Abstract Sections in Research Articles

A Comparative Analysis of Abstract Sections

Genre analysis has gained significant importance in the field of English for Specific Purposes (Dudley-Evans, 1994). Of particular interest has been the analysis of research papers (RPs) and articles (RAs) and the description of their main sections in terms of structure, content and language use. Abstracts are one of these sections and, according to the American Psychological Association (APA, 2010), they “can be the most important single paragraph in an article” (p. 26). As Swales and Feak (1994) put it in simple words: “If they [the readers] like your abstract, they may read your paper (…). If they do not like it, they may not.” (p.210). From this perspective, abstracts are more necessary for readers than for writers because at times when information abounds, the reader needs to be “highly selective in his reading, often focusing on skimming abstracts and key words” (Swales & Feak, n.d., para.1). Since 2005, abstracts have been studied by many researchers (Swales & Feak, 2010) who aimed to describe their main characteristics and establish an appropriate classification accordingly. Swales and Feak (1994, 2010), for example, analysed the content of different abstracts and distinguished two main types: informative and indicative.  They also differentiated between results-driven and summary abstracts, depending on the author’s writing approach. Likewise, the organizational format of abstracts has led to a further classification by academics into structured and unstructured abstracts. The former has been regarded as “an essential tool for researcher” (Bayley, 2003, Title section) “(…) for searching and quickly extracting needed information” (para.4) thanks to its division into sub-headings. The latter is more concise and consists of a long, unbroken paragraph. Additionally, Swales and Feak (1994) described five discourse moves within the structure of abstracts, each serving a different purpose.  However, comparative studies that could apply this knowledge to the analysis of abstracts from different fields are still needed. This work aims to discuss the structure comparatively, content and language use in four abstracts taken from the field of education and medicine.

Although many differences were found among the articles, a noticeable similarity should be mentioned. The abstracts in all the four articles purport to inform the readers about the content of the article by providing clear and concise information of what has been done and the findings obtained (informative abstracts as defined by Swales and Feak, 1994; Swales, 1990). However, one of the most noticeable differences found between the abstracts analysed is associated with their format: the two medical abstracts, written by Cunningham, Kramer and Narayan (2014) and by Kulkarni et al. (2013), fall into the category of structured abstracts; while the two educational abstracts, written by Prince (2012) and by Li and Hegelheimer (2013), can be framed within the unstructured type. This observation is consistent with Hartley’s (2004) idea that structured abstracts are “commonplace in all serious medical research journals” (p.368).  Both medical articles include the subheadings Background, Methods, Results and Conclusions. This may be due to the fact that they belong to the same medical journal and, therefore, comply with the same rules and standards for publication. Contrary to these abstracts, the abstracts from the education field are both a paragraph long, with no subheadings.

The four abstracts considered for this analysis are written as what Swales and Feak  (1994) call RP (or RA) summaries, offering only a reduced version of the major ideas developed in the article. The medicine article by Cunningham, Kramer and Narayan (2014) includes within this summary the five moves described by Swales and Feak (2010). Move 1 (background, introduction and/or situation) and Move 2 (present research and/or purpose) are included under the subheading Background, assigning one sentence for each move. Move 3 (methods, materials, subjects and/or procedures) is presented under the subheading Methods, Move 4 (results and/or findings) is introduced under the subheading Results and Move 5 (discussion, conclusion, implications and/or recommendations) corresponds to the text under the subheading Conclusions. The latter does not refer to implications, recommendations or issues for further discussion. The same structure can be found in the article by Kulkarni et al., although one difference deserves mentioning: Move 2 is not included by the authors. Never do they state the purpose of their research in the background section. 

It is interesting to note, in addition, that neither of the two abstracts from the field of education includes Move 1 in its text. The authors directly start from Move 2, referring to the present research and its purpose. Prince (2012), for example, begins “this paper presents firstly a set of seven principles that lie behind the development of a vocabulary learning resource (… ) and secondly an experiment investigating the use of narrative as a device to facilitate recall of target words”(p.103). Li and Hegelheimer´s (2013) opening sentence is “in this paper, we report on the development and implementation of a web-based mobile” (p.135). The last three moves appear in these abstracts though in the article by Li and Hegelheimer (2013) the language is more explicit: "A mixed methods approach was chosen to investigate (...)" (p.135). 

