This is the certificate bearing the mark I got after defending our thesis.
2013-02-12
2011-12-22
Dear peers and tutors:
During the course of the semester in English for Specific Puposes (ESP) lessons, I have been able to acquire a vast amount of knowledge and skills. In fact, I have experienced many different feelings on course work. I have often felt overwhelmed with assignments, worried that I did something incorrect, or even stressed thinking I would not finish the assigments on time. Above all, I now feel that I have learned to adapt a better sense of organization to my learning habits.
I started this first semester ESP class with both strengths and weaknesses. I was strong in the fundamentals of writing: logic and grammar. I have always written well-organized essays, and that held true for this class. However, despite this strength, during the term, I struggled to narrow and define the various aspects of Research Papers writing.
Throughout this semester I have had the opportunity to develop my skills in the writing process that includes drafting, individual writing consultations, generation of ideas, collaborative work as well as peer papers evaluation. Overall, my writing skills have improved dramatically, thanks to many hours spent writing, revising, polishing, and when I was not writing, reflecting upon topics. It is in this mode in which these valuable achievements have become true.
In this portfolio all those pieces of academic writing I have done throughout the present semester have been included, namely, all the tasks, mid-term tests, proposal as well as blog entries.
Yours sincerely,
Maria Fernanda Walter
Running Head: IMPROVING ENGLISH WRITING
Title: Improving Argentinian Secondary School Students’ Performance in English Language Writing
Andrea Marina Valek
María Fernanda Walter
Universidad CAECE
Abstract
Although new methodologies have been applied in English language learning and teaching, most students’ writing performances in Argentina may still be restricted to product- oriented approaches. This study reports on the prospective implementation of the process- oriented approach in writing classes in two secondary schools of Cordoba province, Argentina, as it might improve students’ written productions. There exists secondary schools´ teachers in Córdoba province who may continue adopting product-oriented approaches in their writing classes and focusing on students’ final pieces of work rather than on their learning processes. However, adapting the process-oriented approach for the teaching and learning of English language writing could be an effective technique as it would enable students to share, discuss, reflect and learn writing skills in a more cooperative and colaborative environment.
Keywords: Writing, Argentinian secondary schools, process oriented approach, learning, teaching.
A large number of various views of writing show that there has not yet been any consensus of what writing is although its importance has been recognized in its own right. Traditionally, writing was considered as transcribed speech. It was often assumed that the acquisition of spoken proficiency had to take precedence over the learning of written language, and that students would be able to write once they ‘mastered’ spoken language and orthographic conventions. According to Grabe and Kaplan (1996) and Matsuda (1997), writing is “far from decontextualized because every writing task is situated in a rhetorical context, involving complex interrelationships among various elements of writing: the writer, the reader, the text and reality”. (p.5)
According to Canale and Swain(1990), the ability of writing can be considered as “ a manifestation of, as well as the process of manifesting, sociolinguistic, strategic and grammatical competences mediated by the use of orthographic systems” (as cited in Silva & Matsuda, 2002, pp. 252). It is important to mention that, for scholars, writing might be a language skill difficult to acquire since it is not readily picked up by exposure but it occurs over a period of time and is sometimes carried out in extended periods of thinking and creativity (Tribble, as cited in Reid, 2001, p. 33).
In general terms, what teachers shoud try to do is to make students be aware that any piece of writing is an attempt to communicate something; that the writer has to have a goal or purpose in mind and has to establish and maintain contact with the reader; organize his/her material and that is done through the use of certain logical and grammatical devices developed and acquired in different stages of the teaching and learning process.
For this reason, adapting the product-oriented approach into a process-oriented one could be a more suitable strategy in English language writing. Many studies have tried to prove and analyze the effectiveness of applying a process approach. Theoretically, this approach calls for providing and maintaining a positive, encouraging and collaborative workshop environment in all the English language classes.
Literature Review
Traditional approaches to teaching writing
In the recent history of second language writing, a number of different approaches to the practice of writing skills have vied for the attention of second language writing professionals. Among these approaches, controlled composition and the paragraph pattern approaches are the most prominent and widely used in a series of new English textbooks for Argentinian secondary school students. Classroom writing practice has its own purpose and structure, and is not simply a reflection of the outside world. In this sense, writing activities can be considered not only from the instrumental perspective of what is useful for external purposes, but also in terms of their educational function and the reality of the classroom itself.
