WritingaResearchPaperin9.58

AtissaBanuaziziLecturer,WRAP28October2019

A common schema

• The IMRD formula • Introduction (and Background) • Methods (and Materials) • Results • Discussion

• The hourglass shape • General gspecific • Specific ggeneral

I

M

R

D

The Introduction has three rhetorical moves

Provides Context

Identifies Gap (justification)

States Aim (focus)

general

particular

Materials&Methods

WhatisincludedintheM&M?

5

Methodssectionsarewritten…

•  Inpasttense(describewhatwasdone)•  Writteninprimarilypassivevoice

Considerwhatinfoisrelevantforinvestigatorswhomightapplyyourtechnique•  Includedetailsaboutparticipants,theirdemographic

characteristics,theirrecruitment•  Describeanymaterialsused(stimuli,questionnaires)•  Singleoutthesourceofaspecifictypeofequipmentifitis

criticaltothesuccessoftheexperiment(butInstructionstoAuthorsoverrideallrecommendations!)

•  Explaintheexperimentaldesign(overallstructureofexperiment,independentanddependentvariables,howvariablesweredefinedandmanipulated)

•  Explainprocedurestheparticipantswereaskedtofollow•  Noneedtodetailstepsofwell-documentedprocedures(but

doreference!)7

ResultsandIllustrations

Thecoreofaresearchpaper!

ThepurposeofaResultssectionistopresentandillustrateyourfindings•  Shouldbeacompletelyobjectivereport•  AllinterpretationshouldbesavedfortheDiscussion

RhetoricalMovesofResults

•  Provideadescriptionoftheanalysisperformed

•  Providetheresultsofthedataanalysis•  Statethedatathatconflictswiththefindings.•  Evaluatefindingswithrespecttotheresearchquestion

•  Evaluatetrendsinthedata

Results:Overview

•  listtheprincipaldataanalysisfromyourexperiment

•  includeyourevaluationofthedatafortrendsandvalidity

•  frequently,arethesecondsectionwrittenaftermethods

Resultsshouldinclude:

•  adescriptionofyourdataanalysisprocess•  figuresandtablesthatclearlyintroduceyourdataandkeyrelationshipsinthatdata

•  textualdescriptionsofwhatthetablesandfiguresmean

•  dataanalysisofyourrawfindings

Whatgoesintheresultssection?

•  Afewsentencesremindingthereaderoftheexperimentaldesignandstatingthemainfindings

•  Orientsthereader•  Providesthereaderwithasenseofscope

•  Thenreportthedatainalogicalorder,inthepasttense•  UseactivevoicewhereverpossibleinResults(butpassivevoiceisnotuncommon)

ShouldyoureportALLyourdata?•  Reportonlymeaningfuldata(notall).Summarizefindingsinthetext

•  Reportmostimportantfindingsfirst•  Reportdatainfiguresortext,notinboth(butall•  illustrationsMUSTbereferredtointhetext)•  Describetheoutcomeofcontrolexperiments–compareresultsalwaystoawellchosencontrol

•  Analyzedata,thenpreparetheanalyzed(converted)dataintheformofafigure(graph),table,orintextform.

Awell-writtenResultssection…

•  focusesonthequestion(s)orhypothesis(es)presentedintheIntroduction.

•  correspondswiththeMethods•  i.e.,noResultswithoutcorrespondingMethods,andviceversa

•  presentsdatainalogical(notchronological)order

•  hasopeningsentencesineachsubsectionthatorientthereadertothedatathatfollow

Inawell-writtenResultssection(cont’d)…•  dataarenotdiscussedorinterpreted:•  backgroundinformationislimited,withminimalattempttoexplainthefindings.

•  norawdataorintermediatecalculationsareincluded.

•  thetextiscomplementarytofiguresortables,butdoesnotrepeatthesameinformationnordoesitusethesamewords.

