Academic Writing in English - The M in IMRaD
•
2 gefällt mir•7,506 views
This module takes a look at the Method section of research articles, and how good writers construct them.
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Ähnlich wie Academic Writing in English - The M in IMRaD
Ähnlich wie Academic Writing in English - The M in IMRaD (20)
Mehr von Ron Martinez
Mehr von Ron Martinez (19)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Academic Writing in English - The M in IMRaD
- 1. The Method Section Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez PRPPG7000 - Academic Writing in English
- 2. Syllabus outline • 28/08 - Introduction • 04/09 - IMRaD, Most common errors, electronic tools • 11/09 - Strategic planning for your article: CARS and other approaches • 18/09 - Title, Abstract e Introduction • 25/09 - Writing your Introduction • 02/10 - Coherence, cohesion and clarity, and use of authorial voice • 09/10 - (Introduction due) The Method section • 16/10- The (Results and) Discussion section • 23/10 - (Introduction peer feedback due) Discussing and Concluding • 30/10 - Writing (no class) • 06/11 - Students exchange articles (no class) • 13/11 - (peer feedback due) Special guest speaker • 20/11 - Plagiarism, the submission process
- 4. YOUR MIDTERM ASSIGNMENT First: Go to PEERGRADE www.peergrade.io/join CLASS CODE: 5AJQZQ
- 5. IMPORTANT: 1. Focus is on points already covered in class. 2. Can be any length, but very long Introductions (over 1,000 words) are discouraged. 3. Can be in English or Portuguese - or both. 4. Must submit through peergrade.io by October 9 (23:59). 5. On October 10, you will receive 2 introductions written by other students. Your impressions of these introductions are due October 23. You will not see your feedback until you have given feedback on others’ introductions.
- 8. The Method section • Why is it important? • What makes a good Method section? • How does it connect to the Introduction?
- 10. Look at the following (imaginary) Method section. Is it good? Why (not)?
- 11. 2. Method Men (n=4) were chosen for the experiment. After playing basketball, each man applied two different deodorants, one on each armpit. A young woman was recruited to judge how pleasing the smell of each deodorant was. The female judge smelled each armpit, each time noting her impressions. Her final analysis was then given, based on the notes taken.
- 12. Imagine you are a reviewer: 1. What questions about the method need answers? 2. Talk with a classmate and submit your questions on GoFormative.
- 14. The Method section • Why is it important? • What makes a good Method section? • How does it connect to the Introduction?
- 15. The Naysayer
- 16. Not every article has a Method section, but...
- 17. The Naysayer The ability to defend your method is relevant to everyone.
- 19. Studies on why articles get rejected • Belcher, D. D. (2007). Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 1-22. • Bordage, G. (2001). Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Academic Medicine, 76(9), 889-896. • Pierson, D. J. (2004). The top 10 reasons why manuscripts are not accepted for publication. Respiratory care, 49(10), 1246-1252. • Sullivan, E. J. (2002). Top 10 reasons a manuscript is rejected. Journal of Professional Nursing, 18(1), 1-2. • McKercher, B., Law, R., Weber, K., Song, H., & Hsu, C. (2007). Why referees reject manuscripts. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 31(4), 455-470.
- 20. Belcher (2007)
- 21. Belcher (2007)
- 22. Belcher (2007)
- 23. • Belcher, D. D. (2007). Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 1-22. • Bordage, G. (2001). Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Academic Medicine, 76(9), 889-896. • Pierson, D. J. (2004). The top 10 reasons why manuscripts are not accepted for publication. Respiratory care, 49(10), 1246-1252. • Sullivan, E. J. (2002). Top 10 reasons a manuscript is rejected. Journal of Professional Nursing, 18(1), 1-2. • McKercher, B., Law, R., Weber, K., Song, H., & Hsu, C. (2007). Why referees reject manuscripts. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 31(4), 455-470. Studies on why articles get rejected
- 24. Sullivan (2002) 1. Manuscript sent to wrong jornal 2. Content does not provide new information 3. Information is too old or out of date 4. Topic is too narrow 5. Important contributions to topic are missing 6. Author has relied too heavily on the literature 7. Manuscript was a class paper or speech 8. Too little information about method, or method includes serious flaws 9. Paper does not make a point 10. Poor writing
- 25. • Belcher, D. D. (2007). Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 1-22. • Bordage, G. (2001). Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Academic Medicine, 76(9), 889-896. • Pierson, D. J. (2004). The top 10 reasons why manuscripts are not accepted for publication. Respiratory care, 49(10), 1246-1252. • Sullivan, E. J. (2002). Top 10 reasons a manuscript is rejected. Journal of Professional Nursing, 18(1), 1-2. • McKercher, B., Law, R., Weber, K., Song, H., & Hsu, C. (2007). Why referees reject manuscripts. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 31(4), 455-470. Studies on why articles get rejected
- 26. Pierson (2012)
- 27. Pierson (2012)
- 28. • Belcher, D. D. (2007). Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 1-22. • Bordage, G. (2001). Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Academic Medicine, 76(9), 889-896. • Pierson, D. J. (2004). The top 10 reasons why manuscripts are not accepted for publication. Respiratory care, 49(10), 1246-1252. • Sullivan, E. J. (2002). Top 10 reasons a manuscript is rejected. Journal of Professional Nursing, 18(1), 1-2. • McKercher, B., Law, R., Weber, K., Song, H., & Hsu, C. (2007). Why referees reject manuscripts. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 31(4), 455-470.
