“A Comparative Analysis of Two Research Articles: Their Results, Discussions and Conclusions” The aim of this paper will be to deeply analyze different sections of two articles on the light of APA (2007). Despite the fact that they are from different fields, one of them belongs to the field of medicine and the other one belongs to the field of education, both articles share one main characteristic which is that they are research papers. The Results, Discussions and Conclusions sections, will be compared and contrasted so as to explore the differences and similarities of those sections in both papers. Barrs’s (2012) as well as Di Angelantonio’s et al.'s (2010) articles comprise all the elements required in an Action Research (AR) paper. The former belongs to the field of education and it is clearly divided into different sections which explore the results and the discussion of the investigation. Then, it is concluded by the analysis of the limitations of the study. The latter belongs to the medicine field and it is also divided into different sections so as to attempt to quantify associations of chronic kidney diseases with cardiovascular disease and non-vascular mortality. Concerning the results sections in the articles, Barrs’s (2012) result section is divided into different parts which are: Planning the Action Research, Taking Action, Analyzing and Reflecting on the Data, Hypothesizing and Speculating based on the initial investigation, intervening, observing and reporting, writing and presenting, which is the reflection. Following the definitions provided by Swales (1990), and bearing in mind Barrs’s (2012) article, one may conclude that the author may both present the findings and interpret their meanings and outcomes. The result section, according to Swales (1990), should summarize the given information. Researchers resort to the use of texts, tables, and figures to state the results of their study. Barrs (2012) presents the results and the discussions in the same section. When referring to the results, the author divides the section into two sub sections that follow the steps undertaken throughout the investigation. The results are presented by means of tables which are explained and analyzed. These are clear, simple and they contain relevant information about the research that was carried out. All the tables included in the article follow the requirements of APA (2007) as all of them are properly numbered and titles are correctly italicized and capitalized. Apart from tables, Barrs (2012) also provides instances of interactions among participants that serve for the purpose of exemplifying and clarifying the information provided. As well as tables, these exchanges are subsequently analyzed and explained. The tense mostly used in the results section is the Past Simple. On the other hand, Di Angelantonio’s et al. `s (2010) Results section has subtitles which organize the information the authors want to deliver. Contrary to Barrs’s (2012) results section, Di Angelantonio’s et al. `s (2010) results section is full of numbers and percentages. There are tables and figures which appear in the type of scatter plots so as to show the correlation between variables. The tables have titles but the fact that they are not italicized and they are not presented with each word capitalized make one conclude that these authors are not following APA style. Below each table there are general and specific notes with a smaller font. The figures have a caption underneath them but the word “figure” and the corresponding number is not italicized. This is another instance in which the authors show that they do not follow APA style. The discussion section in Di Angelantonio et al.'s (2010) article is divided into two sub sections called strengths and limitations and conclusion respectively. When referring to the discussion itself, the authors describe the findings in relation to the initial hypothesis and they also remind the reader the main aim of the study. Before providing a conclusion, Barrs (2012) devotes a section of the paper to state and describe the limitations of the investigation as well as Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) do in the strengths and limitations section of their article. Finally, both research articles use the conclusion to tie the paper together. Barrs (2012) concludes the article emphasizing the fact that further investigation would be of great value for the research. Regarding Di Angelantonio et.al 's (2010) conclusion, they also express the fact that further studies are needed to investigate the association made at the beginning of the paper. In both articles, authors constantly use modal verbs to show and express possibility. To sum up, it can be said that although both articles come from different fields, authors from both papers intended to present a problem, analyze it and find a solution developing their papers in a similar way. The fact that they both refer to the limitations of the investigations makes the reader feel the need to continue reading more about the topic. References: Barrs, K. (2012). Fostering computer-mediated L2 interaction beyond the classroom. Language Learning and Technology, 16 (1), 10-25. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/february2012/actionresearch.pdf Di Angelantonio, E., Chowdhury, R., Sarwar, N., Aspelund, T., Danesh. J. & Gudnason, V. (2010). Chornic kidney disease and risk of major cardiovascular disease and non-vascular mortality: Prospective population based cohort study. BMJ (341), 1-7. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c4986 Swales, J.M. (1990). Genre Analysis. English in academic and research settings. (Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Dear readers, Welcome to my EAP blog, this blog was created last year as a requirement of one of the subjects of the Licenciatura en Enseñanza del Idioma Inglés. Here you will find all the assignments I did last year, all of them where written individually but edited by a peer. This term, in ESP, we work collaboratively, we write with our peers and edit our work as a team. Although working collaboratively implies agreeing on what to write and how to write it, my two peers and I have managed to complete our first task together and I hope to be able to cope with the requirements of peer writing. Please, feel free to leave your comments in relation to the different pieces of writing as my peers and I will surely benefit from them. Kind regards, Carina Orellano.