Considering Swales and Feak´s (2010) analysis of linguistic features in abstracts, Moves 1, 2 and 5 should be written in the present, while Moves 3 and 4 should be expressed through the past tense. This is partially true in the abstract by Cunningham, Kramer and Narayan (2014) given that the authors choose to present their conclusions (Move 5) through the past tense instead of the present tense: “incident obesity between the ages of 5 and 14 years was more likely to have occurred at younger ages, primarily among children who had entered kindergarten overweight” (p.403). Kulkarni et al.(2013), however, follow Swales and Feak’s guidelines, writing their conclusions in the present perfect tense: “the rate of triplet and higher-order births has declined over the past decade in the context of a reduction in the transfer of three or more embryos during IVF” (p.2218). Prince (2012) and Li and Hegelheimer (2013), on their part, digress from Swales and Feak’s recommendations by writing their research results in the present. Prince states that “results indicate that linking sentences containing target words within a narrative framework leads to better recall on an immediate post-test than when sentences are unrelated” (p 103) and Li and Hegelheimer write “our analyses show that students’ performance on Grammar Clinic assignments reflects their progress in self-editing” (p.135).

Swales and Feak (1994) also sustain that abstracts should use the impersonal passive, avoiding the use of the pronoun "I" and removing, in this way, the focus from the writers to the work. Nevertheless, in this analysis it has been noticed that only one of the four abstracts (the one by Prince, 2012) follows this guideline while in the other three, the personal pronoun We and the possessive adjective Our are used. For example, Kulkarni et al. (2013) start the methods subsection of their abstract with the phrase “We derived the rates of multiple births after natural conception from data on distributions of all births from 1962 through 1966” (p. 2218). A last feature worth pointing out is the use of jargon and abbreviation. In this respect, the writers of both, the medical and education articles, have resorted to using some specific terminology that seems indispensable for an accurate, concise description of the content of the article. Examples of this are abbreviations like "IVF" (Kulkarni et al., 2013, p.2218) and "SLA" (Li & Hegelheimer, 2013, p.135).

The comparative analysis carried out in this paper shows that variations in the organizational format and language use among the four abstracts analysed exist, affecting the proportion of information provided to the readers in each case. Although most of these differences seem to be related to specific conventions derived from the field of studies the authors belong to, others may be the result of the authors’ style and preferences given that they occur within the same field. However, regardless of these variations, it can be concluded that the writers have not failed to include the relevant information expected to be found in any scientific abstract.

References

American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Cunningham, S. A., Kramer, M. R. & Narayan, K. M. (2014). Incidence of childhood obesity in the United States. The New England Journal of Medicine, 370(5), 403-411. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1309753/NEJMoa1309753

Dudley-Evans, T. (1994). Genre analysis: an approach to text analysis for ESP. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 219-228). London: Routledge.

Hartley, J. (2004). Current findings from research on structured abstracts. Retrieved from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC442180/pdf/i0025-7338-092-03-0368.pdf

Kulkarni, A.D.,  Jamieson, D.J., Jones, H.W., . Kissin, D.M., Gallo, M.F., Macaluso, M. &  Adashi, E. Y. (2013). Fertility treatments and multiple births in the United States.  The New England Journal of Medicine,  369(23), 2218-2225. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1301467

Li, Z., & Hegelheimer, V. (2013). Mobile-assisted grammar exercises: Effects on self-editing in L2 writing. Language Learning & Technology, 17(3), 135–156. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2013/lihegelheimer.pdf

Prince, P. (2012). Towards an instructional programme for L2 vocabulary: Can a story help?. Language Learning & Technology, 16(3), 103-120. Retrieved from: http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2012/prince.pdf

Swales, J. M. & Feak, C.B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills: A course for nonnative speakers of English. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Swales, J. M. & Feak, C.B. (2010). From text to task: Putting research on abstracts to work. In M.F. Ruiz-Garrido, J.C. Palmer-Silveira & I. Fortanet-Gómez (Eds.), English for professional and academic purposes (pp. 167-180). Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Swales, J. M. & Feak, C.B. (n.d.). Journal Article Abstracts. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Reference List in APA Style

Reference Lists: An analysis of Three Cases Following American Psychological Association (APA, 2010) Conventions