- 29. McKercher et al. (2007)
- 30. McKercher et al. (2007)
- 31. Main reasons articles get rejected Belcher (2007) Bordage (2001) Sullivan (2002) McKercher (2007) Wrong journal X ✓ ✓ ✓ Faulty method ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Lack of transparency X ✓ ✓ ✓ Problems with statistics X ✓ ✓ ✓ Poor discussion ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Improper formatting X ✓ X ✓ Writing difficult to follow ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Literature review ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Nothing new ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Contribution not clear ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Poor English X X X X
- 32. A manuscript I recently rejected...
- 36. The Method section • Why is it important? • What makes a good Method section? • How does it connect to the Introduction?
- 42. Read the Introduction (online) (3rd paragraph) What non-genetic factors can influence body odor?
- 50. Now read the Method section Can you find elements that were raised in the Introduction section?
- 51. “Mentrual cycle”, “mood” and “diet”
- 52. “Mentrual cycle”, “mood” and “diet”
- 57. 2. Method Men (n=4) were chosen for the experiment. After playing basketball, each man applied two different deodorants, one on each armpit. A young woman was recruited to judge how pleasing the smell of each deodorant was. The female judge smelled each armpit, each time noting her impressions. Her final analysis was then given, based on the notes taken.
- 58. Pierson (2012)
- 59. And hearing the Naysayer... “But how do you know participants followed instructions?”
- 60. And hearing the Naysayer... “But how do you know participants followed instructions?” “But what about odor contamination from outside smells?”
- 61. And hearing the Naysayer... “But how do you know participants followed instructions?” “But what about odor contamination from outside smells?” “But how fresh were the smells?”
- 62. And hearing the Naysayer... “But how do you know participants followed instructions?” “But what about odor contamination from outside smells?” “But how fresh were the smells?” “But what about the effects of repeated testing?”
- 64. “But how do you know participants followed instructions?”
- 65. “But how do you know participants followed instructions?”
- 66. But what about odor contamination from outside smells?
- 67. But what about odor contamination from outside smells?
- 68. “But how fresh were the smells?”
- 69. “But how fresh were the smells?”
- 70. “But what about the effects of repeated testing?”
- 71. “But what about the effects of repeated testing?”
- 72. Don’t just say “what” you did, also say “why” What many people write We carefully examined the diet diaries.
- 73. Don’t just say “what” you did, also say “why” What many people write We carefully examined the diet diaries. Better To check the odor donors’ conformity with the instructions, we carefully examined the diet diaries.
- 74. Don’t just say “what” you did, also say “why” What many people write We carefully examined the diet diaries. The donors were asked to wear new white 100% cotton T-shirts. Better To check the odor donors’ conformity with the instructions, we carefully examined the diet diaries.
- 75. Don’t just say “what” you did, also say “why” What many people write We carefully examined the diet diaries. The donors were asked to wear new white 100% cotton T-shirts. Better To check the odor donors’ conformity with the instructions, we carefully examined the diet diaries. To avoid odor contamination from odor donors’ clothes or background color, the donors were asked to wear new white 100% cotton T-shirts.
- 83. YOUR MIDTERM ASSIGNMENT First: Go to PEERGRADE www.peergrade.io/join CLASS CODE: 5AJQZQ
- 84. IMPORTANT: 1. Focus is on points already covered in class. 2. Can be any length, but very long Introductions (over 1,000 words) are discouraged. 3. Can be in English or Portuguese - or both. 4. Must submit through peergrade.io by October 9 (23:59). 5. On October 10, you will receive 2 introductions written by other students. Your impressions of these introductions are due October 23. You will not see your feedback until you have given feedback on others’ introductions.
- 86. Homework 1. Download one of the selected articles from our webpage (“Discussion 1”, “Discussion 2”, “Discussion 3” etc.). Read only the Discussion section of the article you choose. 2. In the Discussion section, can you identify: a. A. the author(s) admitting a limitation? b. B. the author(s) talking about practical implication(s)? c. C. the author(s) comparing the results to those of other authors? 3. Revisit the Hanauer & Englander article (“Quantifying the Burden…”) and identify the same points (A, B, C) above.