Results, discussion and conclusions sections in research articles: A paper in the education field and an article in the medicine field in contrast


Behaving as a researcher would imply not only collecting data, but also presenting, analysing as well as evaluating such information critically and objectively. This seems to be the reason why results, discussion and conclusion sections might be regarded as very important components of Reasearch Articles (RAs) (Pintos & Crimi, 2010). Although the sections mentioned above seem to share characteristics regarding structure and style, there appear to be certain features that would differentiate them depending on the field in which the research has been conducted. Hence, an article developed in the medicine field by Van Gelder et al. (2010) and a paper with educational implications produced by Ogan-Bekiroglu and Gunay (2008) contrastively analysed might become a fruitful source of reflection and knowledge, aiding in the personal development of future academic papers.
Broadly speaking, the function of the results section would be to present the data the researcher/s consider representative in an objective as well as concise form. Furthermore, key findings are likely to be introduced in a logical sequence by means of both, illustrative materials such as tables and figures, and text (Pintos & Crimi, 2010). As for the articles under analysis, it might be argued that they reveal the presence of the features mentioned earlier in this paragraph; i.e. figures, tables and text would complement each other to introduce key findings. However, there seem to be certain differences as regards layout and organisation as well as amount and type of data that deserve being pointed out.
Whereas in both papers the section has been developed under the heading “Results” written in bold type on the left margin, it is in the medicine article that subheadings have also been included. To illustrate this, Van Gelder et al. (2010) have classified their findings according to specific areas such as patients’ reactions, heart rates recorded, incidence of a primary outcome and, other reported outcomes. Needless to say, the amount of information presented in this paper’s results section appears to be larger than that in the educational one. As for the quantity of data in the medicine paper, it might be argued that authors need to present great deals of supportive information if their research hypotheses are to be properly contrasted as well as sustained. By the same token, it could be claimed that the number of variables contrasted and measured in Van Gelder et al.’s (2010) medical study reaches to eight; while Ogan-Bekiroglu and Gunay (2008) do not compare any variables.
As the discussion above suggests, there seem to be occasions when a great number of data is to be included in reduced spaces. Consequently, tables and figures become reliable as well as useful tools to accomplish such task successfully. However, overusing them might turn it difficult for readers to comprenhend ideas (Pintos & Crimi, 2010); thus, impoverish the paper as a whole. Taken together, these concepts would explain the reasons why Van Gelder et al. (2010) have opted for including a variety of figures and tables; whereas Ogan-Bekiroglu and Gunay (2008) have just made use of a single table. In other words, it is arguable that the discussion presented in the medicine article would require more statistical data to convey clear ideas; in turn, key findings as well as their relations appear to be more effectively explained if text is used in the education paper.
When reference to a specific table or figure is made in the body of both pieces of writing, authors have opted for different citing styles. By illustration, Van Gelder et al. (2010) state “[a] total of 614 patients were enrolled (...) 311 in the lenient-control group and 303 in the strict-control group (Table 1 and Figure 1)” (para.19); moreover, they claim “[d]ata recorded at the end (...) are reported in Table 2” (Van Gelder et al., 2010, para. 20). Conversely, Ogan-Bekiroglu and Gunay (2008) refer to a table applying just one style by signalling “[t]he students’ perceptions on portfolio assessment are presented in Table 1” (p. 3). It seems to be worth noting that the fact of using words rather than quantitative information hinders the last two authors from the possibility of including more tables or figures; thus of vaying citing forms.
As for the discussion and conclusion sections, they might be regarded as the parts of RAs where results are interpreted in the light of what was already known about the subject of investigation;i.e. the literature previously revised and the hypotheses posed at the beginning of the study are connected to the findings. As Pintos and Crimi (2010) point out, “[d]iscussions can be written in isolation or together with the conclusions” (p. 20). Hence, it appears not to be rare to find both sections embedded in one in the papers under analysis. Otherwise, authors have decided to use different headings. On the one hand, Ogan-Bekiroglu and Gunay (2008) have opted for the words conclusion as well as implication of the study; on the other hand, Van Gelder et al. (2010) have developed the section under the word discussion.
In the light of this, it might be stated that writers have given priority to different aspects of their investigations. Though it is true that key findings with reference to initial questions appear to be restated at the beginning of the section: Ogan-Bekiroglu and Gunay (2008) claim “[r]esults of the study show that the students appreciate for the positive effects of portfolio assessment on learning” (p. 6), Van Gelder et al. (2010) point out “[w]e found that lenient rate control was noninferior to strict rate control in (...)” (para. 26); the focus seems to difer as the section develops. Whereas Van Gelder et al. (2010) devote more that five paragraphs to analyse results, Ogan-Bekiroglu and Gunay (2008) prefer to highlight the positive aspects of utilising portfolio assessment.
Contrary to expectations, both articles’ writers have started concluding paragraphs with “In conclusion”, which could be regarded as unsophisticated; at least, as far as serious academic writing is concerned (Pintos & Crimi, 2010). In turn, it might be argued that even though conclusions have been signalled explicitly in both papers, authors can be said to have succeeded in accomplishing this section’s primary aim: in Pintos and Crimi’s words “to tie the paper together” (p. 20). In doing so, writers make reference to ideas stated earlier in introductions. To illustrate this point, Ogan-Bekiroglu and Gunay (2008) agree “[p]ortfolios do not only address students’ porgress but also increase their learning” (p. 6); similarly, Van Gelder et al. (2010) claim “as compared with strict rate control, lenient rate control was noinferior in terms of major clinical events” (para. 32).
To sum up, it may be pointed out that the results, discussion and conclusion sections of the articles under analysis share certain characteristics that appear to be relevant for RAs: to restate the problem, present and evaluate the solution/s, provide arguments properly supported by key findings and, claim for the importance of the investigation. Nevertheless, there seem to be some aspects that differenciate such sections depending on the field in which the papers have been produced. In a nutshell, information treatment as well as relevance assignment to such data are likely to be the two issues that would reveal certain degree of contradiction.