Inawell-writtenResultssection(cont’d)…•  figuresandtablesareplacedwithinthetextofResults,orincludedinthebackofthepaper(after“LiteratureCited”)–asperthetargetjournal’sGuidetoAuthors

•  figuresandtablesarereferredtoinsequentialorder

•  allfiguresandtablesarereferredtointhetext

PitfallsofaResultssection•  Inclusionofmethodsand/ordiscussion

–Overlapisacceptableinsomecircumstances.•  Openingparagraphswithweakoruninformativesentences

•  Overstatingtheresults:•  “Figure1clearlyshows...”

•  Reportingirrelevantresults•  However,itissometimesusefultoreportexperimentsthatdidn’twork

•  Omissionofvisualorganizers,e.g.,subheads,illustrations

Therearefourtypesofillustrations.

Table

Image Diagram

Graph

Table1.Cellcyclestudies.

WhentoUseTables?

•  Useatablewhenrepetitivedatamustbepresented.•  Notforjustafewdeterminations•  Nottoreportidenticaldata•  Nottodressupyourpaperororalpresentation

WhentoUseGraphs

•  Usegraphstopresentdatainanorganizedway,nottodressitup.•  Don’tusebothtableandgraphforthesamedata•  Uselinegraphsfordatathatshowpronouncedtrends

•  Usebaranddotchartstoshowitemswithdifferentvalues

Donotbeginfigurecaptionswith:

•  Inthistable...”•  “Inthisgraph...”•  “Thisgraphshows...”•  “Thistableshows...”

MakeIllustrations“Stand-Alone”

•  Illustrationshouldbeunderstandablewithouthavingtoreadthetextofthepaper

•  Captionshouldcontain•  sufficientinformationtointerpretthedata•  keyaspectsofthemethods•  clearlyarticulatedbasicfindingdocumentedbythefigure.

Partsoffigures+textualmovesforresultsGraphicorimageFigure#TitleDescriptivecaptions•  whatresultsareshown•  material,organism,propertyetc.

studiedintheexperiment•  contextforresults:treatment

applied,test,orrelationshipsdisplayed,etc.

•  parametersorconditions(temperature,media,etc.)

•  otherspecificinfoneededtointerpretresultsshown(samplesizes,statisticalsummaries,etc.)

DepartmentofBiology,BatesCollege(2012)

Locationelementidentifythefigureortablebynumber(“seeTable1”or“inFigure2b”)

Summarytellthereaderwhatthefigureshows(“Theshadedareaindicates”or“Thelineshows”)

Highlightingstatementspointoutthegeneralizationsfromthedetailsaboutthedata(“Asshowninthe….”or“Noticethat…”)

Conclusion/implicationsexplainthedataanddiscussimplications(“Thistrendsuggests…”)

MITx10.26moduleonCreatingFigures(2015)

Eight weeks of one-to-one math tutoring improves arithmetic performance, with some children improving more than others.

Kaustubh Supekar et al. PNAS 2013;110:8230-8235

Fig. 2. Eight weeks of one-to-one math tutoring improves arithmetic performance, with some children improving more than others. Participants solved arithmetic problems with significantly (A) higher accuracy, (B) faster reaction time, (C) higher performance efficiency, and (D) greater use of retrieval strategies after undergoing 8 wk of one-to-one math tutoring. The mean improvement in performance efficiency was 67%, ranging from 8% to 198%. Performance efficiency is a composite standardized measure obtained by combining accuracy and reaction time for each child. Time 1 and time 2 denote before and after tutoring measures respectively (*P < 0.05, ***P < 0.001).

Eight Weeks of One-to-One Math Tutoring Improves Arithmetic Performance, with Some Children Improving More than Others. Performance on the arithmetic verification task improved significantly after tutoring (Fig. 2). Performance gains were observed for both accuracy [F(1, 23) = 17.25, P < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.43] and reaction time [F(1, 23) = 19.28, P < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.46]. To better assess simultaneous changes in accuracy and reaction time, we computed a composite measure of performance efficiency (30). Performance efficiency showed significant increases after tutoring [F(1, 23) = 51.43, P < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.69]. All 24 children individually showed increases in efficiency after tutoring. The mean improvement in performance efficiency was 67%, ranging from 8% to 198%. In addition, there was a significant increase in use of retrieval strategies after tutoring [F(1,18) = 6.57, P = 0.02, ηp2 = 0.27] (Fig. 2). In contrast, the no-contact comparison group did not show gains in accuracy [F(1, 15) = 0.62, P = 0.44, ηp2= 0.04), reaction time [F(1, 15) = 2.78, P = 0.12, ηp2 = 0.16], performance efficiency [F(1, 15) = 2.78, P = 0.16, ηp2 = 0.16], or retrieval strategy use [F(1,15) = 0.47, P = 0.50, ηp2 = 0.03] after 8 wk (Fig. S1).