Controlled composition.
In the controlled composition classroom, the primary focus is on formal accuracy. The role of the teacher is to provide accurate and carefully selected language samples that students can repeat and memorize. Within this tradition, students can write a lot without being afraid of making many errors, and the teacher can deal with these pieces of writing more easily. (Grabe and Kaplan, 1996, p. 102)
Overall, controlled composition sees writing as a secondary activity; as a means of practicing structures and vocabulary learned in the classroom. Therefore, the context for writing is the classroom and the audience is the teacher. This approach focuses on form and accuracy rather than the fluency of the language, and writing is simply a means of assessing students’ ability to manipulate the structures practiced in the classroom. Audience and purpose are not taken into consideration.
The paragraph pattern approach.
Increasing awareness of second language writers’ need to produce extended written texts led to the realization that there was more to writing than constructing grammatical sentences. The result of this realization was what Raimes (1983) has called the paragraph pattern approach, which emphasizes the importance of organization at the above-sentence level (as cited in Silva & Matsuda, 2002, p. 259).
Classroom procedures associated with this tradition have tended to focus students’ attention primarily on form. Students are asked to read and analyze a model text and then write another piece of writing that has the same organization with the original one. Besides, some common writing activities, within this tradition, require students to group provided relevant facts, rearrange them in the logical order to form an outline, and then write a complete text based on that outline. Students may also be asked to complete a paragraph or a story by adding an ending or a beginning or a middle section and so on (Grabe and Kaplan, 1996, p. 115). These kind of patterned drilling makes language (and writing) be used in de-contextualised meanings thus carrying little communicative function among teachers and students.
To sum up, these traditional approaches to the teaching of writing focus on both accuracy and the finished product. Besides, imitating models inhibits writers rather than liberating them. There is little or no opportunity for the students to express their own ideas. It is inevitable that little attention is paid to the ideas and meaning of students’ pieces of writing. What is more, over-emphasis on accuracy and form can lead to serious writing block sterile and unimaginative pieces of work (Halsted, 1975, p. 102).
Dissatisfaction with controlled composition and the paragraph pattern approach paved the way for the process approach, an expressive approach which became prominent in English-speaking composition classrooms during the 1980s. The understanding of what constitutes the writing process instructional model has evolved since the 1970’s, when it emerged as a pedagogical approach. As Zamel (1982) states, “this approach entered the classroom as the process movement: a concentration on personal writing, student creativity, and fluency” (as cited in Reid, 2001, p. 38).
In general, those studies that view the process model as encompassing more teacher direction in the process show positive effects on the quality of students’ writing, on their view of themselves as writers, and on their understanding of the writing process. Thus teachers are designing curriculums based on the balance of institutional, programme and student needs rather than around dogmatic theories or approaches. Placed in the classroom context, this process approach calls for providing and maintaining a positive,
encouraging and collaborative workshop environment, and for providing ample time and minimal interference so as to allow students to work through their composing processes. The objective is to help students develop viable strategies for getting started, drafting, revising and editing.
From a process perspective, then, writing is a complex, recursive and creative process that is very similar in its general outlines for first and second language writers; learning to write requires the development of an efficient and effective composing process. “The writer is engaged in the discovery and expression of meaning; the reader, on interpreting that intended meaning. The product (that is, the written text) is a secondary concern, whose form is a function of its content and purpose” (Silva & Matsuda, 2002, pp. 261). Therefore, writing instruction seems to involve practice in composing strategies; whereas learning to write seems to entail obtaining and using these strategies to manage the creation of a text and monitor its development.
Working process-oriented writing framework.
Writing, like reading, is in many ways an individual, solitary activity: The writing triangle of communicating, composing and crafting is usually carried out for an absent readership (Reid, 2001, p. 32). However, it should be remembered that our students are language learners rather than writers, and it would not be particularly helpful to have them spend all their time writing alone. Although process research points to a need to give learner-writers space and time to operate their own preferred individual strategies, the classroom can be structured in such a way as to provide positive intervention and support in the development of writing skills.