References

Ogan-Bekiroglu, F., & Gunay, A. (2008, February). Physics students’ perceptions on their journey through portfolio assessment. Paper presented at the Conference of Asian Science Education, Kaohsiung, TW.
Retrieved 14th December, 2009, from
http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=2730

Pintos, V., & Crimi, Y. (2010). Unit 3: The research article: results, discussions and conclusions. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Universidad CAECE.
Retrieved 17th April, 2010, from
http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=2730

Van Gelder, I. C., Groenveld, H. F., Crijns, H. J. G. M., Tuininga, Y. S., Tijssen, J. G. P., Alings, A. M., et al. (2010). Lenient versus strict rate control in patients with atrial fibrillation. The New England Journal of Medicine, 362 (15).
Retrieved 17th April, 2010, from
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/362/15/1363

Presenting a study’s outcomes: An analysis of the results section in research articles


After the introduction and methods sections have been developed in Research Articles (RAs), it becomes essential to provide an account of the results obtained during the study. This section could be regarded as a summary of the collected data supplemented by tables and/or figures properly arranged (Pintos & Crimi, 2010). In order to achieve an accurate results section, there appear to be specific features and patterns that need careful consideration: selection of representative information, appropriate use of tables and figures; last but not least, fulfillment of academic writing requirements. Hence, a thorough analysis of such section in an RA written by Beckett et al. (2008) in the field of medicine is likely to be enlightening.
As for content in results section, special attention should be given to the selection of the data to be included as well as to the form in which it is organised. In Pintos and Crimi’s (2010) words, “[r]esearchers do not present the raw data they collected” (p.18); rather, decisions are made regarding the relevance such information bears to the matter under study. Under a capitalized heading where the word results is read, Beckett et al. (2008) state their trial’s outcomes in a simple but detailed description; making use of the past tense in almost all the section. By illustration, the authors’ exact words might be useful: “[t]he two study groups were well balanced at baseline (Table 1)” (Beckett et al., 2008, p. 1892); furthermore, they assert “[t]here was a difference of 15.0/6.1 mm Hg in blood pressure,(...), between the two groups at 2 years (Fig. 2)” (Beckett et al., 2008, p. 1893).
As the quotes above suggest, researchers in charge of writing the article under analysis have made use of tables as well as figures to allow readers to understand what has been explained in the text. Broadly speaking, tables and figures seem to be useful sources to present great deals of information in reduced spaces. Furthermore, they could be regarded not only as effective tools at the moment of establishing relations between variables, but also as pertinent tools to present quantitative data.
From the foregoing discussion, it might be claimed that statistical information presented in the form of tables is likely to support the writers’ description of results. In Beckett et al.’s (2008) article it is possible to identify specific characteristics regarding tables’ format and content. To start with, each word in their titles has been capitalized except for prepositions. Additionally, titles, apart from being properly located on the left table margin, appear to explain its content accurately. Despite horizontal lines have not been used to separate information inside the tables, data has been differenciated by means of shading techniques. Moreover, columns and rows have been given their own headings which are written in bold type. Last but not least, specific notes have been added below the tables to explain the meaning of particular entries.
As far as figures are concerned, they can be defined as “any kind of illustration (...) [that] conveys an overall pattern of results at a quick glance” (Pintos and Crimi, 2010, p. 27). Beckett et al. (2008) have opted for using three different types: a flow-chart explaining the stages participants went through during the trial; a scatter plot graph to establish the correlation between participants’ blood pressure and years under treatment; lastly, a line graph depicting the relationship between two quantitative variables has been effectively implemented. Properly cited between brackets in the paper’s body, all figures appear to be accompanied by accurate legends, typed in a different as well as smaller font.
All in all, it could be stated that results sections play a crucial role within RAs since they aid researchers in their demanding task of reporting outcomes. As the analysis of Beckett et al.’s (2008) article suggests, being aware of specifications as well as basic rules regarding this sections’ layout and format becomes essential if results are to be effectively presented. This seems to be the reason why not only collected data appears to be relevant but also how it is selected, presented as well as described within the paper would deserve careful devotion.














References


Beckett, N. S., Peters, R., Fletcher, A. E., Staessen, J. A., Liu, L., Dumitrascu, D., et al. (2008). Treatment of hypertension in patients 80 years of age or older. The New England Journal of Medicine, 358 (18), 1887-1898. Retrieved 17th May, 2010, from
http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=2730

Pintos, V., & Crimi, Y. (2010). Unit 3: The research article: results, discussions and conclusions. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Universidad CAECE. Retrieved 17th April, 2010, from
http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=2730

