Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
Considerwhatinfoisrelevantforinvestigatorswhomightapplyyourtechnique• Includedetailsaboutparticipants,theirdemographic
characteristics,theirrecruitment• Describeanymaterialsused(stimuli,questionnaires)• Singleoutthesourceofaspecifictypeofequipmentifitis
criticaltothesuccessoftheexperiment(butInstructionstoAuthorsoverrideallrecommendations!)
• Explaintheexperimentaldesign(overallstructureofexperiment,independentanddependentvariables,howvariablesweredefinedandmanipulated)
• Explainprocedurestheparticipantswereaskedtofollow• Noneedtodetailstepsofwell-documentedprocedures(but
doreference!)7
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
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…”
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.
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.