Placed in the Argentinian secondary school context, one of the disadvantages of getting students to concentrate on the process of writing is that it takes time: time to brainstorm ideas or collect them in some other way; time to draft a piece of writing and then, with the teacher’s help perhaps, review it and edit it in various ways before changing the focus, generating more ideas, redrafting, re-editing and so on. This process could not be done in two or three periods of forty minutes in which English lessons take place every week. However, the various stages could be adapted so that process writing is handled appropriately and it stretches across the whole.
From the above reasons, a working process-oriented writing model which is used as a framework for the lesson plans in this study is proposed. The classroom can provide the following stages adapted from Seow (2002)’s process model:
1. stage 1: pre-writing: helping students to generate ideas and building
awareness of discourse organization;
2. stage 2: drafting: letting students write freely;
3. stage 3: peer evaluation: enabling students to appreciate the criteria for
an effective text;
4. stage 4: revising: helping students to develop crafting skills.
Research Aim
This study aims to find out whether adopting the process-oriented approach into the English teaching and learning of writing in the most advanced courses at two Argentinian high schools has more positive effects than adopting the product-oriented approach in said environment. One of them is a state-run secondary school, the other is a private Roman Catholic high school. Both are located in the province of Córdoba, Argentina; the former is in a large town in the south and the latter in the capital city. When investigating the effectiveness of the process-oriented approach in writing classes at said secondary schools, the improvement of the students’ English language writing performance shall be taken into due consideration.
Methodology
In this study, the implementation of the process-oriented approach will be monitored and the students’ writing performance will be measured. The main purpose of the writing activities adopting the process-oriented approach is to offer upper-secondary students of two different secondary schools, a cooperative learning environment in order to improve their quality of English writing by sharing their written products and learning from their peers, not only from the teacher.
During the 16-week semester, two writing groups will be equally instructed by the researchers. However, the main difference between the two conditions is that adapting the product-oriented approach will be applied in one group whereas adopting the process-oriented approach will be implemented in the other. In both conditions, the researchers will grade the students’ written products
Instruments
The test types selected for this study are popular kinds of writing test similar to those which students are instructed, and those which are often used in the secondary school classroom context (Appendixes a and b). Therefore, the students are supposed to be familiar with the test format.
For the purpose of this study, one type of rating scales will be used: analytic scales. As McNamara (1996) states, the scale that is used in assessing performance tasks such as writing tests, represents, implicitly or explicitly, the theoretical basic upon which the test is founded; that is, it embodies the test (or scale) developer’s notion of what skills or abilities are being measured by the test. For this reason the development of a scale (or set of scales) and the descriptors for each scale level are of critical importance for the validity of the assessment (as cited in Weigle, 2002, pp.109).
Analytic scoring has some advantages. On the one hand, it is particularly useful for second language learners who are more likely to show a marked or uneven profile across different aspects of writing. On the other hand, analytic scoring can be more reliable than holistic scoring since a scoring scheme in which multiple scores are given to each script tends to improve reliability (Hamp-Lyons, as cited in Weigle, 2002, p. 120)
In analytic scoring, scripts are rated on several aspects of writing or criteria rather than given a single score. Depending on the purpose of the assessment, scripts might be rated on such features as content, organization, cohesion, register, vocabulary, grammar, or mechanics. Analytic scoring schemes thus provide more detailed information about a test taker’s performance in different aspects of writing. For this reason it is usually preferred over holistic schemes by many writing specialists. (Weigle, 2002, p. 121)
One of the best known and most widely used analytic scales in ESL was created by Jacobs, H. L., Zingraf, S. A., Wormuth, D. R., Hartfiel, V. F., & Hughey, J. B. (1981, cited in Weigle, 2002, p. 116) (Appendix C). In such scale, scripts are rated on five aspects of writing: content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanics. The five aspects are differentially weighted to emphasize first content (30 points) and next language use (25 points), with organization and vocabulary weighted equally (20 points) and mechanics receiving very little emphasis (5 points).
From the above discussion, it is relevant to add that Jacobs et al. ‘s scoring profile (as cited in Weigle, 2002, p. 115) shall be implented in this study as a marking scale and a framework for the graders’ evaluation.