Abstracts in research papers: Original documents rather than excerpted passages

Once effort, time and knowledge has been devoted to research conduction as well as to a Research Article’s (RA) elaboration, arousing an intended audience’s interest seems to become indispensable if such paper is to achieve its final goal: be worth reading it through. This appears to be the reason why abstracts would play a crucial role in academic articles. Regarded as a self-contained, synoptic, and powerful section of RAs, an abstract is likely to give readers the possibility of evaluating the paper’s significance; thus, determining whether the document is readable or not (Pintos & Crimi, 2010). In the light of this, being aware of specifications related to abstracts’ characteristics and structure might be considered essential if participation in the academic world is seeked for.
As the discussion above suggests, awareness on issues such as abstracts’ content, layout, type as well as linguistic features would be regarded as fundamental. However, since abstracts’ components may vary according to discipline, a contrastive analysis of such sections in four different articles might prove fruitful. Hence, abstracts from three research papers developed in the field of medicine and one with educational implications are to be critically analysed and findings stated through the present piece writing.
As far as abstracts’ types are concerned, it might be argued that authors have opted for including informative ones in the four articles; that is, writers present all the main arguments as well as the important results and evidence to be found deeply explained in the complete paper. Nonetheless, despite being true that researchers describe what has been done in the four studies, there appear to be certain differences regarding quantity of data, on the one hand; and verb tense used to describe such data, on the other. It is worth noting that such differences seem be due to discipline variation.
Whereas the amount of information presented in the papers belonging to the medicine field could be said to be heavy; the quantity of data included in the abstract of the educational article appears to be lower. It deserves being stated that such difference is particularly significant when results are summarised. To illustrate this point, Beckett et al. (2008), Wijeysundera et al. (2010) and Jorgensen, Zahl & Gotzsche (2010), in their medical documents, utilize varied and numerous percentages, symbols as well as digits to present main findings. However, Almerich et al. (2005) just make use of text arranged in a single sentence to synthesize results in their educational study.
Though it is true that abstracts tend to refer to the past (Pintos & Crimi, 2010), this appears not to be that case for all the articles under anlaysis. While the medical papers seem to adhere to such characteristic, authors of the document within the education discipline have decided to develop their abstract alluding to the present. By illustration, Beckett et al. (2008) explain “[w]e randomly assigned 3845 patients (...)” (p. 1887); Wijeysundera et al. (2010) point out “[p]atients aged 40 years or older who underwent specific elective (...)” (p. 1); also, Jorgensen, Zahl & Gotzsche (2010) claim “we found a mortality decline of 1% per year (...)” (p. 1). In turn, Almerich et al. (2005) state “[t]he results (...) indicate that the variable gender is the one that most influences in the knowledge (...)” (p. 127).
Moreover, abstracts could be classified into structured or unstructured. As for the last ones, basically consisting of long, unbroken paragraphs, would provide the framework to include the abstract in Almerich et al.’s (2005) article into such category. Conversely, the abtracts in the papers with medical implications are highly likely to be regarded as structured ones. Evidence of this are the specifications regarding headings such as bolded ones, as in Jorgensen, Zahl & Gotzsche (2010) as well as Wijeysundera et al.’s (2010) abstracts, or italicized subtitles, as in Beckett et al.’s (2008), that identify the main sections in the RAs. In the light of this, it may be argued that the discipline to which a paper belongs to is very likely to determine its abstract’s structure.
As for abstracts’ linguistic features, there appear to be certain particular characteristics shared by the four RAs under analysis. To start with, full sentences have been used to construct them all. Additionally, the impersonal passive is frequently used. For instance, Almerich et al. (2005) claim “it is analyzed how gender, age and type of (...)” (p. 127); Jorgensen, Zahl & Gotzsche (2010) explain “(...) in areas where screening was used (...)” (p. 1); Wijeysundera et al. (2010) state “[a]fter propensity score methods were used to reduce (...)” (p. 1); similarly, Beckett et al. (2008) observe “[f]ewer serious events were reported (...)” (p. 1887). Last but not least, the avoidance of abbreviations and jargon turns to be another common pattern.
