between results and discussions (or conclusions, depending on the field requirements): If
60
Results deal with facts, then Discussions deal with points; facts are descriptive, while points are interpretive. P. 195. For discussions and conclusions Swales & Feak (1994) propose writers utilise three moves to develop their paragraphs during move one the objec tive is to consolidate [] research and this is obligatory, in move two, the point is to indicate limitations of [] study and this is optional; finally, for move three, which is also optional, the idea is to identify useful areas of further research. P. 197 Table 22. Although there might be sections for results commentary neither Barrs (2012) nor Di Angelantonio (2010) include a separate section; anyhow, within the discussions and conclusions sections these authors refer back to results and make comments about them. Both RPs include the results within a separate set of paragraphs; this aids the reader in his or her scanning of the text. Besides, the hitherto mentioned section, offers the audience useful information to evaluate the investigation. The data has been presented not only in the text but also through the use of tables and figures, as it usually the case with RPs. While Barrs (2012) seems to employ mainly tables, Di Angelantonio (2010) uses tables as well as figures. Indeed, Barrs' (2012) tables are appropriately numbered and they have an individual, italicized title including each word capitalized. Equally, Di Angelantonio (2010) includes figures, which are equitably numbered and they all include a title with a legend and caption giving enough explanations to offer the readers the opportunity to estimate results. In Barrs (2012) paper, the Results section is isolated and it has been subdivided into two different periods of action research, each with its corresponding subheadings and development. In Di Angelantonio et al.s (2010) article, the Results section has also been isolated as well as subdivided into sub-sections. Di Angelantonio et al.s (2010) paper has a separate Discussions section, whereas the article by Barrs (2012) contains two sub-sections devoted to analysis and reflection. For
STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES instance, in its first period of action research, there is a Reflection section where the data
61
collected have been thoroughly analysed and reflected upon. Moreover, in the second period of action research, Barrs (2012) presents a detailed reflection of its main findings. In brief, the medicine article by Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) has a separate main Discussions section where there is a detailed interpretation of the outcomes of their research, whereas the education article by Barrs (2012) has its two periods of action research with their corresponding interpretation of outcomes embedded in them. Additionally, overall evaluation of the exploration which has been already conducted is done in order to establish future research actions. Modals verbs are mostly used to signal possibility and advice respectively. Of course Barras (2012) and Di Angelantonio (2010) give emphasis to the necessity of explorating new valuable areas of inquiry that have appeared as a consequence of the present study. As regards the presentation of data in terms of figures and tables, Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) make use of these tools to accurately represent the data collected, and by so doing, they acutely reflect the quantitative nature of their study. In the case of Barrs (2012), the author has included eight tables as well as some examples of exchanges in her papers Results section. For instance, there is a sample three-part interaction exchange, a single initiation-reply example, and an excerpt of a continued threaded discussion. In spite of the fact that Barrs (2012) article presents statistical data, the qualitative nature inherent in the action research that guided the study may make its results not generalizable to large populations, but just applicable to certain specific and reduced contexts. While Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) explain the potential limitations of the study, Barrs (2012) asserts that gathering data in such an investigation may result extraordinarily difficult. All the same, its contribution to the field should not be ignored.
STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES On average, multiple comprehensive RAs features were deeply considered so as to have a better overview of papers whose main function is to provide data corresponding to distinctive fields. Basic distinctions have to do with subject dependant characteristics like
62
nominalization in medicine papers and with the different nature of this researchs aims. By and large, in spite of the fact that Barrs (2012) article present s statistical data, the qualitative nature inherent in the action research that guided the study may make its results not generalizable to large populations, but just applicable to certain specific and reduced contexts. While Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) explain the potential limitations of their study, Barrs (2012) asserts that gathering data in such an investigation may result extraordinarily difficult, given the conditions under which the action research project was carried out. Ultimately, Barrs (2012) and Di Angelantonio (2010) emphasize the need to explore new and valuable areas of inquiry that have emerged as a consequence of their present studies. As a consequence, both papers contributions to each field should not be ignored but highly valued.
63
Barrs, K. (2012). Action research: fostering computer-mediated L2 interaction beyond the classroom. Language Learning and 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. and Gudnason, V. (2010). Chronic kidney disease and risk of major cardiovascular disease and non-vascular mortality: prospective population cohort study. BMJ Online First. Retrieved April 2013, from http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c4986.pdf%2Bhtml Rhrig, B. , du Prel, Wachtlin, D. and Blettner, M. (2009). Types of Study in Medical Research. Part 3 of a Series on Evaluation of Scientific Publications. NCBI. Retrieved in April 2013, from http://www.aerzteblatt.de/int/archive/article?id=64227 Swales, J.M., & Feak, C.B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Harbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES Wiki Task 3: Draft 1. Allende, Lacanna & Rodriguez Abstracts Features in Two Different Fields Abstracts writing plays an undeniable function in the overall writing of Research Articles (RAs); ideally, abstracts provide a clear synopsis of the articles thesis, research conditions and conclusions. Hubbuch (1996) defines abstracts "as brief summaries of the