Participants
The participants in this study are 57 students at two distinct secondary schools. One of them is a state school located in a small town and subsidized by the provincial government. The other one is a private school which is partly subsidized by the provincial government and belongs to the Catholic Church. Unlike the former, the latter is located in the provincial capital city.
All of these participants are in the sixth year. As they belong to two different schools, they are permanently arranged in two separate classes. One of the researchers will teach 30 students at one of the schools and the other one will manage 27 students at the other . The writing classes will be met every two weeks for 40 minutes. And eight sessions will make up one semester.
Both researchers will be responsible for implementing the project and collecting as well as analyzing data. Other two writing teachers in the English Department will get involved in the project to help both researchers grade and evaluate the tests.
Limitations
Though the main aim of this research is to show that the secondary students at two Argentinian schools could improve their performance in English language writing through the implementation of the process approach, some kind of trouble may arise and hinder the aims of this study. One of the main drawbacks is that in the context of the highest courses in Argentinian high schools the exposure to English is limited to only three periods each week. Thus students receive little practice in writing in English, in fact, only one period of 40 minutes a week. When they do write, they find themselves confused with word choice, grammatical use, organization and generation of ideas. Besides, they tend to translate ideas from mother tongue into English, express ideas in long sentences as well as they are not aware of different kinds of writing.
The pressures of the formative tests and summative examinations that lead English teachers to focus on grammar rules, linguistic accuracy and students’ final pieces of work instead of functional language skills is another potential setback that may limit the outcome of the research. Thus teaching English writing in Argentinian secondary schools is a challenging job for many English teachers because it requires the application of appropriate writing instructions and the accurate decision making with respect to time use. The reality of teaching English writing at the two distinct secondary schools involved has revealed that most students have problems in writing.
Conclusions
It seems the majority of writing activities in the Argentinian secondary school syllabuses are designed on the basis of the product-oriented approach, in which students are encouraged to mimic a model text, which is usually presented and analyzed at an early stage. This process may discourage students’ creativity because they cannot use their own experiences to express themselves. Due to the fact that there are too many students in a class, and most classes are mixed ability, revision may become a burden to teachers as marking and correcting is time-consuming. What is more, teachers may feel they cannot manage it when they have only 40 minutes allocated for each writing lesson. Therefore, what English writing teachers in upper secondary schools could do is to improve the quality of students’ pieces of writing, to give them a more cooperative learning environment, and to encourage them to share their written products with their peers’. Among the pedagogical methods which could help deal with the above mentioned problems, adapting the process-oriented approach could be an effective strategy.
All in all, there exists many advantages which deserve being exploited when it comes to the implementation of the process approach for English language teaching and learning. In the pre-writing stage, students have the possibility of sharing and discussing their ideas in groups in such a way that students become aware of the features of different genres of writing in English. Then, during drafting, the most important feature is meaning so students can get helpful tools to better express their own ideas. What is more, at the revising stage, they would also learn from their errors rather than be told about theirs. Therefore, the effectiveness of the process approach may prove to be one of the major tools in the English language classroom to promote communicative competence in second language writing.
Evidently, writing continues to serve as a vehicle for second language practice. However; this function is integrated into a broader and more diversified perspective. Teachers need to make students aware that writing is a complex, recursive and creative process that is very similar to the one developed by first language writers. All in all, learning to write requires the development of an efficient and effective composing process since the writer is engaged in the discovery as well as the expression of meaning.
References
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. (1996). Theory and Practice of Writing. London: Addison Wesley Longman.
Halsted, I. (1975). Putting error in its place. Journal of Basic Writing 1,
1, 72-86.
McDonough, J., & Shaw, C. (1996). Materials and Methods in ELT. A teacher’s guide.
Matsuda, P.K. (1997). Contrastive rhetoric in context: A dynamic model of L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6 (1),45-60.
Reid, J. (2001). Writing. The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages. (R. Carter & D. Nunan, Eds). Cambridge Cambridge University
Seow, A. (2002). The Writing Process and Process Writing . (J. C. Richards & W. A. Renandya, Eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Silva, T., & Matsuda, P. K. (2002). An introduction to applied linguistics (N. Schmitt, Ed.). New York Oxford University
Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Appendix A
TEST on Writing
Time allotted: 40 minutes
Student’s name: ……………………………………….