           

            When writing academic pieces, writers are expected to develop their own work based on their own critical thinking. Yet, the writers' unique analysis must find support on grounded theory in the field. This implies that writers are expected to cite other authors in order to develop a profound discussion of the topic. In this respect, Robilliard (2006, as cited in Hartley, 2008) suggests a number of reasons for citing references when it comes to academic papers that, in general terms, relate to the possibility of providing the reader with more information and the writer with support to his claims. As well as that, another evident reason is to avoid plagiarism by citing the original source, author and publication date, an idea which is shared by Robilliard too. Not complying with the inclusion of this basic information would discredit the work and consequently, its author. Even though there exists a great numbers of sources to which writers can resort to in order to be well informed about conventions, there has not been a comparative analysis of three examples in which the regulations are not complied with. The purpose of this paper is to analyse and exemplify academic writing conventions according to APA (6^th ed.) in three concrete cases in which the conventions are not accurately applied.

            As stated in APA (2010), references must basically follow the following pattern: begin with the authors surname(s), following with the initial letter of the name preceded by a comma and followed by a period. APA also explains that the title moves to the initial position when there is no author for a web page. However, none of the examples under analysis respect this convention either because they do not include the names properly, as expressed in the following example: Clinton, Bill or because they wrongly include the title within inverted commas and in title case format instead of sentence case format. This second problem can be seen in the example that follows: "Blueprint Lays Out Clear Path for Climate Action."  As well as this, no publication date is mentioned in the correct place, which should go immediately after the author's name, in parentheses according to APA. All the three cases show this problem when they include the dates at the end of the reference entry and including the specific date rather than just the year of publication as it should be. A clear instance of this problem is Web. 24 May 2009. In reference to the source, the three examples present problems as well because they fail to include the retrieval address so as to allow the reader direct access to the original source.

            Having carried out a comparative analysis of three examples of reference lists from the perspective of APA (2010) conventions, it can be concluded that none of them fully adjust to these conventions. A probable consequence of this might be that the reader be left with no information where to refer to if he wishes to expand his knowledge on the original sources. The information is presented in a disorderly fashion preventing the readers and the community from fully trusting the credibility of the work. 

References

American Psychological Association, (2010). Quick answers – References. Retrieved from http://www.apastyle.org/

Hartley, J. (2008). Academic Writing and Publishing: A Practical Handbook. New York: Routledge.

More About Research Articles

Research Articles: A Comparative Analysis

          Being part of a discourse community implies, among other things, to follow the academic writing conventions of the community. A major academic writing type is Research Articles, which allow this community to explore fields of study in order to extend the boundaries of knowledge to be later shared by all its members. As for all academic writings, research articles conventions structure the content and way of presenting the data collected. Different sections in the article provide the reader the possibility to understand the information in a clear and comprehensive manner. Three important sections of research articles are the Results, the Discussion and the Conclusion Sections, whose purpose involves much more than presenting data. They show the writer's ability to summarize, argue and evaluate their work so as to contribute to the discourse community learning. Salovey (as cited in Hartley, 2008) argues that “the art of writing a good results section is to take the readers through a story” (p.47). The three sections mentioned, however, are not always structured in the same format. In this regard, writers such as Lewin et al. and Swales and Feak (as cited in Hartley, 2008) describe typical ‘moves’ in the discussion sections of academic research. "Discussions, then, go beyond a summary of the findings and, indeed, there may be disciplinary differences in how they are approached" (Harley, 2008, p.49). While some academic writers believe that a certain format shows weaknesses in the work, others believe the opposite. However, it is important to acknowledge that even though research articles can be presented in different formats, they all serve as valuable resources for the investigation of new areas of study as long as they include the content required and in accordance with the conventions of the corresponding community. The purpose of this paper is to provide evidence of such a belief through the comparative analysis of two research articles in the fields of medicine and education. 