64
major points made by the author in a book or article". Their function shall be evaluated in four different abstracts belonging to two disciplines: Education and Medicine. King (2002) and Almerich et al. (2005) are the authors of two RAs related to the education field, while Jrgensen et al (2010) and Wijeysundera et al. (2010) have written the medicine papers. This paper's aspiration is to provide an analysis of diverse abstracts according to the American Psychological Association (APA, 2010), which obviously does not apply for medical abstract writing; more general academic abstract conventions in abstracts will also be evaluated. As far as the American Psychological Association requirements for abstracts writing are concerned, An abstract is a brief, comprehensive summary of the contents of the article; it allows readers to survey the contents of an article quickly and, like a title, it enables persons interested in the document to retrieve it from abstracting and indexing databases (APA, 2010, p. 25). In short, abstracts should be dense with information, clear, concise, non-evaluative, accurate, coherent, readable and mainly understandable (APA, 2010). Accordingly, abstracts may be considered as more important for readers than for writers, basically because they are written
STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES to attract the audience, to make them think that the summarized research article or paper is worth reading (Swales and Feak, 1994). As regards structural patterns, the medicine abstracts are more results-driven, whereas
65
the educational ones exemplify RP summary approaches, as described by Swales
and Feak (1994): Results-driven abstracts [...] concentrate on the research findings and what might be concluded from them .The other approach is to offer an RP summary abstract in which you provide one or two sentence synopses of each of the four sections (pp. 210211). In fact, Wijeysundera et al. (2010) and Jrgensen et al.s (2010) research articles (RAs) are clearly structured, described by BRKI & OKI (2002, p. 208) as "intended to be informative, with a detailed structure, which do not exceed 250 words". Additionally, both medicine papers contain bolded headings, with each of these identifying the main sections in each paper. The pattern utilized has been suggested by Ad Hoc Working Group for Critical Appraisal of the Medical Literature (as quoted in BRKI et al., 2003) according to which "authors of articles with direct clinical implications [should] ... write their abstracts with seven explicitly defined headings: Objective, Design, Setting, Patients, Interventions, Measurements and Main Results, and Conclusions and with a partially controlled vocabulary" (p. 207). Conversely, the educational articles by Almerich et al. (2005) and King (2002) apparently follow an unstructured pattern, consisting of a single, unified and unbroken paragraph between 100 and 150 words approximately, as Swales and Feak (1994) explain. Yet, there are some common features in these papers. Both papers appear to follow the Introduction-Methods-Results and Discussions (IMRAD) formula "which includes
STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion" as mentioned by BRKI et al. (2003, p. 207).
66
As regards the inclusion of key words below the body of an abstract, only the article by Almerich et al. (2005) contains a list, right below its abstract. All the same, none of the four abstracts under the current analysis has been presented following APA requirements to their fullest. In fact, in no case has the abstract been presented on a separate page nor has the heading Abstract in each paper been typed under the light of APA conventions. To exemplify, Wijeysundera et al. (2010) and Jrgensen et al.s (2010) abstract headings are neither centered nor typed in upper and lower cases respectively. Moreover, both terms have been typed in bold letters. In relation to abstracts belonging to empirical studies, APA (2010) declares that they should include the problem under investigation, the participants description, key features in methodology, main findings, conclusions and possible implications for future research. In fact, the medicine abstracts under the current exploration provide a detailed account of the steps followed during their respective research processes; for instance, both abstracts begin with an opening segment dedicated to their objects of study. Moreover, these abstracts appear to be heavily informative in type, as they mainly describe what the researchers did. However, the educational abstracts by Almerich et al. (2005) and King (2002), provide a generalized summary of the information presented in their studies, apparently not including too many details but focusing more on possible future implications. As far as linguistic features are concerned, the use of full sentences seems to have been applied in the research abstracts under analysis, as well as the absence of negatives and the avoidance of abbreviations and jargon. Considering the use of tenses, King (2002) and Almerich et al. (2005) do not use simple past in the writing of their abstracts, as Swales and
STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES Feak (1994) explain. On the other hand, Jorgensen et al. (2010) and Wijeysundera et al. (2010) have written the abstracts using simple past tenses and impersonal passive.
67
In Jrgensen et al. (2010) active voice is also used instead of passive when they discuss design "We used Poisson regression..." (p. 1) and also in the conclusions, "We were unable to find an effect..." (p.1). In this respect, there is a heated long-standing discussion upon whether or not to use passive voice in scientific writing. Langdon-Neuner, E. (2007), who seems to favor active voice usage, clearly states that the "American Medical Associations Manual of Style, among many other style books, clearly states that the active voice is preferred in scientific writing except in instances in which the actor is of less interest than what is acted upon" (p. 96). However, practice and some other publications seem to favor passive voice usage. With respect to the use of acronyms in abstracts, King (2002) introduces her topic by using the acronyms DVD and VHS witho ut clarification for first time citation, a requisite in APA style. However, one may claim these specific acronyms have become lexical items in themselves due to usage. Also, the acronym presented in Almerich et al.s (2005) abstract, ANOVA (p. 127), has not been overtly specified either. On the other hand, the medicine articles abstracts by Wijeysundera et al. (2010) and Jrgensen et al. (2010), specifically clarify their acronyms in their Methods sections when firstly used. Thus, Wijeysundera et al. (2010) explain RCRI as Revised Cardiac Risk Index (p. 1), and Jrgensen et al. (2010) specify RR as Relative Risk and CI as confidence interval (p. 1) for their standards of measure. Basically, diverse abstract analysis approaches have been used to compare these articles; as an overall outstanding characterization, the medicine papers abstracts are structured and results-driven whereas the educational ones are unstructured and RP summary