Class: ……………………….
School: ………………………
Date: …………………………
Marks | In words | Teacher’s signature | Teacher’s signature |
These days, many people begin to catch fish in the lake behind your house. What makes you worried most is that they use electricity to catch fish. A lot of small fish died and floated on the water surface. Other animals such as frogs, toads, and even birds also died from electric shock waves. You think that local authorities should prohibit and fine heavily anyone catching fish in this way.
Now, write a letter of 100-150 words to the head of the local authorities to complain about the way of catching fish in the lake behind your house. Follow the format provided:
Situation states the reason for writing
Complication mentions the problem
Resolution makes a suggestion
Action talks about future action
Politeness ends the letter politely
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
A descriptive analysis of research article abstracts
Hubbuch (1996) defines abstracts as “brief summaries of the major points made by an author in a book or article” (p.126). In fact, abstracts allow readers to delve into a summary of the whole research article (RA) as well as to be able to have a clear perspective of the main topics being discussed. It is expected that they follow broadly accepted academic guidelines. Moreover, abstracts may be classified in terms of their structure and content and, analyzed with respect to their linguistic features and approach to writing.
This paper attempts to compare and contrast four research paper abstracts in order to find differences and similarities as regards their structure, linguistic features, the use of tenses and any other relevant conventions that may contribute to this academic analysis. The examined texts deal with diverse topics related to the fields of medicine and education, namely non-invasive cardiac stress testing (Wijeysundera, Beattie, Elliot, Austin, Hux, & Laupacis, 2009), the treatment of hypertension in elderly patients (Beckett, Peters, Fletcher, Staessen, Liu, Dumitrascu, Stoyanovsky, Antikainen, Nikitin, Anderson, Belhani, Forette, Rajkumar, Thijs, Banya, & Bulpitt, 2008), the video in the classroom (Kokonis, 1993) and the use of DVD in the EFL classroom (King, 2002).
When taking into consideration the classification of research paper abstracts that Swales and Feak (1998) present, Wijeysundera et al. (2009) have provided their research paper with an informative kind of abstract. By means of detailed information, it attempts to describe the most relevant aspects of the corresponding study such as the objectives, the design, the participants as well as the results. Indeed, it is the results section the most detailed one since it contains specific numerical data indicating ratios, indexes as well as differences: “Testing was associated with improved one year survival (hazard ratio (HR) o.92, 95% CI o.86 to 0.99; P=0.03) (....)”(Wijeysundera et al., p. 1). On the other hand, concerning structure, this abstract seems to bear most of the characteristics of the structured kind of abstracts.
An aspect that shows Wijeysundera et al.’s research paper could be considered a structured one is the fact that it is rather unbalanced with a long results section which seems to stand out from the rest of the the abstract. This feature corresponds with one of the most important characteristics of structured abstracts that Graf (2008) describes: “The structured abstract contains more detail about methods and results, so it is possible to make a tentative critique of the quality and value of the study” (p. 3). What is more, another feature for which it is possible to consider that said abstract falls into the structured classification is the fact that each heading is bolded and makes reference to the most relevant parts of the researh paper. However, when taking into consideration the characteristics of structured abstracts that Swales and Feak (1994) provide, it does not follow the Introduction-Methods-Results And-Discussion formula (IMRAD) closely.
As in most informative abstracts, Wijeysundera et al. (2009) seem to succintly refer to the results of their study through the use of the past simple tense both active and passive: “ Of the 271082 patients in the entire cohort, 23991 (8.9%) underwent stress testing (....)” ( p. 1). Regarding the linguistic specifications formulated by Swales and Feak (1990), there is one with which the authors do not comply; that is, the use of full sentences. In fact, in the majority of the sections of their paper abstract, Wijeysundera et al. (2008) employ long complex sentences and prefer to use full sentences both in the results and conclusion sections. “Non-invasive cardiac stress testing performed within six months before surgery” (Wijeysundera et al., p. 1) is an example of such kind of phrases. Regarding the conclusion, the researchers employ the simple present tense coinciding with a tendency in tense usage that Swales and Feak (1994) cites when referring to the characteristics of abstracts in research papers: “Preoperative non-invasive cardiac stress testing is associated with improved one year survival and length of hospital stay (....)” (Wijeysundera et al., p. 1). Besides, these results seem to be current and ongoing by having been presented in said verb tense (Swales and Feak, 2009, p. 5).