         In relation to the Results section, a major difference between the research articles under analysis may be found in the type of text the authors resort to. In the article on medicine, McClay, Waters, McHale, Schmidt and Williams (2013) comply with the recommendations of the American Psychological Association (APA, 2010) that states that “discussing the implications of the results should be reserved for presentation in the Discussion section” (p.32) and include a purely descriptive text which mentions the different themes identified during interviews. Conversely, Sun and Chang (2012) seem to include some of the implications and interpretations of their results, especially under the heading “The Making of An Author” (p. 55) where they state, for example, that “in the end, these students’ collaborative dialogues on the blogs helped scaffold individuals to establish themselves as authors and researchers” (p.56).  The inclusion of this kind of interpretative phrases conforms to Swale and Feak’s (1994) idea that commentary may be included in the Results section given that “[the] distinction between Results and Discussion is not as sharp as commonly believed” (p.170).

        In both articles, the authors present their results in relation to the research questions or research objectives previously stated. However, they seem to do this through different text organizations. According to Hartley (2008), the Results section usually includes two moves: in the first move authors “state the main findings in order – relating them in turn to the hypotheses and methods used” (p.47) and in the second move they specify subsidiary findings, also relating them to the research hypothesis. Sun and Chang (2012) seem to include these two moves, using their research questions (they do not refer to a hypothesis, but to questions) as subtitles to organize the Results section and stating the most important findings first in each subsection. Main findings are widely described and exemplified while subsidiary findings are given less space within the text.  McClay et al. (2013), on their part, incorporate only the first of the moves, giving equal importance to all the findings presented. They also include subsections within their Results and these are connected to the research objectives. 

            The present analysis also allows to make a comparison of the Discussion and Conclusion sections in both research articles. As suggested by Swales and Feak (1994), it is possible that these sections appear separately or blended in one unique section. While in the work by McClay et al. (2013) the discussion section is sub-divided into three sub-sections, one of which is the conclusion, the research article by Sun and Chang (2012) contains separated sections for the discussion and the conclusion. As regards the content of these sections, in the first sub-section of the former paper, the writers make reference to the general aim of the research and they refer back to some issues related to the procedure. Additionally, they devote some lines to discussing issues related to the key findings in their work and to offering some recommendations that the professionals in the field could benefit from. A sub-section under the title Limitations follows, in which the writers discuss some of the problems they came across with, how they dealt with them and, once again, they provide some suggestions. To do so, the writers have made use of linguistic tools such as modals “should” and “could” as the following example shows: “Future research should assess uptake and efficacy of cCBT in clinical practice in order to gain a more complete knowledge of the potential of cCBT as a treatment for BN” (Limitations section, para.1).  Closing the sequence of sub-sections, it is possible to find the conclusion. Here, the writers reinforce the benefits of their findings and reflect upon their possible implementation.

     A noticeable difference between both works is that in the discussion section, the article on education goes back to some literature review in order to make a point of theory and reflect upon it. Equally noticeable is that the writers here hypothesize about the possible reasons for their findings and draw conclusions about the process undergone by the participants and not just about the results, as the article on medicine does. This could be observed when the writers describe that some procedural behaviour in the participants: “In the study, there were times when students simply echoed the problems someone else had encountered rather than offering a constructive solution…” (p.58). Limitations and recommendations in this article have been included indeed. However, contrary to the first article, they have been both included within the Conclusion section. An important similarity between the two articles is that both include most of the moves expected to be present in a Discussion section, though not in the same order.
                The two articles compared showed significant differences in the structure and content of the three sections considered for this analysis. Sun and Chang (2012) presented a more complex text with their inclusion of two moves in their Results and the Conclusion as a separate section while McClay et al. (2013) chose a simpler presentation. In addition, neither of them has failed to include discussion and conclusions that, though not structured in the same way, include the contents appropriate to these sections. It could be concluded that the authors of both articles seem to comply with the basic requirements that allow them to present and discuss the outcomes of their study successfully.

References

American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. (6thed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Hartley, J. (2008). Academic Writing and Publishing: A Practical Handbook. London: Routledge.