68
like. Linguistic features like the use of tenses and acronyms have also been evaluated; in this latter respect, Jorgensen et al. (2010) and Winjundera et al. (2010) follow APA style because clarification of acronyms is found. Tenses vary apparently due to inner academia restrictions; yet in Jrgensen et al. (2010) there is a marked tendency towards using active voice in scientific writing. On average, the four abstracts under the current analysis are likely to be considered appropriate exemplifications of the most outstanding differentiating features that characterize academic articles belonging to diverse fields in research.
69
Almerich, G., Surez, J., Orellana, N., Belloch, Bo, R. & Gastaldo, I. (2005). Diferencias en los conocimientos de los recursos tecnolgicos en profesores a partir del gnero, edad y tipo de centro [Abstract]. RELIEVE, Revista Electrnica de Investigacin y Evaluacin Educativa, 11 (2), pp. 127-146. Retrieved May 2013, from http://www.uv.es/RELIEVE/v11n2/RELIEVEv11n2_3.pdf American Psychological Association (2010). Publication Manual (6th ed.). Washington, DC: British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data. BRKI, S. , ENOVI, M. & OKI, Z. (2003) . Title, abstract, key words and references in biomedical articles. Archive of Oncology. 11(3):207-9. Faculty of Medicine Novi Sad, Serbia and Montenegro. DOI: 001.89:025.4:001.811 Hubbuch, S. M. (1996). Writing research papers across the curriculum (4th ed.). Harcourt Brace: Fort Worth, TX. Jrgensen, K., Zahl, P-H., & Gtzsche, P. (2010) Breast cancer mortality in organized mammography screening in Denmark: comparative study [Abstract]. BMJ Online First. Retrieved May 2013, from http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c1241 King, J. (2002). Using DVD feature films in the EFL classroom [Abstract]. The Weekly Column. ELT Newsletter, 88. Retrieved May 2013, from http://www.eltnewsletter.com/back/February2002/art882002.htm
STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES Langdon-Neuner, E. (2007). Do we need proof? The Write Stuff. 16 (3 ), ISSN 1854-8466. Retrieved May, 2013 from http://www.emwa.org/PastTWS/TWS%202007-3%20v04.pdf
70
Swales, J.M., & Feak, C.B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Harbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. Wijeysundera, D., Beattie, W., Elliot, R., Austin, P., Hux, J. & Laupacis, A. (2010). Noninvasive cardiac stress testing before elective major non-cardiac surgery: population based cohort study [Abstract]. BMJ Online First. Retrieved May 2013, from http://www.docstoc.com/docs/44925182/Non-invasive-cardiac-stress-testing-before-electivemajor-non-cardiac
STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES Draft Abstracts Features in Two Different Fields Abstracts writing plays an undeniable function in the overall writing of Research Articles (RAs); ideally, abstracts provide a clear synopsis of the articles thesis,
71
research conditions and conclusions. Hubbuch (1996) defines abstracts "as brief summaries of the major points made by the author in a book or article". Their function shall be evaluated in four different abstracts belonging to two disciplines: Education and Medicine. King (2002) and Almerich et al. (2005) are the authors of two RAs related to the education field, while Jrgensen et al (2010) and Wijeysundera et al. (2010) have written the medicine papers. This paper's aspiration is to provide an analysis of diverse abstracts according to the American Psychological Association (APA, 2010), which obviously does not apply for medical abstract writing; more general academic abstract conventions in abstracts will also be evaluated. As far as the American Psychological Association requirements for abstracts writing are concerned, An abstract is a brief, comprehensive summary of the contents of the article; it allows readers to survey the contents of an article quickly and, like a title, it enables persons interested in the document to retrieve it from abstracting and indexing databases. (APA, 2010, p. 25) In short, abstracts should be dense with information, clear, concise, non-evaluative, accurate, coherent, readable and mainly understandable (APA, 2010). Accordingly, abstracts may be considered as more important for readers than for writers, basically because they are written
STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES to attract the audience, to make them think that the summarized research article or paper is worth reading (Swales and Feak, 1994).
72
As regards structural patterns, the medicine abstracts are more results-driven, whereas the educational ones exemplify RP summary approaches, as described by Swales
and Feak (1994): Results-driven abstracts [...] concentrate on the research findings and what might be concluded from them .The other approach is to offer an RP summary abstract in which you provide one or two sentence synopses of each of the four sections (pp. 210-211). In fact, Wijeysundera et al. (2010) and Jrgensen et al.s (2010) research articles (RAs) are clearly structured, described by BRKI & OKI (2002, p. 208) as "intended to be informative, with a detailed structure, which do not exceed 250 words". Additionally, both medicine papers contain bolded headings, with each of these identifying the main sections in each paper. The pattern utilized has been suggested by Ad Hoc Working Group for Critical Appraisal of the Medical Literature (as quoted in BRKI et al., 2003) according to which "authors of articles with direct clinical implications [should] ... write their abstracts with seven explicitly defined headings: Objective, Design, Setting, Patients, Interventions, Measurements and Main Results, and Conclusions and with a partially controlled vocabulary" (p. 207). Conversely, the educational articles by Almerich et al. (2005) and King (2002) apparently follow an unstructured pattern, consisting of a single, unified and unbroken paragraph between 100 and 150 words approximately, as Swales and Feak (1994) explain. Yet, there are some common features in these papers. Both papers appear to follow the
STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES Introduction-Methods-Results and Discussions (IMRAD) formula "which includes Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion" as mentioned by BRKI et al. (2003, p. 207).
73
As regards the inclusion of key words below the body of an abstract, only the article by Almerich et al. (2005) contains a list, right below its abstract. All the same, none of the four abstracts under the current analysis has been presented following APA requirements to their fullest. In fact, in no case has the abstract been presented on a separate page nor has the heading Abstract in each paper been typed under the light of APA conventions. To exemplify, Wijeysundera et al. (2010) and Jrgensen et al.s (2010) abstract headings are neither centered nor typed in upper and lower cases respectively. Moreover, both terms have been typed in bold letters. In relation to abstracts belonging to empirical studies, APA (2010) declares that they should include the problem under investigation, the participants description, key features in methodology, main findings, conclusions and possible implications for future research. In fact, the medicine abstracts under the current exploration provide a detailed account of the steps followed during their respective research processes; for instance, both abstracts begin with an opening segment dedicated to their objects of study. Moreover, these abstracts appear to be heavily informative in type, as they mainly describe what the researchers did. However, the educational abstracts by Almerich et al. (2005) and King (2002), provide a generalized summary of the information presented in their studies, apparently not including too many details but focusing more on possible future implications. As far as linguistic features are concerned, the use of full sentences seems to have been applied in the research abstracts under analysis, as well as the absence of negatives and the avoidance of abbreviations and jargon. Considering the use of tenses, King (2002) and
74
Almerich et al. (2005) do not use simple past in the writing of their abstracts, as Swales and Feak (1994) explain. On the other hand, Jorgensen et al. (2010) and Wijeysundera et al. (2010) have written the abstracts using simple past tenses and impersonal passive. In Jrgensen et al. (2010) active voice is also used instead of passive when they discuss design "We used Poisson regression..." (p. 1) and also in the conclusions, "We were unable to find an effect..." (p.1). In this respect, there is a heated long-standing discussion upon whether or not to use passive voice in scientific writing. Langdon-Neuner, E. (2007), who seems to favor active voice usage, clearly states that the "American Medical Associations Manual of Style, among many other style books, clearly states that the active voice is preferred in scientific writing except in instances in which the actor is of less interest than what is acted upon" (p. 96). However, practice and some other publications seem to favor passive voice usage. With respect to the use of acronyms in abstracts, King (2002) introduces her topic by using the acronyms DVD and VHS without clarification for first time citation, a requisite in APA style. However, one may claim these specific acronyms have become lexical items in themselves due to usage. Also, the acronym presented in Almerich et al.s (2005) abstract, ANOVA (p. 127), has not been overtly specified either. On the other hand, the medicine articles abstracts by Wijeysundera et al. (2010) and Jrgensen et al. (2010), specifically clarify their acronyms in their Methods sections when firstly used. Thus, Wijeysundera et al. (2010) explain RCRI as Revised Cardiac Risk Index (p. 1), and Jrgensen et al. (2010) specify RR as Relative Risk and CI as confidence interval (p. 1) for their standards of measure. Basically, diverse abstract analysis approaches have been used to compare these articles; as an overall outstanding characterization, the medicine papers abstracts are
75
structured and results-driven whereas the educational ones are unstructured and RP summary like. Linguistic features like the use of tenses and acronyms have also been evaluated; in this latter respect, Jorgensen et al. (2010) and Winjundera et al. (2010) follow APA style because clarification of acronyms is found. Tenses vary apparently due to inner academia restrictions; yet in Jrgensen et al. (2010) there is a marked tendency towards using active voice in scientific writing. On average, the four abstracts under the current analysis are likely to be considered appropriate exemplifications of the most outstanding differentiating features that characterize academic articles belonging to diverse fields in research.
STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES References Almerich, G., Surez, J., Orellana, N., Belloch, Bo, R. & Gastaldo, I. (2005). Diferencias en los conocimientos de los recursos tecnolgicos en profesores a partir del gnero, edad y tipo de centro [Abstract]. RELIEVE, Revista Electrnica de Investigacin y Evaluacin Educativa, 11 (2), pp. 127-146. Retrieved May 2013, from http://www.uv.es/RELIEVE/v11n2/RELIEVEv11n2_3.pdf American Psychological Association (2010). Publication Manual (6th ed.). Washington, DC: British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data. BRKI, S. , ENOVI, M. & OKI, Z. (2003) . Title, abstract, key words and references in biomedical articles. Archive of Oncology. 11(3):207-9. Faculty of Medicine Novi Sad, Serbia and Montenegro. DOI: 001.89:025.4:001.811 Hubbuch, S. M. (1996). Writing research papers across the curriculum (4th ed.). Harcourt Brace: Fort Worth, TX.
76
Jrgensen, K., Zahl, P-H., & Gtzsche, P. (2010) Breast cancer mortality in organized mammography screening in Denmark: comparative study [Abstract] . BMJ Online First. Retrieved May 2013, from http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c1241 King, J. (2002). Using DVD feature films in the EFL classroom [Abstract]. The Weekly Column. ELT Newsletter, 88. Retrieved May 2013, from http://www.eltnewsletter.com/back/February2002/art882002.htm