By the same token, the absence of negative statements is likely to be regarded as another specific feature in abstracts. In turn, writers resort to resources such as prefixes that denote negation. This appears to be the case in the articles of the medicine discipline where authors have decided to make use of words such as “the treatment of (...) is unclear” and “nonfatal stroke” (Beckett et al., 2008, p. 1887); or “non-invasive cardiac stress testing” (Wijeysundera et al., 2010, p. 1); as well as “in the non-screened areas” (Jorgensen, Zahl & Gotzsche, 2010, p. 1). Otherwise, Almerich et al. (2005) have not included negative sentences in their paper’s abstract.
As stated before, there are occasions when headings differenciate subsections in abstracts, as in structured ones; whereas there are other abstracts’ types, unstructured, in which subtitles signalling the article’s divisions are not included. Consequently, researchers use introductory phrases in each sentence that allow readers to identify such subsections. For example, Almerich et al. (2005) state their article’s main objective by claiming: “[i]n this paper, it is analysed how gender, age and type of (...) influence teacher’s knowledge (...)” (p. 127); similarly, they explain the methods after they start : “[t]he study is based in a survey design” (p. 127); additionally, writers present results by synthesising “[t]he results indicate that the variable gender is the one that (...)” (p. 127); last but not least, they conclude “[t]herefore, the personal and contextual factors influence in (...)” (p. 127).
When developing their opening statements, as well as results and conclusions summaries, writers tend to utilize distinctive features, such as the personal pronoun “we”. Although the impersonal passive such as “testing was associated with (...)” (Wijeysundera et al., 2010, p. 1) or “it is analyzed how (...)” (Almerich et al., 2005, p. 127) would be rather desirable, the presence of expressions such as “[w]e were unable to find (...)” (Jorgensen, Zahl & Gotzsche, 2010, p. 1) as well as [w]e randomly assigned 3845 patients (...)” (Beckett et al., 2008, p. 1887) are highly probable to be found.
As far as tense movement in abstracts is concerned, it might be claimed that verb tenses tend to vary according to the data being presented. Broadly speaking, the studies are introduced by means of using the present. Except for Jorgensen, Zahl & Gotzsche (2010) and Wijeysundera et al.’s (2010) asbtracts, where the infinitive has been used to introduce the research’s objectives; statements in the present tense have been applied to develop opening sentences in the other two papers. By illustration, Almerich et al. (2005) point out “[t]he integration of Information and Communication Technologies in education supposes that (...)” (p. 127); moreover, Beckett et al. (2008) begin their abstract by observing “[w]hether the treatment of (...) is beneficial is unclear” (p. 1887).
On the contrary, results are likely to be summarised making use of past tenses. With the exception of the paper in the education field, findings are stated referring to the past in the abstracts of the articles from the medicine discipline. For instance, Beckett et al. (2008) declare “[t]he active-treatment group and the placebo group were well matched” (p. 1887); Jorgensen, Zahl & Gotzsche (2010) note “there was a decline of 2% in mortality per year” (p. 1); also, Wijeysundera et al. (2010) explain “testing was associated with harmin low risk patients” (p. 1). Contrary to expectations, Almerich et al. (2005) continue using the present when introducing key findings as they claim “[t]he results indicate that (...)” (p. 127).
With the probable primary aim of conveying a contemporary relevance effect, the four abstracts’ conclusions have been developed with a clear predominance of the present tense. To document this coincidence, the following quotes might prove effective: “the personal and contextual factors influence in the knowledge of (...)” (Almerich et al., 2005, p. 127), “[t]he results provide evidence that antihypertensive treatment with (...) is beneficial” (Beckett et al., 2008, p. 1887), “[t]he reductions in breast cancer mortality (...) are more likely explained by (...)” (Jorgensen, Zahl & Gotzsche, 2010, p. 1), similarly, Wijeysundera et al. (2010) conclude “[p]reoperative non-invasive cardiac stress testing is associated with improved one year survival and (...)” (p. 1).
All in all, differences according to articles’ field of procedence 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.