McClay C.A., Waters L., McHale C., Schmidt U. & Williams C. (2013). Online cognitive behavioral therapy for bulimic type disorders, delivered in the community by a nonclinician: Qualitative study. J Med Internet Res, 15 (3), e46. 

doi:10.2196/jmir.2083 

Sun, Y.C., & Chang, Y.J. (2012). Blogging to learn: Becoming EFL academic writers through collaborative dialogues. Language Learning & Technology, 16 (1), 43-61. Available from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/february2012/sunchang.pdf

Swales, J. M. & Feak, C.B. (1994). Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Tasks and Skills: A Course for Nonnative Speakers of English. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

RESEARCH ARTICLES: Introductions and Methods Sections

            

Introduction and Method Section in Research Articles: A Comparative Analysis  

            Introductions and Method sections are major constituent parts of academic research articles. As all components in academic writings, they both follow conventions as regards content and internal structure which are established and, thus, recognized by the academic writing community. Equally important to the constitutive aspect is the purpose of each of these sections. In his review to Swales's (1990) book Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings, Marius (n.d.) states the purpose of introductions: “They serve both to define the discourse community to which a research article may be addressed, to grant the writer authority with that community, and to shape the problem that the writer will consider in the article itself” (p.460). It should be added that through the introduction the writer must also draw the readers' attention and arouse their interest in reading the complete work. On the other hand, a method section basically purports to explain to the readers which tools and instruments were used for collecting data as well as which procedure was applied for doing so. Even though research academic papers share many characteristics, on occasions they do present some differences, mainly as regards writing conventions. Much academic work has been done to thoroughly explain the different steps to be followed when carrying out research and writing research papers. However, there does not seem to be much comparative and contrastive analysis of research writing conventions in different fields of study. The purpose of this paper is to analyse and compare the introduction and method section in two research articles from two different professional fields: medicine and education.

            Swales and Feak (1994) sustain in their that research articles introductions follow the Create a Research Space Model (C.A.R.S.) through which introductions are organized according to three moves that structure the presentation of information from the general to the specific. Analysed from this model, it is possible to find this organizational pattern in both articles. The first part of the paragraphs in both papers establishes the research territory by mentioning some of the work previously done on the field. As well as that, they explain the current state of the topics under analysis, which in the case of the article on education is the increasingly communicative use Taiwanese students give to the English language whereas in the article on medicine the current state is expressed by establishing the relevance for the research: “It is unknown whether these risks remain increased after the conventionally defined 6-week postpartum period” (p1308). It should also be said that the relevance for the research in the former article is mentioned when the writer states the difficulties the students find to fulfill their needs in their own learning environment. This general-specific format of the texts forms the first move of the model. Introduced by a contrastive connector, the second move is developed in both articles. The problem found by the writers between previous research and the current state of the situations under analysis starts this move, as it is evident in the following two examples extracted from the articles: “However, previous studies and isolated case reports have suggested that an increased thrombotic risk may persist beyond 6 weeks after delivery.” (p.1308) and “However, content analyses of the English textbooks used in junior high schools revealed that these textbooks provide inadequate cultural information about Anglo-American cultures (Chen, 2007)” (p.57). Finally, with the third move the introductions end with a solution-type text by detailing the purpose of the research articles and outlining their structures: “To address language-learning problems in the Taiwanese context, this action research study carried out three technology-enhanced, collaborative intercultural projects. The aim of the projects was to demonstrate that technology-enhanced, cross-cultural tasks could provide…” (p.58). The same is seen in the last move in the medicine article: “Therefore, more data are needed to rigorously assess the risk after the 6-week postpartum period. We designed this study to assess the duration of an increased postpartum thrombotic risk in a large population-based cohort of women.” (p.1308).

            Similarly, both research articles can be analysed by comparing their method sections. Even though neither of these articles fails to include this section, they call it differently. Chen and Yang (2014) used the term Methodology while the authors of the article on medicine preferred the term Methods. The different implications of these two terms should be reminded though since they do not refer to the same aspect. While the word methods makes reference to the technique and tools used to collect data, the word methodology describes the underlying theory on which the method is grounded. Another noticeable difference is the subdivisions within this section. In this respect, most research writers propose a three-subsection division for this type of academic writing (Swales, 1990, Swales and Feak, 1994, among others), in which the participants, the materials used and finally the procedure applied in the research are listed in a how-to-do fashion along a process paragraph format. However, these subsections are headed differently and the information in them differs at some point. While neither of them fails to provide information about the participants, the article on education describes the materials used and the procedure for data collection and analysis, presented under the headings “Instructional design” (p.4) and “Data collection” (p.7) respectively. Conversely, the article on medicine contains procedural information in two of its three subsections: “Study design” (p.1308) and “Study outcomes and measurements” (p.1309) according to which stage of the research it refers to: before or after the study. Tools and instruments used for obtaining the data are mentioned in these subsections as well.