Langdon-Neuner, E. (2007). Do we need proof? The Write Stuff. 16 (3 ), ISSN
77
1854-8466. Retrieved May, 2013 from http://www.emwa.org/PastTWS/TWS%2020073%20v04.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.
Wijeysundera, D., Beattie, W., Elliot, R., Austin, P., Hux, J. & Laupacis, A. (2010). Non-invasive cardiac stress testing before elective major non-cardiac surgery: population based cohort study [Abstract]. BMJ Online First. Retrieved May 2013, from
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/44925182/Non-invasive-cardiac-stress-testingbefore-elective-major-non-cardiac
STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES Tutors feedback Abstracts Features in Two Different Fields
78
Abstract writing plays an undeniable function in the overall writing of Research Articles (RAs); ideally, abstracts provide a clear synopsis of the articles thesis, research conditions and conclusions. Hubbuch (1996) defines abstracts "as brief summaries of the major points made by the author in a book or article". Their function shall be evaluated in four different abstracts belonging to two disciplines: Education and Medicine. King (2002) and Almerich et al. (2005) are the authors of two RAs related to the education field, while Jrgensen et al (2010) and Wijeysundera et al. (2010) have written the medicine papers. This paper's aspiration is to provide an analysis of diverse abstracts according to the American Psychological Association (APA, 2010), which obviously does not apply for medical abstract writing; more general academic abstract conventions in abstracts will also be evaluated. As far as the American Psychological Association requirements for abstracts writing are concerned, An abstract is a brief, comprehensive summary of the contents of the article; it allows readers to survey the contents of an article quickly and, like a title, it enables persons interested in the document to retrieve it from abstracting and indexing databases. (APA, 2010, p. 25) In short, abstracts should be dense with information, clear, concise, non-evaluative, accurate, coherent, readable and mainly understandable (APA, 2010). Accordingly, abstracts may be considered as more important for readers than for writers, basically because they are written
STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES to attract the audience, to make them think that the summarized research article or paper is worth reading (Swales & Feak, 1994).
79
and Feak (1994): Results-driven abstracts [...] concentrate on the research findings and what might be concluded from them .The other approach is to offer an RP summary abstract in which you provide one or two sentence synopses of each of the four sections (pp. 210-211). In fact, Wijeysundera et al. (2010) and Jrgensen et al.s (2010) research articles (RAs) are clearly structured, described by BRKI & OKI (2002, p. 208) as "intended to be informative, with a detailed structure, which do not exceed 250 words". Additionally, both medicine papers contain bolded headings, with each of these identifying the main sections in each paper. The pattern utilized has been suggested by Ad Hoc Working Group for Critical Appraisal of the Medical Literature (as quoted in BRKI et al., 2003) according to which "authors of articles with direct clinical implications [should] ... write their abstracts with seven explicitly defined headings: Objective, Design, Setting, Patients, Interventions, Measurements and Main Results, and Conclusions and with a partially controlled vocabulary" (p. 207). Conversely, the educational articles by Almerich et al. (2005) and King (2002) apparently follow an unstructured pattern, consisting of a single, unified and unbroken paragraph between 100 and 150 words approximately, as Swales and Feak (1994) explain. Yet, there are some common features in these papers. Both papers appear to follow the
80
81
Almerich et al. (2005) do not use simple past in the writing of their abstracts, as Swales and Feak (1994) explain. On the other hand, Jorgensen et al. (2010) and Wijeysundera et al. (2010) have written the abstracts using simple past tenses and impersonal passive. In Jrgensen et al. (2010) active voice is also used instead of passive when they discuss design "We used Poisson regression..." (p. 1) and also in the conclusions, "We were unable to find an effect..." (p.1). In this respect, there is a heated long-standing discussion upon whether or not to use passive voice in scientific writing. Langdon-Neuner, E. (2007), who seems to favor active voice usage, clearly states that the "American Medical Associat ions Manual of Style, among many other style books, clearly states that the active voice is preferred in scientific writing except in instances in which the actor is of less interest than what is acted upon" (p. 96). However, practice and some other publications seem to favor passive voice usage. With respect to the use of acronyms in abstracts, King (2002) introduces her topic by using the acronyms DVD and VHS without clarification for first time citation, a requisite in APA style. However, one may claim these specific acronyms have become lexical items in themselves due to usage. Also, the acronym presented in Almerich et al.s (2005) abstract, ANOVA (p. 127), has not been overtly specified either. On the other hand, the medicine articles abstracts by Wijeysundera et al. (2010) and Jrgensen et al. (2010), specifically clarify their acronyms in their Methods sections when firstly used. Thus, Wijeysundera et al. (2010) explain RCRI as Revised Cardiac Risk Index (p. 1), and Jrgensen et al. (2010) specify RR as Relative Risk and CI as confidence interval (p. 1) for their standards of measure. Basically, diverse abstract analysis approaches have been used to compare these articles; as an overall outstanding characterization, the medicine papers abstracts are
82
Dear girls, Excellent job! You still tend to be more descriptive than analytical but you made it! The last task shows you profit from peer writing.
83