References

Almerich, J., Suárez, J. M., Orellana, N., Belloch, C., Bo, R., & Gastaldo, I. (2005). Diferencias en los conocimientos de los recursos tecnológicos en profesores a partir del género, edad, y tipo de centro. RELIEVE, 11 (2), 127-142. Retrieved 17th May from http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=5750

Beckett, N. S., Peters, R., Fletcher, A. E., Staessen, J. A., Liu, L., Dumitrascu, D., et al. (2008). Treatment of hypertension in patients 80 years of age or older. The New England Journal of Medicine, 358 (18), 1887-1898. Retrieved 17th May, 2010, from
http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=2730

Jorgensen, K. J., Zahl, P.H., & Gotzsche, P.C. (2010). Breast cancer mortality in organised mammography screening in Denmark: Comparative study. BMJ, 340 (c1241), 1-6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c1241


Pintos, V., & Crimi, Y. (2010). Unit 4: Research articles: abstracts. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Universidad CAECE. Retrieved 17th May, 2010, from
http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=2730

Wijeysundera, D.N., Beattie, W. S., Elliot, R.F., Austin, P. C., Hux, J.E., & Laupacis, A. (2010). Non-invasive cardiac stress testing before elective major non-cardiac surgery: Population based cohort study. BMJ, 340 (b5526), 1-9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b5526

Comparing two academic articles within the fields of education and medicine: A focus on introductions, literature review and methods sections