            Having analysed and compared two research articles from different professional fields, we can assert that this type of academic writing presents substantial similarity in both fields of study. This can be seen in the structuring of the introductions. However, some differences have been found in the method sections as regards subdivision and the distribution of information. The reason for this might be that the medical academic writing community shares writing conventions that could differ in certain aspects from the academic writing community in the educational field. As a result, both writing systems should be equally accepted in their corresponding fields of work.

           

References

Chen, J. J., & Yang, S. C. (2014). Fostering foreign language learning

through technology-enhanced intercultural projects. Language Learning & Technology, 18(1), 57–75. Available from http://llt.msu.edu/

Hooman Kamel, M.D., Babak B. Navi, M.D., Nandita Sriram, B.S., Dominic A. Hovsepian, B.S., Richard B. Devereux, M.D., & Mitchell S.V. Elkind, M.D. (2014). Risk of a thrombotic event after the 6-Week postpartum period. The New England Journal of Medicine. Available from http://www.nejm.org/medical-articles/research

Marius, R. (n.d.). Journal of Advanced Composition [Review of the book Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings]. 11 (2), 458-460. Harvard University. Retrieved from http://www.jaconlinejournal.com/archives/vol11.2/marius-genre.pdf

Swales, J.M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Writing a Book Critique

 Developing Writing Skills at University Levels: A Book Critique

             Bailey (2006) sustains in his work entitled Academic Writing: A handbook for international students (2^nd ed.) that writing academic pieces can result in a major concern for foreign students studying at colleges and universities where English is the language to be used for both academic and communicative purposes. It is for this reason that he developed a handout that students can resort to in order to get trained in the necessary skills required by most university courses. Published in London in 2006 by Taylor & Francis e-library, the book is presented as “a practical and easy-to use guide” (p.2) to writing with explanations, examples, practice exercises and a few models aimed at helping university students work through the process of writing academic pieces, respecting formats and conventions according to which their work will be assessed.

The handout is structured into four main parts, each dealing with different aspects of writing. At the same time, a number of sub-sections within the units provide more specific information and examples on different elements of the writing process. Though comprehensive in content and practice, Bailey's (2006) work on occasions lacks clarity in the organization of the contents adding unnecessary confusion to an already difficult issue for students to tackle. Particularly exemplifying of this is the system of cross-referencing. It cannot be denied that this system results in a useful way for “both teachers and students to quickly find the help they need with all writing tasks” (Bailey, 2006, p.2).

However, cross-references as presented in this handout seem to serve better for revision purposes, when students are already familiarized with the concepts, processes and interrelations involved in writing but only need to review them. For inexperienced students, cross-referencing leads to a sense of never grasping a topic fully as there is always something else to learn or read about. Instead, it would have been more clarifying if the elements common to all writing types had been presented at the beginning, before dealing with the writing process. Additionally, recognizing these common elements in the different writing types models might have given students a good panorama before deconstructing a text for its internal analysis. The inevitable outcome would have been students that do not have to read backwards and forwards and get lost in a cloud of fragmented, and at times repeated, ideas.

Following this line of analysis, students with little or no previous experience in writing skills might find themselves at a loss when facing activities such as the one on page 14. In this simple activity, students are requested to produce certain knowledge they might not have at this stage. A more satisfactory activity would have been to provide a chart with the information together with short models for students to match with the information. In this way, it would be presented as a recycling exercise, which seems to be the purpose here.

In direct relation to this flaw, it can also be added that even though Bailey (2006) states that the handout goes well with “students of all subjects and levels” (p.8), not all students might be familiarized with the terminology used in the activities. A clear example of this appears on pages 29 and 161, where specific terminology is expected to be defined by students with no prior explanations. A better option would have been to provide the students with a definition alongside with a clear, short example rather than having students guess meanings. This could also apply to terminology common to all writing styles such as reference, cite, register, key words among others, for which an explanatory definition at the beginning of the work would have been more than helpful for students.  