Functional connectivity of the hippocampus correlates with improvement in arithmetic performance in response to 8 wk of one-to-one math tutoring.

Kaustubh Supekar et al. PNAS 2013;110:8230-8235 ©2013 by National Academy of Sciences

Resultspresentdata;discussioninterpretsdata

Results DiscussionWhatdidyousee? Whatdoesitmean?“Experimentsshowedthat…”

“Experimentssuggestthat…”

Discussion

IntroandDiscussionintegratenovelfindingswithliteratureandcurrentknowledge

•  Context,FocusandJustificationaddressedintheIntroductionareechoedintheDiscussion:

•  FOCUS:Summaryoffindings•  CONTEXT:Howdofindingsfitin?•  JUSTIFICATION:Implicationsofyourwork

(nextsteps)

29

DiscussionApproach

•  Addresseachexperimentorstudyforwhichyoupresentedresults(inthesamesequence)

•  Interpretwhattheymeaninthelargercontextoftheproblem

•  Useactivevoicewheneverpossible•  Firstpersonokay(butdon’toveruse)

30

PossiblequestionsaddressedinDiscussion•  Whatdidyouexpecttofind,andwhy?•  Howdoyourresultscomparewiththose

expectedfromtheliterature?•  Whatweretheunexpectedoutcomes,and

howmightyouexplainthose?•  Howwouldyoutestthesepotential

explanations?

31

Pechenik,Jan.AShortGuidetoWritingaboutBiology,2nded.

WhatisaConclusionfor?

•  Highlightingprincipalfindings(infirstline!)•  Notingshortcomingsofyourworkthatcouldbe

addressedbyfurtherresearch•  Okaytoindicatefuturedirectionsatendofsection•  Notanexplanationofwhyyourworkproducedno

noteworthyresults!

•  Showinghowyourresultsaresignificantinlightofpreviouswork

•  Answersthequestion,“Sowhat?”

32

CanIusefigures/tables?

•  Yes!But…

•  Don’tintroducenewresults•  Okaytoaddtables/figuresthathelpexplain

somethingyouarediscussing•  flowdiagrams,accumulationofdatafromlit,

illustrationofhowonetypeofdataleadsto/correlateswithanother

33

34

Start Discussion where the Introduction left off. Thepresentstudywasdesignedtofurtherinvestigatetheacousticprocessingabilitiesofadultswhoarepoorreaders,byusingpsychophysicalandphysiologicalmethods.Specifically,itwasdesignedtodeterminewhethertherearedifferencesinpoor-readingvs.normalindividualsintheirfundamentalcorticalprocessingofbriefandrapidlysuccessiveacousticinputswhencomparedwithnormalreadingadults.

Thisstudyinadultswhoarepoorreadersdirectlydemonstratesdifferencesinevokedresponsesoriginatingfromtheprimaryauditorycortexanditsimmediateenvironsthatcorrelatewithconcurrentlymeasuredbehavioraldeficitsintheindividuationanddiscriminationofsuccessivelyoccurringstimuli.Itdemonstratesthatintheseindividuals,therearefundamentallydifferentcorticalresponsedynamicsgeneratedbybriefstimuli,alongwithsubstantiallyweakercorticalresponsestorapidlysuccessivestimuliacrossthesametime-scaleoverwhichtheseindividualsexhibiteddegradationindetection,recognition,anddiscriminationofrapidlysuccessivesimpleandcomplexacousticstimuli. Nagarajan et al, Cortical auditory signal processing in poor readers, PNAS

1999; 96 (11): 6483-6488

Pointoutshortcomingsanddefineunsettledpoints.