Jrgensen, K., Zahl, P-H., & Gtzsche, P. (2010) Breast cancer mortality in organized mammography screening in Denmark: comparative study [Abstract]. BMJ Online First. Retrieved May 2013, from http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c1241 King, J. (2002). Using DVD feature films in the EFL classroom [Abstract]. The Weekly Column. ELT Newsletter, 88. Retrieved May 2013, from http://www.eltnewsletter.com/back/February2002/art882002.htm
84
Langdon-Neuner, E. (2007). Do we need proof? The Write Stuff. 16 (3 ), ISSN 18548466. Retrieved May, 2013 from http://www.emwa.org/PastTWS/TWS%2020073%20v04.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. Wijeysundera, D., Beattie, W., Elliot, R., Austin, P., Hux, J. & Laupacis, A. (2010). Non-invasive cardiac stress testing before elective major non-cardiac surgery: population based cohort study [Abstract]. BMJ Online First. Retrieved May 2013, from http://www.docstoc.com/docs/44925182/Non-invasive-cardiac-stress-testing-beforeelective-major-non-cardiac
Rubric? Your mark is 9 (nine). Prepare a final versin for your blogs.
STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES Final version for the blog Abstracts Features in Education and Medicine
85
Abstract writing plays an undeniable function in the overall writing of Research Articles (RAs); ideally, abstracts provide a clear synopsis of the articles thesis, research conditions and conclusions. Hubbuch (1996) defines abstracts "as brief summaries of the major points made by the author in a book or article". Their function shall be evaluated in four different abstracts belonging to two disciplines: Education and Medicine. King (2002) and Almerich et al. (2005) are the authors of two RAs related to the education field, while Jrgensen et al (2010) and Wijeysundera et al. (2010) have written the medicine papers. This paper's aspiration is to provide an analysis of diverse abstracts according to the American Psychological Association (APA, 2010), which obviously does not apply for medical abstract writing; more general academic abstract conventions in abstracts will also be evaluated. As far as the American Psychological Association requirements for abstracts writing are concerned, An abstract is a brief, comprehensive summary of the contents of the article; it allows readers to survey the contents of an article quickly and, like a title, it enables persons interested in the document to retrieve it from abstracting and indexing databases. (APA, 2010, p. 25) In short, abstracts should be dense with information, clear, concise, non-evaluative, accurate, coherent, readable and mainly understandable (APA, 2010). Accordingly, abstracts may be considered as more important for readers than for writers, basically because they are written
STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES to attract the audience, to make them think that the summarized research article or paper is worth reading (Swales & Feak, 1994).
86
& Feak (1994): Results-driven abstracts [...] concentrate on the research findings and what might be concluded from them .The other approach is to offer an RP summary abstract in which you provide one or two sentence synopses of each of the four sections (pp. 210-211). In fact, Wijeysundera et al. (2010) and Jrgensen et al.s (2010) research articles (RAs) are clearly structured, described by BRKI & OKI (2002, p. 208) as "intended to be informative, with a detailed structure, which do not exceed 250 words". Additionally, both medicine papers contain bolded headings, with each of these identifying the main sections in each paper. The pattern utilized has been suggested by Ad Hoc Working Group for Critical Appraisal of the Medical Literature (as quoted in BRKI et al., 2003) according to which "authors of articles with direct clinical implications [should] ... write their abstracts with seven explicitly defined headings: Objective, Design, Setting, Patients, Interventions, Measurements and Main Results, and Conclusions and with a partially controlled vocabulary" (p. 207). Conversely, the educational articles by Almerich et al. (2005) and King (2002) apparently follow an unstructured pattern, consisting of a single, unified and unbroken paragraph between 100 and 150 words approximately, as Swales and Feak (1994) explain. Yet, there are some common features in these papers. Both papers appear to follow the
87
88
Almerich et al. (2005) do not use simple past in the writing of their abstracts, as Swales and Feak (1994) explain. On the other hand, Jorgensen et al. (2010) and Wijeysundera et al. (2010) have written the abstracts using simple past tenses and impersonal passive. In Jrgensen et al. (2010) active voice is also used instead of passive when they discuss design "We used Poisson regression..." (p. 1) and also in the conclusions, "We were unable to find an effect..." (p.1). In this respect, there is a heated long-standing discussion upon whether or not to use passive voice in scientific writing. Langdon-Neuner, E. (2007), who seems to favor active voice usage, clearly states that the "American Medical Associations Manual of Style, among many other style books, clearly states that the active voice is preferred in scientific writing except in instances in which the actor is of less interest than what is acted upon" (p. 96). However, practice and some other publications seem to favor passive voice usage. With respect to the use of acronyms in abstracts, King (2002) introduces her topic by using the acronyms DVD and VHS without clarification for first time citation, a requisite in APA style. However, one may claim these specific acronyms have become lexical items in themselves due to usage. Also, the acronym presented in Almerich et al.s (2005) abstract, ANOVA (p. 127), has not been overtly specified either. On the other hand, the medicine articles abstracts by Wijeysundera et al. (2010) and Jrgensen et al. (2010), specifically clarify their acronyms in their Methods sections when firstly used. Thus, Wijeysundera et al. (2010) explain RCRI as Revised Cardiac Risk Index (p. 1), and Jrgensen et al. (2010) specify RR as Relative Risk and CI as confidence interval (p. 1) for their standards of measure. Basically, diverse abstract analysis approaches have been used to compare these articles; as an overall outstanding characterization, the medicine papers abstracts are