Mid Term Make Up

Analyzing a Review on the Light of APA Requirements

      Academic writing is a complex process that requires the writer to follow certain conventions. As the world of academic writing is very broad, when consulting sources or mentioning other people’s ideas in one’s work, it is essential to cite properly so as to avoid plagiarism as required by APA style.  The aim of this paper is to analyze Nelson’s (2012) Review of Deconstructing Digital Natives, on the light of APA requirements in relation to the use of in-text citations.

     First of all, there are several instances of in-text citations included in Nelson’s (2012) piece of writing. When the author makes reference to the title of the source consulted, he uses capitalization and italics to cite. In addition to this, the author includes short quotations in his review; but even though he mentions the author’s name in a signal phrase, he also includes this information after the quotation including, the author’s name again, the date of the publication in parentheses and the page number, this writing style may not fulfill APA requirements for in-text citations.

      There is also an instance of long quotation included in which the author separates the quotation from the text omitting quotation marks, double spacing is not maintained and there is no parenthetical citation included after the final punctuation mark.

     Taking everything into account, it could be stated that Nelson (2012) does not seem to adjust his work to the requirements of APA style in his piece of writing; this makes the whole work inconsistent and difficult to follow.

 

  

 

 

References

Nelson,M.(2012).Review of Deconstructing Digital Natives: Language Learning & Technology.16, (3), 35-39 Retrieved October 2012 from http://IIt.msu.edu/issues/october2012/reviewI.pdf

Bridging the Gap between Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants

 

Nelson, M. (2012).Review of Deconstructing Digital Natives: Language Learning & Technology.16, (3), 35-39. Retrieved October 2012 from http://IIt.msu.edu/issues/october2012/reviewI.pdf

     In his Review of Thoma’s (2011) Deconstructing Digital Natives, Nelson (2012) analyses a book edited by Thomas (2011). To begin with, Nelson (2012) describes the book as a collection of critical scholarly points of view on the concept of “digital native” a concept opposed to the idea of “digital immigrant”. To describe both concepts, the author resorts to Prenky’s ( 2001) definitions ( as cited in Nelson, 2012).

      In relation concepts previously mentioned, Nelson (2012) goes on asserting that “Deconstructing Digital Natives presents what is arguably the most comprehensive, nuanced treatment to date of these complex, impassioned debates” (p. 35). In addition to this, Nelson (2012) explains how the book is organized, how the chapters are divided. He also mentions how the sections are named and who the authors of the work compiled are, providing a summary of the main issues dealt with in each part.

     Before concluding his review, Nelson (2012) criticizes the layout of the book and the index stating that images should have been included so as to facilitate the analysis and that a more organized index would have been profitable. Finally, he concludes stating that not only “scholars, university students, teachers and policy makers” (p. 38) may be interested in the book, but also “all those who regard the metaphorical digital chasm between digital natives and digital immigrants” (p. 38). 

 

 

References

Nelson, M. (2012). Review of Deconstructing Digital Natives: Language Learning & Technology.16, (3), 35-39 Retrieved October 2012 from http://IIt.msu.edu/issues/october2012/reviewI.pdf

Writing for Wikipedia as a Way of Developing Academic Writing Skills

     In the article “Writing for the World: Wikipedia as an introduction to Academic Writing” published in the English Teaching Forum, Tardy describes her approach to use a collaborative web space called Wikipedia, to help students develop academic writing skills. Students create academic pieces of writing and publish them on the website. To be able to do this, there are eight steps they should necessarily follow.

     The leading step is connected to the use of Wikipedia. Students are required to analyze how the website works, what the requirements for editing and contributing are and they also have to become familiar with the type of information that frequently appears in articles. The second step proposed by the author consists of gathering information. Students are expected to choose a topic and collect information about it, bearing in mind that in the pursuit of information and facts they should consult reliable sources. The third step is related to the organization of the information collected by students and paraphrasing is recommended as a strategy to avoid it plagiarism. The fourth step embroils the ability to produce a coherent piece of writing. The fifth step entails revising drafts, and peer correction and editing is praised as a way of receiving feedback. In the sixth step, after giving format to their text, students should include citation of sources consulted. In step seven, students should read their work carefully to identify possible spelling, grammar and punctuation mistakes. The final step leads to publishing. Students should register as Wikipedia users to be able to publish their work. Students should be aware of the fact that once they publish their articles, other Wikipedia users can revise, correct and edit their work.

  To conclude, Tardy (2010) portrays her own teaching experience using a website to develop students’academic writing skills. She makes the assumption that publishing an article in Wikipedia is not only a challenge which requires several steps, but also a meaningful activity as students write for a real audience.