Additionalstudieswithlargerpopulationsofsubjectsarerequiredtodeterminewhetherthephysiologicalresponsestosuccessiveeventsalsoarecorrelatedwithreadingandauditoryprocessingabilitiesacrossthewiderhumanpopulationdistribution,asindicatedbytheearlierpsychophysicalstudiesandtheseinitialMEGimagingstudies.

35

Endbyreiteratingoverallconclusionandimpact.

• Nevertheless,becausetheauditorycortexrepresentsamaingatewayforacousticinformationentryintotheauralspeechrepresentationalsystem,thesefindingsstronglysuggestthatacousticreceptioninreading-impairedadultsdevelopswithfundamentalprocessingandlearning-derivedrepresentationalformsofcomplexacousticinputslikespeechthatdiffersubstantiallyfromnormals.Suchrepresentationaldifferencescouldhavewidespreadconsequencesforspeechandlanguagelearning,representation,andusageandforsubsequentphonological-to-orthographicsymbolrepresentationinreading.

TheDiscussionarguesforthesignificanceofyourdata.

37

Compare

Implicate

ContradictConfirmExplain

WhatarepotentialtopicsforyourDiscussion?

38

Abstracts and Titles

Titlesandabstractsaremessagestoprospectivereaders

40

Aneffectivetitle…

•  Indicatesthesubjectofyourresearch;labelsthepaper

•  Distinguishesyourresearchfromothersofitskind

•  Showscontinuitywithprecedingpapers•  Provideskeywordsforindexing

41

Titlesshouldbespecificandsuccinct•  usefewestpossiblewords(<15)toaccuratelydescribecontent•  omitwastewordssuchas"Astudyof...","Investigationsof...",

"Observationson...",etc.•  usetermsthatwillmakeelectronicretrievalpossible•  avoidnumericalvalues,abbreviations,punctuation•  ifstudyislimitedtoaparticularregionorsystem,anditsinferences

aresimilarlylimited,thennametheregionorsysteminthetitle

42

Theabstractisastand-alonemini-versionofyourpaper•  Keyaudience:areaderwhoissearchingwidelytofindafew

relevantpapers

•  Carvesaresearchspace--showsaconcern,debate,orgapinknowledge

•  Explainsthepurposeoftheresearch•  Describesthemethods/materials/procedures•  Highlightstheresults/findings(addresseseffectsizes,and

significance)•  Arguesforthesignificanceoftheresultsandmightmake

recommendations

43

Practicaltipsforabstracts•  Lengthvariesbyjournal/assignment--~250wordsis

reasonable•  Donotincludedetailsofthemethodsunlessthestudyis

methodological,i.e.primarilyconcernedwithtechniques•  Emphasizenewandimportantaspectsofthestudyor

findings•  Statepurposeofworkatoutset;statesignificanceandwhere

itleadsatend•  Nofigures,tables,citations•  Asfirstdraft,summarizeeachsectionin1-2sentences,then

checkforlogicandflow

44

45

You can write an abstract in 5 sentences.

Purpose

Impact

Learningtoreadrequiresanawarenessthatspokenwordscanbedecomposedintothephonologicconstituentsthatthealphabeticcharactersrepresent.Suchphonologicawarenessischaracteristicallylackingindyslexicreaderswho,therefore,havedifficultymappingthealphabeticcharactersontothespokenword.Tofindthelocationandextentofthefunctionaldisruptioninneuralsystemsthatunderliesthisimpairment,weusedfunctionalmagneticresonanceimagingtocomparebrainactivationpatternsindyslexicandnonimpairedsubjectsastheyperformedtasksthatmadeprogressivelygreaterdemandsonphonologicanalysis.Brainactivationpatternsdifferedsignificantlybetweenthegroupswithdyslexicreadersshowingrelativeunderactivationinposteriorregions(Wernicke'sarea,theangulargyrus,andstriatecortex)andrelativeoveractivationinananteriorregion(inferiorfrontalgyrus).Theseresultssupportaconclusionthattheimpairmentindyslexiaisphonologicinnatureandthatthesebrainactivationpatternsmayprovideaneuralsignatureforthisimpairment.