89
90
Jrgensen, K., Zahl, P-H., & Gtzsche, P. (2010) Breast cancer mortality in organized mammography screening in Denmark: comparative study [Abstract]. BMJ Online First. Retrieved May 2013, from http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c1241 King, J. (2002). Using DVD feature films in the EFL classroom [Abstract]. The Weekly Column. ELT Newsletter, 88. Retrieved May 2013, from http://www.eltnewsletter.com/back/February2002/art882002.htm
91
Langdon-Neuner, E. (2007). Do we need proof? The Write Stuff. 16 (3 ), ISSN 18548466. Retrieved May, 2013 from http://www.emwa.org/PastTWS/TWS%2020073%20v04.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. Wijeysundera, D., Beattie, W., Elliot, R., Austin, P., Hux, J. & Laupacis, A. (2010). Non-invasive cardiac stress testing before elective major non-cardiac surgery: population based cohort study [Abstract]. BMJ Online First. Retrieved May 2013, from http://www.docstoc.com/docs/44925182/Non-invasive-cardiac-stress-testing-beforeelective-major-non-cardiac
STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES Letter of Introduction for the blog Dear all,
92
After having worked in three papers in 2012, I started a new course this year in ESP for which I have worked collaboratively with two peers Viviana Rodriguez and Alejandra Lacana. This experience has proved absolutely fruitful on both personal and professional grounds; each of us contributed differently either writing, investigating, or editing. We have studied research articles (RAs) mainly from medicine and education; we have analysed moves in introductions, abstracts, results, discussions and conclusions. This process has enlightened me mainly in process writing and proof reading; writing takes time and analysing effort. In other words, quoting T.S. Elliot (1943): "Trying to use words, and every attempt Is a wholly new start, and a different kind of failure Because one has only learnt to get the better of words For the thing one no longer has to say, or the way in which One is no longer disposed to say it. And so each venture Is a new beginning..." The Four Quartets, T. S. Elliot, 1943. East Coker. Harcourt. p. 13
93
Finally, I hope to keep on growing academically by actually writing about my own action research papers.
Kind regards, Carla Allende, C. (2013) English for Academic Purposes. http://eapatcaece.blogspot.com.ar/
STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES References Allende, C. (2013) English for Academic Purposes. http://eapatcaece.blogspot.com.ar/ American Psychological Association (2010). Publication Manual (6th ed.). Washington, DC: British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data. BRKI, S. , ENOVI, M. & OKI, Z. (2003) . Title, abstract, key words and references in biomedical articles. Archive of Oncology. 11(3):207-9. Faculty of Medicine Novi Sad, Serbia and Montenegro. DOI: 001.89:025.4:001.811 Almerich, G., Surez, J., Orellana, N., Belloch, Bo, R. & Gastaldo, I. (2005). Diferencias en los conocimientos de los recursos tecnolgicos en profesores a partir del gnero, edad y tipo de centro [Abstract]. RELIEVE, Revista Electrnica de Investigacin y Evaluacin Educativa, 11 (2), pp. 127-146. Retrieved May 2013, from http://www.uv.es/RELIEVE/v11n2/RELIEVEv11n2_3.pdf Baralt, M., Pennestri, S., & Selvandin, M. (2011) Action research: using
94
wordles to teach foreign language writing. Language Learning and Technology. 15 (2), 12-22. Retrieved April 2013, from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2011/actionresearch.pdf Barrs, K. (2012). Action research: Fostering computer-mediated L2 interaction beyond the classroom. Language Learning and Technology. 16(1), 10-25. Retrieved April 2013, from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/february2012/actionresearch.pdf
STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES Di Angelantonio, E., Chowdhury, R., Sarwar, N., Aspelund, T., Danesh, J. and Gudnason, V. (2010). Chronic kidney disease and risk of major cardiovascular disease and non-vascular mortality: prospective population cohort study. BMJ Online First. doi:10.1136/bmj.c4986 Retrieved April 2013, from http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c4986.pdf%2Bhtml Hubbuch, S. M. (1996). Writing research papers across the curriculum (4th ed.). Harcourt Brace: Fort Worth, TX.
95
Jrgensen, K., Zahl, P-H., & Gtzsche, P. (2010) Breast cancer mortality in organized mammography screening in Denmark: comparative study. BMJ Online First. Retrieved April, 2013, from http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c1241 Jrgensen, K., Zahl, P-H., & Gtzsche, P. (2010) Breast cancer mortality in organized mammography screening in Denmark: comparative study [Abstract]. BMJ Online First. Retrieved May 2013, from http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c1241 King, J. (2002). Using DVD feature films in the EFL classroom [Abstract]. The Weekly Column. ELT Newsletter, 88. Retrieved May 2013, from http://www.eltnewsletter.com/back/February2002/art882002.htm Langdon-Neuner, E. (2007). Do we need proof? The Write Stuff. 16 (3 ), ISSN 18548466. Retrieved May, 2013 from http://www.emwa.org/PastTWS/TWS%2020073%20v04.pdf
96
Rhrig, B., Prell, J. d, Wachtlin, D. and Blettner, M. (2009). Types of study in medical research. Part 3 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications. Aerzteblattinternational.d. NCBI. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2009.0262 Retrieved April 2013, from http://www.aerzteblatt.de/int/archive/article?id=64227 Swales, J.M., & Feak, C.B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Harbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. Wijeysundera, D., Beattie, W., Elliot, R., Austin, P., Hux, J. & Laupacis, A. (2010). Non-invasive cardiac stress testing before elective major non-cardiac surgery: population based cohort study [Abstract]. BMJ Online First. Retrieved May 2013, from http://www.docstoc.com/docs/44925182/Non-invasive-cardiac-stress-testing-beforeelective-major-non-cardiac