    

 

     

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Tardy, C. (2010). Writing for the World: Wikipedia as an Introduction to Academic Writing. English Teaching Forum: http://exchanges.state.gov/englishteaching/forum/archives/docs/10-48-1-c.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Task 3: A Review Academic Writing: A handbook for International Students

A Review Academic Writing: A handbook for International Students

    

     Bailey’s (2006) Academic Writing: A Handbook for International Students is a self-study book, which is intended to aid and guide learners when performing written tasks at university.  According to the author, his work caters to the different needs learners may have at the moment of facing the challenge of writing academic pieces of narrative.

     Divided into for main sections, Bailey’s (2006) work begins with a detailed introduction in which the author clearly states the aim of his book. The first section: The Writing Process, supplies learners with activities that range from note taking to proof-reading. The following section called Elements of Writing deal with all the necessary elements that should be taken into account to meet the demands of academic writing, such as cohesion and style. The third section: Accuracy in Writing provides practice in areas of language in which from the author’s perspective learners have difficulties. The last section entitled Writing Models, offers samples of different pieces of writing such as letters, Cv’s and essays.

     In addition to the four sections that are at the same time sub-divided into sixty units, there is also a section devoted to tests in which students can check their own progress. At the end of the book, students are able to find the answers for the tasks as well as the sources consulted that enabled the author to design the activities.

     All in all, Bailey’s (2006)  work definitely contains many of the tools international students may need so as to face the challenge of writing academically. This well-organized handbook is a practical supplementary resource from which students can undoubtedly profit. All the aspects covered by Academic Writing by Stephen Bailey (2006) make it highly recommendable to all those learners who are taking their firsts steps into academic writing.

References:

Bailey, S. (2006). Academic Writing: A handbook for International Students (2nd ed.).Retrieved October 2012 ,from Taylor & Francis elibrary:http://npu.edu.ua/!ebook/book/djvu/A/iif_kgpm_t27.pdf.

Task 1: Towards an Accurate Definition of a Discourse Community

Orellano Carina

Draft 1

Towards an Accurate Definition of a Discourse Community

     According to Swales (1990), in order to be regarded as members of a Discourse Community, its participants should meet some requirements such as common goals, interactive mechanisms, information exchange, community-specific genres, specialized terminology and a high level of expertise. 

      The purpose of this paper is to analyze different articles and identify evidence to support Swales' theory.

     In relation to the requirement of shared objectives and interests, Kelly-Kleese (2001) states that the community college can be regarded as a discourse community as its participants “have developed a common discourse that involves shared knowledge, common purposes, common relationships and similar attitudes and values”. (p.4)

     As regards the interactive mechanisms proposed by Swales, Kelly-Kleese (2001) also states that “Participating in the discourse of their disciplines and of higher education in general is an expectation of university faculty; it is part of the conceptual scheme of their discourse community” (p.13)

     In relation to shared goals and information exchange, Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles and Lopez-Torres (1990) sustain that “teachers interact with colleagues in goal-directed activities goal-directed activities that require communication and the exchange of ideas…” (p.13). They also suggest that “teacher reflection in social context occurs as teachers engage in and share their reflections in diverse ways” (p.18)

     Discourse communities develop through the use of community-specific genres. In relation to this, Blanton, Simmons and Warner (2001) claim that “journals or virtual systems of communication can be used to mediate teacher learning so they can recall, share and respond to one another’s experiences (as cited by Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles &Lopez-Torres, 2003, p. 20).      

     A discourse community is characterized as utilizing specialized terminology. Kelly–Kleese (2001) has suggested that the community members share their knowledge and interpretations and hence, create policy and redefine language. Besides, Wenzlaff and Wiezeman (2004) conducted a survey in order to obtain information related to the learning processes and reported the results by means of acronyms: “ teachers rated themselves using a Likert scale, ranging from absolutely true (AT) to mostly true (MT)…” (p.20)

    To conclude, the articles analyzed provided arguments to support Swales (1990) theory. It can be established that the author has provided an accurate definition of discourse community. The six requirements help to analyze and determine whether a group of people can be considered a discourse community or not.

   References

Hoffman-Kipp, P., Artiles, A. J., & Lopez Torres, L. (2003). Beyond reflection: teacher learning as praxis. Theory into Practice. Retrieved October 2007, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NQM/is_3_42/ai_108442653

Kelly-Kleese, C. (2001). Editor’s Choice: An Open Memo to Community College Faculty and Administrators. Community College Review. Retrieved October 2007, from

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HCZ/is_1_29/ai_77481463

Kelly-Kleese, C. (2004). UCLA community college review: community college scholarship and discourse. Community College Review. Retrieved October 2007, from

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HCZ/is_1_32/ai_n6361541

Pintos, V., & Crimi Y. (2012). Unit 1: Building up a community of teachers and prospective researchers.  Buenos Aires, Argentina: Retrieved August 2012 from EAP-CAECE.

Wenzlaff,  T. L. , & Wieseman, K. C. (2004). Teachers Need Teachers To Grow. Teacher Education Quarterly. Retrieved October 2007, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3960/is_200404/ai_n9349405