As in the paper written by Wijeysundera et al. (2009), in the informative abstract included by Beckett et al.(2008) there appears to be a lack of balance among its different moves: background, methods, results and conclusion. The authors employ longer grammar structures and specific statistical data in the results section which appears as the longest part as well as it includes the most specific details. That is why, it
is in that part of the abstract in which acronyms referring to ratios, percentages and measurements were included: “active treatment was associated with a 30% reduction in the rate of fatal or nonfatal stroke (95% confidence interval [CI] 1 to 51, P=0.06 (....)” (Beckett et al., p. 1887). Unlike Wijeysundera et al. (2009), Beckett et al. (2008) include a more detailded account of the methodology applied in their abstract. In fact, in the methods section, they provide a summary of both the participants’ characteristics and the different stages in which the study was performed: “The angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor perindopril (2 or 4 mg), or matching placebo, was added if necessary to achieve the target blood pressure of 150/80 mm Hg.” (Beckett et al., p. 1887). Besides, these researchers also fulfill the IMRAD formula in the layout of their research paper abstract. Both papers follow the results-driven approach (Swales & Feak, 1994) with outstanding long results sections.
In their research article, Beckett et al.( 2008) formulate an abstract that can be considered to bear most of the linguistic characteristics that Swales and Feak (1994) describe. It is formed by full sentences with an absence of negative statements as well as there seems to be a predominance of the past tense: “The active treatment group (1933 patients) and the placebo group (1912 patients) were well matched (....)” (Beckett et al., p 1887). At the same time the very short conclusion section is written in the simple present tense: “The results provide evidence that antihypertensive treatment with indapamide (sustained release), with or without preindopril, in persons 80 years of age or older is beneficial. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00122811). (Beckett et al., p. 1887). Thus Wijeysundera et al. (2009) as well as Beckett et al. (2008) seem to succed in writing effective abstracts that bear the main features that Driscoll (2011) state: well-developed paragraphs, precise chronology, logical connections between materials along with the use of the introduction-body-conclusion structure.
With respect to the type of abstract written by Kokonis (1993), it can be classified as an indicative one. This is because in this abstract, a generalized summary of the article is provided. Besides, the specific or more detailed results are not included in this part of the RA. What is more, through this abstract, the author tries to describe in general terms what the researchers intended to do when carrying out their study. This part of a RA might also be classified as an unstructured abstract. In other words, the already mentioned feature accounts for the fact that this abstract consists of one long, unbroken paragraph very similar to the way in which informative abstracts are presented.
Some of the linguistics specifications mentioned by Swales and Feak (1994) are also shown in this part of the paper. It is characterized by the utilization of full and long sentences. Kokonis (1993) describes the research using the simple present form. Examples of such use can be found in sentences like “this paper suggests ways in which video can be used (…)” or “narratologists posit three terms for the textual analysis of narratives (…)” (p.1). The author also uses the present passive voice: “Selected excerpts from the film text are provided to illustrate theoretical concepts” (p. 1). There is an absence in the utilization of negatives as well as an avoidance of abbreviations and jargon in the whole abstract.
Similarly to the abstract written by Kokonis (1993), the one developed by King (2002) might be considered an indicative abstract. The author starts this part of the RA providing a general summary of the topic of research taking into account past events that support the investigation. King (2002) does not refer to any specific results. In the last part of the abstract, the steps followed by the researcher to carry out her investigation are explained in a few words: “This paper starts off by discussing film-viewing approaches (…)” and then she continues “[and] then assessing the use of captioned and non-captions films with different level learners”. In the same way as the abstract developed by Kokonis (1993), it shows the main feature of an unstructured abstract. In other words, it was written in an only one unbroken paragraph.