Writing effective Research Articles (RA) appears to be not a simple task. On the contrary, it should be regarded as a complex academic ability that develops provided that writers become aware of these papers’ specific structure as well as linguistics aspects. Hence, delving into a deep analysis of RA’s introductions, literature review, and methods section becomes essential. Furthermore, despite being true that this kind of papers share structural and linguistic characteristics, it is also possible to identify certain differences depending on the field they belong to. Consequently, a contrastive analysis of an article with educational implications written by Yilmaz and Cetinkaya (2007) on the one hand; and an article in the medicine field developed by Van Gelder et al. (2010) on the other, turns to be an effective source of research whose findings might enhance future writing of RAs in the teaching field.
As far as introductions are concerned, they can be regarded as “ads” that pretend to attract consumers, readers in the case of articles. This is the reason why the information presented under this section should move “from the general topic of discussion to the particular situation under analysis” (Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p. 27). To achieve this purpose, introductions should be structured in three cycles or moves, as they are termed. Firstly, it is necessary to establish a research territory, i.e. refer to previous topic-related studies. Secondly, indicating a gap or establishing the niche is required. Lastly, such niche must be occupied by outlining the purposes for the current study.
As regards the first move, it can be clearly identified in the articles under analysis. On the one hand, Van Gelder et al. (2010) make reference to what has been done in their area of research by stating that “[p]revious studies have established that the rates of complications and death were similar in patients with (…)” (para. 5). On the other hand, Yilmaz and Cetinkaya (2007), after providing a general definition of portfolios followed by a specific reference to electronic ones, assert that “[i]n Turkey, graduate students are assessed based on their coursebook grading and the qualifying exam results…” (para. 5). Thus, the authors present the current state of arts in their area of study.
As already stated, grammatical features characterize each move. Continuing with the analysis of the first one, it is possible to identify a specific use of tenses to introduce previous studies in both articles. As the direct quote presented above suggests, Van Gelder et al. (2010) seem to be using the present perfect since they are not referring to single studies; rather, they refer to a wide area of inquiry which, according to the writers’ perspective, does not deserve to be named. Nevertheless, a present tense can be identified in Yilmaz and Cetinkaya’s (2007) expression. In this case, the authors’ purpose would be to refer to the state of current knowledge without alluding to a specific research activity.
As far as the second move in introductions is concerned, both articles’ authors manage to develop it effectively. To illustrate this point, the following quotes might be enlightening: “[t]he optimal level of heart-rate control, however, is unknown, as is whether strict rate control is associated with an improved prognosis as compared with a more lenient approach” (Van Gelder et al., 2010, para. 5); and, “[g]iven that education is generally regarded as a process of bringing desired change in behaviours; (…) students’ academic success and progress need to be evaluated in a more comprehensive way (…)” (Yilmaz & Cetinkaya, 2007, para. 5).
As the discussion above suggests, writers appear to aim at pointing out that there are certain issues on which previous research has not focused on; thus it is necessary to continue enquiring (Pintos & Crimi, 2010). In other words, the gap found in both areas of study is indicated. In order to achieve this effectively, authors retort to grammatical tools that aid the establishment of the niche. Among others, negative connectors are useful. This is likely to be the case in Van Gelder et al.’s (2010) introduction where the presence of “however” reveals it. On the contrary, Yilmaz and Cetinkaya (2007) would state that there is contrastive aspect regarding students’ current way of assessment and the conception of education by means of using an emphasizing inversion of order.
As regards the third move, it is time to describe what the present study entails, i.e. “fill the hollow that [was] discovered in Move 2” (Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p. 31).On the one hand, Van Gelder et al. (2010) outline purposes and state the nature of their research by claiming “we conducted a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial to test the hypothesis that lenient rate control is not inferior to strict control in preventing cardiovascular events (…)” (para. 5). On the other hand, Yilmaz and Cetinkaya (2007) let readers know about their study’s purpose by simply announcing main findings. In doing so, they assert “developing a portfolio indicates students’ knowledge and skills on the subject at hand, and provides opportunities for students to reflect on their learning (…)” (para.7).
As for this move’s grammatical and text-structure features, the quotes above reflect the presence of two types of statements: descriptive and purposive. In the case of Van Gelder et al.’s (2010) article, a mixture of both can be identified. In other words, the statement is descriptive since authors refer to the type of investigation making use of the past tense; moreover, it is purposive since they present what they pretend to achieve by stating their hypothesis using the present tense. As regards Yilmaz and Cetinkaya’s (2007) paper, there is no clear reference to the type of study; however, it could be claimed that their statement is rather purposive, i.e. after a deeper analysis, it can be concluded that they pretend to demonstrate the usefulness of applying e-portfolios to assess students. In doing so, they make use of the present tense.