            Having carried out an analysis of Bailey's (2006) work, it is possible to conclude that the handbook contains an important number of examples as well as questions that help students organize ideas while they see them in context. Nevertheless, it simultaneously deals with more information than students might be able to cope with, being this particularly noticeable in students just initiating their university studies. In addition, the system of cross-referencing does not contribute with a better understanding of the interrelation between writing concepts because it is just too much information to grasp at the same time. If these issues are taken into account, the handbook does provide good practice for students aiming at developing their writing skills, becoming resourceful material that university students might wish to have on their bookshelves.

References

Bailey, S. (2006). Academic Writing: A handbook for international students (2^nd ed.). Taylor & Francis e-library. Retrieved from http://npu.edu.ua/!e-book/book/djvu/A/iif_kgpm_t27.pdf.

Academic Summary and In-Text Citation Analysis

Academic Summary of an Article

            In this paper, the main ideas expressed in the article by Atsushi Iida (2010) Developing Voice by Composing Haiku: A Social- Expressivist Approach for Teaching Haiku Writing in EFL Contexts are summarized. The author describes and explains a social approach within the wider Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)  Method as a useful as well as enriching means to lead EFL students towards the expression of their “inner feelings” and the “development of voice and audience awareness” (Iida, 2010, p.28) while developing their linguistic tools at the same time.

            Iida (2010) starts his article by presenting poetry writing as a social approach to language development and self-awareness. He points out that Haiku, a type of Japanese poetry, can be used as a classroom writing activity to foster students' construction of identity by expressing their own beliefs, feelings and thoughts. Particular importance he seems to give to the role of audience in the construction of this identity. This can be seen when he states that “just developing voice is insufficient because without an audience there is only one-way communication” (p.29). Contrary to that, when socializing, he adds, students negotiate meaning and value systems. Additionally, he sustains that this type of poetry possesses a structure that facilitates not only fluent writing but also vocabulary acquisition (2010).

            Iida (2010) continues to describe the somehow flexible structure of a Haiku poem, accompanied by an example to shed light on the “multiple interpretations” it might trigger (p.30). He points out that it is precisely this multiplicity of interpretations that allows for the reader's imagination and the writer's freedom of expression, which makes of Haiku a “humanistic approach” to writing (p.30)

            Iida (2010) goes on to explain why the relationship between the writer and the reader in Haiku is important when teaching students how to write a poem of this type. He reinforces the fact that students need to be aware of the presence of readers that will “judge the quality of haiku” (Minagawa, 2007 as cited in Iida, 2010, p.30) and in order to develop “authentic communication skills” (p.31). Towards the end of his article, he explains five suggested steps to be followed by teachers to present and work with Haiku in class and how the teacher can approach Haiku analysis to make of it an effective tool in language teaching that actually goes beyond that.

            At the end of his article, Iida (2010) concludes his work making a summary of the main ideas developed in it. He also seems to reinforce the benefits that this social approach to language teaching and learning can have in university classrooms and the plenty of opportunities that it opens towards self-discovery, inner exploration, culture awareness and skills practice among others (2010).

 References

Iida, A. (2010) Developing voice by composing Haiku: a social-expressivist approach for teaching Haiku writing in EFL contexts. English Teaching Forum. (Number 1), pp.28-34

 

Analysis of In - Text Citations

            All along his article, Iida (2010) makes reference, directly or indirectly, to works of other writers following APA (American Psychological Association) style. One example of the use of in-text citations that he makes is the following sentence: “Bishop (1999, 17) also describes the need for writers to gain ‛a deeper understanding of the connections between thought, words, and life’ in order to explore the self” (p. 29). In this case, Iida is quoting Bishop directly, transcribing his words textually.

            In other instances, Iida (2010) includes the work or study of other scholars by paraphrasing their ideas. This can be seen in the following example: “Haiku entertains readers, and it is the readers who judge the quality of Haiku” (Minagawa 2007, as cited in Iida, 2010, p. 30).

            Even though the author seems to make a meaningful use of in-text citations to support his arguments, he does not always follow APA style conventions to cite other studies or writers. His work does include part of the necessary information such as the name of the authors cited and the dates of publication of their works. However, he does not respect punctuation conventions since the name of the author being cited is not followed by a comma as established by APA styles.

 

References

Iida, A. (2010) Developing voice by composing Haiku: a social-expressivist approach for teaching Haiku writing in EFL contexts. English Teaching Forum. (Number 1), pp. 28-34.