As for linguistics specifications, this abstract is characterized by the use of full sentences. There is also an absence in the use of negative as well as the use of impersonal passive. The avoidance of jargon and abbreviations is another feature of this part of the RA. Considering verb tenses, the present tense is mostly used in the whole abstract: “With these special features, DVD films provide more pedagogical options (…) “, “This paper starts off by discussing film-viewing approaches”. The opening sentences are written in the present tense. For instance, a present perfect form is used when King (2002) starts writing her abstract “DVD has vastly replaced traditional VHS as the movie medium of the millennium.”
All in all, differences according to articles’ field of study are likely to surpass similarities among the abstracts under analysis. Hence, being aware of such issues as well as putting the knowledge gained after contrasting RAs from different disciplines into practice would be regarded as crucial if participation in the academic world is to be achieved. In other words, RP’s writers need to grasp the idea that abstracts are neither reviews nor evaluations of the work being abstracted; rather, they are to be considered original pieces of writing. To conclude, writing efficient abstracts seems to demand hard work, but it would repay authors with increased impact on intended audiences by enticing people to read the whole publication. Some important characteristics concerning the objectives, linguistics features as well as classification of abstracts have been taken into account. By making a profound description, this paper could also reflect on the essence of these abstracts, thus offering a deep and comparative analysis of them.
References
Beckett, N., Peters, R., Fletcher, A., Staessen, J., Liu, L., Dumitrascu, D., Stoyanovsky, V., Antikainen; R., Nikitin, Y., Anderson
Driscoll, D. (2011). Purdue University Online Writing Lab (OWL) (2011). Writing Report Abstracts. Retrieved June 2011 from http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/owlprint/656
Graf, J. (2008). Center for Teaching and Learning English Writing Lab. Handbook of Biomedical Research Writing. Retrieved June, 2011 from
Hubbuch, S. M. (1996). Writing research papers across the curriculum. (4th ed.). Harcourt Brace: Fort Worth , TX
King, J. (2002). Using DVD Feature Films in the EFL Classroom [Abstract]. The Weekly Column, 2002(88). Retrieved June, 2011 from http://www.eltnewsletter.com
Kokonis, M. (1993). The Video in the Classroom: Agatha Christie’s “Evil Under the Sun” ant the Teaching of Narratology through Film [Abstract]. Retrieved from ERIC Education Resources Information Center. (ED393427).
Swales,J., & Feak, C. (2008). Journal Article Abstracts. University of Michigan. Ann Arbor. Michigan. USA. Retrieved June, 2011 from http://turkey.usembassy.gov/uploads/images/WX6duzqT06rI9geYcx3UrA/FeakAbstracts_and_the_Writing_of_Abstracts_March_2.pdf
Wijeysundera, D.N., Beattie, W. S., Elliot, R.F., Austin, P. C., Hux, J.E., & Laupacis, A. (2009). Non-invasive cardiac stress testing before elective major non-cardiac surgery: Population based cohort study. [Abstract]. BMJ, 340 (b5526), 1-9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b55
2011-08-05
Reflections on social sciences methodology of research
Research can be considered a source of knowledge for different kinds of fields. According to Hernández, Collado and Lucio (1998) academic research papers report on results so as to produce new knowledge and theories as well as solving problems. Therefore, a specific framework should be set when dealing with these kinds of investigations. This paper is intended to carry out a critical analysis of the paper by Lindón Villoria (1998) in which she discusses the nature of research in the social sciences, as well as the investigation and the underlying methodology employed in this field.
Taking into account types of research papers, Lindon Villoria (1998) has followed an argumentative model in order to support her claims by means of the necessary evidence (Copley, Greenberg, Handley & Oaks, 1996). The paper presents the topic in a very brief and effective introduction section where the author announces the purpose of her work as well as four viewpoints according to which she is to deal with the issue. In fact, she seems to deal with relevant aspects such as the role of the social sciences researchers, the multiple decisions taken by them as well as the deep relationship between research and knowledge in the social field of study.
Considering the Create a Research Space Model (C.A.R.S.) designed by Swales and Feak (1994), the author appears to establish her research territory but her paper lacks both an abstract and a review of previous research. Indeed, there seems to be no move 2 since Lindón Villoria (1998) simply defines her purposes in the introduction.