Investigating and reviewing previous works related to the topic of investigation might be regarded as crucial to support research. In addition, it prevents researchers from focusing on aspects which have already been discussed. In order to produce a reliable paper, such findings are to be properly reported. As for the articles under analysis, Van Gelder et al. (2010) opt for including the literature review in the first move of their article’s introduction. By the same token, Yilmaz and Cetinkaya (2007) present previous studies when establishing the territory of their research. However, probably due to investigation topic’s specifics, they extend their literature review section by adding a subsection where portfolios’ types, content and design principles are discussed in detail.
Once introductions as well as literature reviews have been analysed, methods sections need to be developed. Broadly speaking, they constitute separate sections within papers where clear and concise explanations related to the techniques and processes followed to collect data are specified. Moreover, information about participants is likely to be included. This appears to be the case in the medicine paper under analysis. The methods section has been divided into five subsections: a) study design, b) study participants, c) randomization and treatment, d) outcomes, and c) statistical anlysis.
Within these subsections, how-to-do paragraphs give enough detail indicating chronological steps (Pintos & Crimi, 2010). For instance, the study’s denomination followed by an explanation is provided in the first section: “The Rate Control Efficacy in Permanent Atrial Fibrillation: a Comparison between Lenient versus Strict Rate Control II (RACE II) study (…)” (Van Gelder et al., 2010, para. 6). Similarly, participants’ age, place of residence, health conditions as well as eligibility criteria are specified in the second section. Under the third section, details about participants’ assignment to groups and the techniques used to carry out such task are given. Treatment’s results are provided within the fourth section. Analysis’s parameters and obtained rates are revealed in the last section.
Contrary to expectations, there is no separate section describing methods in Yilmaz and Cetinkaya’s (2007) article. It is possible to think that no specific techniques were used to conduct research. Nevertheless, details about the implementation of portfolios to evaluate a particular course are provided under a separate heading. Under this section, authors define a distant learning program in which portfolios have been used to assess students: “The Institutional Technology Master’s of Arts Degree (ITMA) program is a distance learning program which was established in 1998” (para. 26).
Additionally, specifications about the students participating in the program are given: “it was originally designed for K-12 practitioners in the State of Virginia (…)” (Yilmaz & Cetinkaya, 2007, para. 26). Last but not least, the standards under which students’ portfolios are evaluated are pointed out: “These standards have been used by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) (…) and are divided into five interrelated domains: design, development, utilization, management, and evaluation” (Yilmaz & Cetinkaya, 2007, para. 30).
From a linguistic perspective, methods sections are characterized by their use of passive voice (Pintos & Crimi, 2010). As the quotes above suggest, both articles’ authors have mostly retorted to past passive voice. Some examples more might be enlightening. Van Gelder et al. (2010) declare “[t]his study was initiated and coordinated by (…)” (para. 7), “[t]he study was conducted in 33 centres (…)” (para. 8), “all trial participants were randomly assigned” (para. 9), “[a]ll reported primary-outcome events were adjudicated by (…)” (para. 13), “[t]he trial was designed to determine whether a strategy of lenient rate control was as effective (…)” (para. 12).
Similarly, Yilmaz and Cetinkaya (2007) explain “ultimate goal for this course was to be able to determine (…)” (para. 30). Though this is true, plenty use of present passive voice can be identified in these writers’ article. To illustrate this, Yilmaz and Cetinkaya (2007) point out “all courses are offered online” (para. 26), “[t]here is a two-level assessment conducted in the ITMA program” (para. 27), “[t]hese domains and sub-domains are represented in Figure 1” (para. 30), “[t]hese performance indicators can be found at (…)” (para. 32).
Summing up, Research Articles (RA) are likely to share specific features, especially those regarding style and genre. Otherwise, the field to which an RA belongs to seems to determine distinctive structure and linguistic aspects that have already been discussed. As a result, it becomes essential to acknowledge them if accurate research papers are to be developed in the field of education. In a nutshell, a contrastive analysis of articles provides room for reflection and becomes a source of self-initiated, autonomous knowledge as not only enriching conclusions can be drawn, but also reporting techniques are put into practice.


References

Pintos, V., & Crimi, Y. (2010). Unit 2: The research article: introduction, literature review and methods section. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Universidad CAECE. Retrieved 1st April, 2010, from
http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=2730

Van Gelder, I. C., Groenveld, H. F., Crijns, H. J. G. M., Tuininga, Y. S., Tijssen, J. G. P., Alings, A. M., et al. (2010). Lenient versus strict rate control in patients with atrial fibrillation. The New England Journal of Medicine, 362 (15).
Retrieved 17th April, 2010, from
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/362/15/1363

Yilmaz, H., & Cetinkaya, B. (2007). Using an online portfolio course in assessing students’ work. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology (TOJET), 6 (4).
Retrieved 14th December, 2009, from
http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=2730