Allende Esp e Portfolio 2013

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Allende Esp e Portfolio 2013

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

RUNNING HEAD: STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES 1

STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES

STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES

V. Letter of introduction for the blog VI. References

STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES

STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES

STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES

STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES

STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES

STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES

STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES

STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES

STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES

STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES References

STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES

Papers Analysis (APA 6th ed)

Header and page numbers included. Spacing problems. Inappropriate font.

Included. Too much information. Or some info missing.

Included. Not well balanced.

Included. Not suitable. Underlined, highlighted or italicized.

Included. Appealing. Underlined, highlighted or italicized.

Not mentioned. References Plagiarism.

Mentioned vaguely. Not on a new sheet of paper.

Not clear use of references or erroneous sources acknowledgement.

STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES

Inappropriate terminology. Little clarification. Some terms are not academic.

Legible terminology. Clarification. More academic style. Effective.

Many errors. Some parts unreadable.

Few errors. Readable.

Complete sentences in a variety of patterns and lengths.

Frequent and major errors that obscure meaning.

Some frequent or major errors: Readers confusion.

Paragraph content & paragraph length

Not balanced: too long & too short paragraphs are

Most paragraphs are related to the topic. Well

Paragraph length has been respected & achieved.

STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES

Smooth. Clear and precise.

Grammar choices are confusing. Mixture of tenses.

Some grammar mistakes. Grammar choices sometimes confuse the readers.

Appropriate grammar choice. No meaning interference.

Completely appropriate grammar choice: Help readers understand meaning.

Some accurate details. Do not always support topic.

Accurate info that supports the topic.

Accurate and relevant info that fully support the topic.

Tone & audience

Unclear & inappropriate tone. Audience not considered.

Inconsistent tone. Incomplete idea of audience.

Appropriate tone. Audience is considered.

Appropriate & consistent tone. Audience correctly identified.

STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES

STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES

STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES

STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES

STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES

STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES

STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES References

STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES

STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES References

STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES

STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES Tutors feedback

STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES

STEPPING STONES TO RESEARCH ARTICLES Rubrics for Task 2: