0% found this document useful (0 votes)
2K views207 pagesWriting Up Research - Weissberg, R. Buker, S. (1990) - New Jersey Prentice Hall
Writing Up Research
Uploaded by
TranVoCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
2K views207 pagesWriting Up Research - Weissberg, R. Buker, S. (1990) - New Jersey Prentice Hall
Writing Up Research
Uploaded by
TranVoCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
/ 207
01085687
Pe nail
WRITING UP RESEARCH
Experimental Research Report Writing
for Students of English “pe
%, ey
Robert Weissberg and Suzanne Buker
Prentice Hall Regents Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 To Sarah and Matthew
and
to the many international students,
past and present,
whose research interests entich our
knowledge and our lives
Editorial production supervision and interior design: Louisa B. Hellegers
Cover design: Photo Plus Art
Manufacturing buyer: Ray Keating
©1990 by Prentice-Hall, Inc.
=e A Division of Simon & Schuster
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be
reproduced, in any form or by any means,
without permission in writing from the publisher.
Printed in the United States of America
w987654321
ISBN O-13-970831-b
Prentice-Hall Intemational (UK) Limited, London
Prentice-Hall of Australia Pty. Limited, Sydney
Prentice-Hall Canada Inc., Toronto
Prentice-Hall Hispanoamericana, $.A., Mexico
Prentice-Hall of India Private Limited, New Delhi
Prentice-Hall of Japan, Inc., Tokyo
Prentice-Hall of Southeast Asia Pte. Ltd., Singapore
Editora Prentice-Hall do Brasil, Ltda., Rio de Janeiro ———_—_—
eo et @ ae ww
CONTENTS
a
PREFACE iv
To the Teacher v
To the Student vi
THE EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH REPORT
THE INTRODUCTION: Establishing a Context
THE INTRODUCTION: Reviewing Previous Research
THE INTRODUCTION: Advancing to Present Research
METHOD
MATERIALS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
ABSTRACT
CREDITS
INDEX
136
160
184
198
iit PREFACE
Writing Up Research is designed for high-intermediate and advanced ESL/EFL
university students at the upper division or graduate level who are preparing to
engage in scientific research in a variety of academic disciplines. For these
students, the ability to write up the results of their own research in the form of
technical reports, theses, dissertations, and even journal articles for publication
is a key to their success as university students and as professionals in their own
disciplines. Based on almost two decades of research in written English for
science and technology, this book provides instruction and practice in this spe-
cial area of academic writing.
The English of an experimental research report is highly conventionalized,
a fact that represents a great advantage for non-native speakers as well as for
their language instructors. If one can master the conventions, one can replicate
the genre in an acceptable form. Moreover, the conventions are fairly consistent
across a wide variety of scientific disciplines. They involve (1) structuring argu-
ments and (2) matching linguistic forms to rhetorical purposes. This involves
the writer’s having to make a series of language choices. This text helps stu-
dents to see what those choices are and to select the most appropriate—that is,
the most conventional—option.
Although this book deals with technical English, the instructional language
is not technical. It is accessible to high-level students regardless of their fields of
study. The book does, however, contain many authentic examples of technical
English taken from published experimental research reports in various fields
These show students how researchers actually use the conventions presented
here in reporting on their work.
The best way for students to develop skills in writing the English of experi-
mental research reports is to acquire them in a natural setting. This involves
familiarizing themselves with published literature in their fields, conducting re-
search projects with co-workers, and finally writing up their results. A textbook
iv PREFACE alone cannot substitute for this immersion environment; however, it can serve
asa friendly and useful guide for students who are or will soon be involved in
writing up their reséarch.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We wish to express our gratitude to the many workers in the field of English for
science and technology whose research has provided the basis for this text.
Principal among them are Louis Trimble, Mary Todd-Trimble, John Lackstrom,
Robert Viy-Broman, and Larry Selinker, whose publications beginning in the
1970s first provided us with a rational approach to teaching the experimental
research report. Of specific help in analyzing particular features of the report
has been the work of John Swales on article introductions, Gregory West and
Betty Lou Dubois on the discussion section, and Edward Cremmins on ab-
stracts. Of course, we assume full responsibility for all rhetorical and grammati-
cal analyses that appear here. We are especially grateful to Louisa Hellegers,
our production editor at Prentice Hall, for her patience and careful attention to
detail during the preparation of the book.
TO THE TEACHER
Writing Up Research may be used in academic English classes with students
who are already enrolled in a university program or who are preparing for uni-
versity entrance. The text can be used as part of a larger course in academic
writing or it can be used throughout an entire semester. The language and con-
tent of the book are aimed at students with a TOEFL score of approximately
475 or higher. The material is appropriate for students planning to conduct
research projects in the social sciences (including education), the natural and
physical sciences, and engineering.
It is not the intention of this book to teach the research process itself. We
assume that students will take courses in research methods and statistical analy-
sis as part of their advanced studies or that they may already have this back-
ground, Our purpose is to show students how to translate their research activi-
ties into written reports that conform to the expectations of the English-speaking
scientific/academic community.
Because most of the text models and many of the exercises used through-
out Writing Up Research are based on excerpts from published experimental
research reports, some of the terminology encountered will be new for students
unfamiliar with particular fields of study. However, we have chosen these
models on the basis of general interest level and accessibility to all research-
oriented students. Additionally, we have attempted to represent as many
PREFACE v different fields of study as possible in the excerpts. Students should be advised
that they need not be familiar with every word in every model or exercise in
order to recognize the conventions being studied or to understand the instruc-
tional point being presented.
‘An Instructor's Guide is available. It includes lesson suggestions for each
chapter as well as answer keys to the exercises. It also includes notes on varia-
tions found across disciplines for some of the conventions covered in the text.
Finally, we hope that this book adequately fills an important need for you
and your students: a straightforward and readable guide to the conventions
English-speaking researchers follow when they write up their work.
TO THE STUDENT
This book is designed to help you learn to use the most important features of
technical and scientific English in writing about research in your field. The prin-
cipal type of writing treated here is the experimental research report, but the
information in this book is also relevant to writing research proposals, literature
reviews, summaries, abstracts, and especially theses and dissertations.
Many of the expressions and grammatical structures presented in these
chapters may not be new to you. What will be new are the specific uses of
these items in technical writing. These uses are called “conventions” because
they are commonly followed by authors in most fields of research. Technical
writing in English is very conventional. That is, when you have learned the con-
ventions presented in this book, you will be able to write an acceptable report
about almost any research project that you may carry out.
Examples from published research articles in various field are included in
each chapter. These show you how scientists use the language forms you are
studying when they write up their research. Sometimes these examples will
include technical vocabulary that is new to you. Try not to be distracted by
these terms; they should not interfere with your ability to understand the exam-
ples or to appreciate the way these writers use the language conventions you
are studying. We hope, in fact, that you will find these excerpts to be interesting
examples of research in many different fields.
In working through this book, you will be asked to find examples of pub-
lished research in your area of interest. This is done because we believe that the
more you read, the better you will write. You will also be asked to carry out an
original research project to put into practice the conventions you are studying.
Through these activities of reading, writing, and research practice, you will
soon master the language of the experimental research report.
Robert Weissberg and Suzanne Buker
New Mexico State University
vi PREFACE 1]
THE EXPERIMENTAL
RESEARCH REPORT
rreeeeeeeeeeeerreeeeaeaS
OVERVIEW
An experimental research report is a paper written by an investigator to
describe a research study that he or she has completed. The purpose of the
report is to explain to others in the field what the objectives, methods, and find-
ings of the study were. The report may be published in a professional journal, it
may appear as a monograph distributed by a research institution or publishing
company, or it may be written in the form of a thesis or dissertation as part of
the requirements for a university degree.
We use the term “experimental research” here in a very broad sense, re-
ferring to various kinds of studies. One typical kind is the controlled scientific
experiment, where the researchers conduct empirical tests while identifying and
controlling as many factors as possible that may affect the outcome of the study.
Another common kind of research is correlational, in which the investigators
compare two or more different variables to determine if any predictable rela-
tionships exist among them. Other kinds of studies may deal with information
obtained from survey questionnaires or from case studies. Still other studies use
computer-generated models that attempt to explain or predict phenomena ob-
served in the laboratory or in nature.
THE EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH REPORT 1. All these kinds of studies share some common characteristics. First, they are
designed around a research question. As a possible answer to the research ques-
tion, the researcher formulates a hypothesis and then designs the study in such a
way as to reject or support the hypothesis. Also, such studies are usually quanti-
tative —that is, they deal with numerical data obtained in carrying out the study.
These data are usually treated with one or more statistical tests to determine how
seriqusly the results should be taken.
The reports written to describe these different kinds of studies also have
much in common. Normally, a report includes descriptions of the purpose,
method, and results of the study. Complete results are usually presented in tables
and graphs. Such a report contains references to other published works in the
same area of study. A bibliography (a list of references) listing these works, along
with all the information needed to find them in a library, is always included at the
end of the report. Finally, a brief summary or an abstract covering the most im-
portant information in the report is usually attached.
The organizational format for all experimental research reports is basically
the same, regardless of the field of study in which the author is working. Some of
the research fields treated in this book are listed here.
Education Management Biology Sociology
Economics Chemistry Psychology Engineering
Agronomy AnimalScience Language Business.
The purpose of this chapter is to show you the basic format writers in these
fields use to report the findings of their studies and to give you practice in recog-
nizing the components that make up the format.
INFORMATION CONVENTIONS
The following diagram illustrates the major sections of a typical experimental
research report in the order in which they are usually presented. The diagram
also shows the chapters in this book that deal with each of the sections.
2 THE EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH REPORT ‘ABSTRACT Chapter 9
INTRODUCTION, Chapters 2, 3, and 4
METHOD Chapters 5 and 6
RESULTS oneper7
cme’
FIGURE 1.1 Typical sections of the experimental research report.
The Experimental Research Report—An Example
To help you understand the basic format of the experimental research report,
we present here a report originally published in a professional journal. The re-
port describes a study carried out in the field of agricultural education. The
study evaluates the effectiveness of using microcomputers to teach economic
principles to university students in a graduate course.
OO
USING MICROCOMPUTERS iN TEACHING
Norman F. Rohrbach, District Supervisor
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Jefferson City, Missouri
Bob R. Stewart, Professor
Agricultural Education
University of Missouri-Columbia
Abstract—Although microcomputers are now common in classrooms
throughout the United States, its not clear what their most effective role is
in the teaching learning process. This study compared the effects of micro-
computer-assisted instruction and traditional lecture-discussion on the
performance of graduate students enrolled in an agricultural education
course. Students in the control group performed significantly better on a
written test than either of the two treatment groups. Students having pre-
vious experience with computers did not perform significantly better than
THE EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH REPORT
3 those new to computer-assisted instruction. Further research needs to be
conducted to determine the most appropriate place for computer-assisted
instruction in agricultural education.
During the past 40 years, the United States has experienced
the integration of the computer into society. Progress has been
made to the point that small, inexpensive computers with ex-
panded capabilities ore available for innumerable uses. Many
schools have purchased and are purchasing microcomputers for
infusion into their directed learning programs.
Most individuals seem to agree that the microcomputer will
continue to hold an important role in education. Gubser (1980) and
Hinton (1980) suggested phenomenal increases in the numbers of
computers both in the school and the home in the near future. There
are always problems with a sudden onslaught of new technology.
Like any new tool that has not been fully tried and tested, the role of
the computer is in question. How should the computer be used in the
classroom? Should the computer be the teacher or used as a tool in
the classroom in the same way as an overhead projector? Can
teachers do a better job of teaching certain types of materials with
the microcomputer than with conventional teaching methods? Will
the microcomputer have different effects on students with varying
levels of experience? Schmidt (1982) identified three types of micro-
computer use in classrooms: the object of a course, a support tool,
and a means of providing instruction. Foster and Kleene (1982) cite
four uses of microcomputers in vocational agriculture: drill and
practice, tutorial, simulation and problem solving.