Lindón Villoria (1998) breaks down the topic into different aspects and analyses them in detail so as to reflect on and characterize academic social research. That is why the author can display the argumentative side of her research article. In fact, she seems to make a deep analysis of research in the field of social sciences but at the same time, support her own points of view with clear evidence. As Copley, Greenberg, Handley and Oaks (1996) state: “an argumentative paper is analytical, but it uses information as evidence to support its point” (para.8).
Although APA (2008) advises not to overuse footnotes and state that they “should be included only if they strengthen the discussion” (p. 202), Lindón Villoria (1998) makes ample use of this resource. It seems as she tried to help the audience to identify sources and clarify concepts which have been previously mentioned in the paper. By means of twelve footnotes the reader is directed to primary sources. Finally, the conclusion is quite succinct and highlights the core of the discussion.
All in all, Lindón Villoria presents a discussion on research in social sciences that seems to be well balanced and in accordance with the purpose of the paper. She has succeded in engaging readers in a deep kind of reflection by applying APA conventions for the transmission of information. Lindón Villoria (1998) seems to have taken into consideration linguistics characteristics as well as layout and format so as to follow an argumentative structure for discussing relevant issues. Although the author emphazices her own perspectives, she seems to manage to provide readers with a unified reflection arising from an argumentative research paper.
References
American Psychological Association (2008). Publication Manual (5th ed.). Washington, DC: British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.
Copley, C., Greenberg, L., Handley, E., & Oaks, S. (1996). The writer’s complex. Empire State College. Retrieved May 2011, from http://www.esc.edu/esconline/across_esc/writerscomplex.nsf/home
Hernández Sampieri, R., Fernández Collado, C., & Baptista Lucio, P. (1998). Metodología de la investigación. 2nd. Ed. McGraw Hill. México.
Lindón Villoria, A. (1998). De la investigación en ciencias sociales, de las “tesis” y la metodología de la investigación. El Colegio Mexiquense, A. C. 17, 1-7. Retrieved May 2011, from http:// www.cmq.edu.mx/component/docman/doc.../141-di0150111.html
Swales, J.M., & Feak, C.B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Harbor University of Michigan
Research papers: A Resource for Educators.
Research Papers in education can result a good resource for educators to express, share and discuss critical points with colleagues. In fact, by means of research papers academics may have the possibility of showing their own understanding of an specific topic, their critical thinking as well as their writing abilities in order to share and discuss their points of view with other researchers.
Copley, Greenberg, Handly and Oaks (1996) state that “a research paper is more than the sum of your sources, more than a collection of different pieces of information about a topic” (para. 1). Thus the researchers’ analytical and argumentative skills are needed in such a way that their own critical thinking is presented while being supported by the ideas of other members of the academic community they belong to. When taking into consideration the educational field, the academic papers these researchers present can be useful resources that may help to produce new knowledge as well as solve problems. Indeed, they can contribute with both efficient and concrete solutions to
controversial topics.
Due to the fact that research paper writing may involve the need for both analyzing a topic and supporting one’s own stance, both analytical and argumentative research papers could be considered the main types of research articles. In an analytical paper, academic writers are able to interpret a topic as well as discover its main characteristics. On the other hand, in an argumentative one, they may also employ their analytical skills but they may make use of information in order to support their points of view. The distinction between both kinds of papers is stated by Copley et al. (1996): “An argumentative research paper is analytical , but it uses information as evidence to support its point” (para. 8).
All in all, research papers can be considered to be solid and efficient means for academics to share their own understandigng of a topic. Moreover, they can also contribute to the discussion of problematic issues that educators usually encounter. Thus, in the educational field in particular, these pieces of writing may encourage increasing reflection on a wide range of important issues.
References
Copley, C., Greenberg, L., Handley, E., & Oaks, S. (1996). Developing a research question. Retrieved June, 2011, from Empire State College: State University of New York Web site: http://www.esc.edu/esconline/across_esc/writerscomplex.nsf/0/f87fd7182f0ff21c852569c2005a47b7
Suscribirse a:
Comentarios (Atom)