The findings of studies examining the use of various forms of
computer-assisted instruction (CAl) have been mixed. Studies by
Hickey (1968} and Honeycutt (1974) indicated superior results with
CAI while studies by Ellis (1978), Caldwell (1980) and Belzer (1976)
indicated little or no significant effect. Although much work has been
done to date, more studies need to be conducted to ascertain the
effects of microcomputer-assisted instruction in teaching various
subjects in a variety of learning situations.
The purpose of this study was to ascertain the effect of using
microcomputer-assisted instruction as compared to a lecture-discus-
sion technique in teaching principles and methods of cost recovery
and investment credit on agricultural assets to graduate students it
agricultural education (Rohrbach, 1983). This topic was identified as
being of importance to teachers in providing them the necessary
background to teach lessons in farm records.
4 THE EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH REPORT Method
The study was conducted as a three-group controlled pre-
experiment following the static-group comparison design (Campbell
& Stanley, 1963). It involved the use of three experimental groups,
including a control Group A, a treatment group consisting of begin-
ner-level microcomputer users Group B, and a treatment group
consisting of intermediate-level microcomputer users Group C (see
Table 1.1).
Table 1.1 Design of the Study
A B Cc
Control Treatment Treatment
n= 21 persons 25 persons 16 persons
Lecture-discussion Microcomputer ‘Microcomputer-
technique assisted instruc assisted instruc-
2 two-hour class tion (no experi- tion (intermediate
sessions ence) experience)
Evaluation by writ- Maximum of 4hours Maximum of 4 hours
tentests for instruction of instruction
Evaluation by writ Evaluation by writ-
ten test ten test
Record of actual Record of actual
time used time used
Population
The population for the study consisted of graduate students in
agricultural education at the University of Missouri-Columbia, Par-
ticipants in the study were enrollees in courses offered through agri-
cultural education at the University of Missouri-Columbia during the
summer of 1983. This provided 21 students for control Group A, 25
students for beginning microcomputer Group B and 16 students for
intermediate microcomputer Group C. The assumption was made
that the participants represented a sample of graduate students in
agricultural education. Therefore, the findings and implications of
the study should be generalized to the extent that future groups of
students are similar to the participants.
The 21 students designated as the control group were taught
using a lecture-discussion technique. Forty-one students were di-
vided into two treatment groups to receive microcomputer-assisted
instruction. The class consisted of two sections with placement deter-
mined by previous microcomputing experience. Students with the
ability to run and edit software programs were assigned to the inter-
mediate-level group, and the remaining students were assigned to
the beginners group.
‘THE EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH REPORT
5 Demographic data were collected from all subjects in relation
to age, teaching experience, and knowledge and use of principles
and methods relating to cost recovery and investment credit. Prior
‘experience with the information was calculated on a nine-point
scale.
Before receiving instruction, each group was introduced to the
study by giving them the same orientation to the procedures to be
used. It was explained that the learning sessions would be followed
with a written evaluation on the material presented. They were told
that the evaluation score would not count toward their grade in the
course, but that it was important that they do as well as possible.
The classes comprising the control group were organized into
two-hour class sessions, The instructor used two-hour sessions on
two consecutive days for teaching using a lecture-discussion tech-
nique. The written evaluation was given during the first hour of the
third day.
The treatment groups were given general instructions about
operating the microcomputer learning program and were told they
could spend a maximum of four hours in the laboratory working
with the microcomputer-assisted instruction. The instructor who
taught the control group was in the microcomputer laboratory to
respond to questions and monitor student progress. Students were
given two days to complete the task, were asked to keep a record of
the amount of time used, and were given the written evaluation
during a one-hour time period of the third day.
Development of Materials and Instrument
The materials used in teaching principles and methods in cost recov-
ery and investment credit with the lecture-discussion method have
been in place for three years and were the basis for writing a com-
puter teaching program. The microcomputer learning modules,
written in BASIC Language for the Apple Ile microcomputer, con-
tained the principles, methods, examples, objectives, problems and
so forth to be learned by students in the segment of the class de-
voted to cost recovery and investment credit. The modules were
designed to present the concepts using the same problems and ex-
amples used in the lecture discussion procedure. All teaching materi-
als and related microcomputer learning modules were checked for
technical accuracy by a professor of agricultural economics respon-
sible for preparing inservice materials related to tax law changes, a
professor of agricultural education responsible for inservice educa-
6 THE EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH REPORT tion in farm management and a graduate research assistant in farm
management.
The evaluation instrument used in the study was developed to
measure the attainment of concepts in the learning package. The
written evaluation was subjected to the Kuder-Richardson 20 test
which yielded a reliability coefficient of .89. Validity of each question
was established by a panel of experts with experience in teaching
the concepts related to the material. There were 29 questions on the
test which were worth one point each.
Null hypotheses were developed to test the research questions
of the study. A one-way analysis of variance was used to test the first
nll hypothesis of no difference in performance among the groups
(Ho,). Differences were isolated using the Scheffé post hoc proce-
dure. A Pearson correlation coefficient was used to ascertain the
relationship between time spent on microcomputer-assisted instruc-
tion and student performance (Ho,). Demographic data were exam-
ined to ascertain the homogeneity of the control group and experi-
mental groups. An alpha level of .05 was used in testing the
hypotheses. The data were analyzed with the Statistical Analysis
System library computer package at the University of Missouri-Co-
lumbia (Ray, 1982).
Results
The age, teaching experience, prior experience with materials
‘and time on task varied somewhat among groups as shown in Table
1.2. Time on task was held constant at 200 minutes for the control
group, but ranged from 30 to 221 minutes for Group B and from 45
to 180 minutes for Group C.
Table 1.2 Characteristics of Participants
Relative
Prior
Teaching Experience
Experience. with Time on Task
Age (years) _(years)__ Materials _in Minutes
N Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range
Control
GroupA 21 29.8 22-53 5.9 0-25 4.29 0-9 200 200-200
Treatment
Group B 25 33.0 22-44 8.4 0-17 4.08 0-9 1122 30-221
Treatment
GroupC 16 35.6 24-50 11.4 1-24 4.81 0.9 90.4 45.180
Total 62 32.6 22-53 8.3 0-25 4.34 0-9 136.3 30-221
‘THE EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH REPORT
7 8
To help explain differences in student scores, correlational
coefficients were calculated to ascertain if there were significant
relationships between scores on the test and the subjects’ age, prior
experience with material, and years of teaching experience. As
shown in Table 1.3, there was a significant positive relationship be-
tween prior experience or knowledge of the material and test scores.
(.e., more prior experience influenced a higher test score). When
prior experience scores (from Table 1.2) were compared on a
group-by-group basis, Group A was not found to differ significantly
at the .05 level from Groups B or C (+ values of .212 for A-B and
4.93 for A.C).
Table 1.3 Correlation Coefficients for Test Scores with Prior Expe-
rience with Material, Age and Years of Teaching Experience
Years of
Prior Experience Teaching
with Material Age Experience
(n) () (") ()
Control Group A 21 639 -522
Treatment GroupB 25 -670 166
Treatment GroupC 16 -658 -.102 -040
AllStudents 8 563 242 162
25.
Note. Critical value at the .05 level of significanc
Each experimental group was given the same written test after
being subjected to the lecture-discussion or microcomputer-assisted
instruction sessions as outlined in the design and procedures of the
study. Mean scores and general results from each of the three
groups are presented in Table 1.4, and the results of the analysis of
variance test are reported in Table 1.5. -
Table 1.4. Test Scores of Control and Experimental Groups
Mean Standard low High
N Score Deviation Score Score Variance
Control
Group A 21 21.19 4.996 11 2824.96
Treatment
GroupB -25-*14.16 «5.080 7) 26 25.807
Treatment
GroupC -16-:«*16.25 «6.928 7-29 47.933
Allstudents 62—*17.08 6.294729
‘THE EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH REPORT Table 1.5 Analysis of Variance for Differences among Control and
Treatment Group Scores
Source df SS F PR
