You are on page 1of 17

Academic Writing and Publishing

Group 3:
 Eva Monica
 Felisa
 Melisa Azhari
 Novita Lestari
There are some reasons why we should use methods in Academic Writing :
• To make sure that know how the proceed at every step of data collection and
that you have documented all of the steps that you did take, for future reference.
• To make sure that the readers have a very clear idea of how you collected your
• To provide enough information to allow other researchers to replicate your

In this Methods Section, there are 3 different subsection. These subsections
typically include :
1. Participants
2. Measures
3. Procedure
Describes the people who participated in your study. This section includes
descriptive information about gender, age, major, how many participants there
were and any other characteristics that might be relevant for your experiment. You
can also include a sentence about what makes these particular participants a good
choice for this specific experiment.

Example :
Forty-eight undergraduate students (25 males and 23 females) from different
majors participated in this experiment for extra credit in a Psychology 1 class at a
large state university. The participants were ethnically diverse and identified
themselves most commonly as Asian, White, Latino, African American, or Indian.
Their mean age was 20.2 years (SD = 2.3). Nine participants failed to respond to
all items so their data was not included in the analyses.
Describes the materials (and any equipment) that the
participants used in your study. This section includes only
descriptive information about which materials were used,
where they came from, how many stimuli or questions
there were of each kind, and any other characteristics of
the materials that might affect the results of your
experiment and you would need to name the specific
assessment you used.
The Procedure section has two parts.
• The first part - (Tasks)
describes in chronological order exactly what the participants did,
with which materials, and for how long.

• The second part of the Procedure section - (Design and Analyses)
describes in detail what the experimenters did to classify and
analyze the data. The goal here is to make your description so clear
and so detailed that any other experimenter can replicate your
experiment and get similar results.
A ‘moves’ analysis of the results sections of academic articles either
looks like this:
• Move 1: State the main findings in order – relating them in turn to
the hypotheses and methods used.
• Move 2: State the subsidiary findings – relating them in turn to the
hypotheses and methods used.

or it is an interweaving of the two – the first set of main findings
and related
subsidiary ones, followed by the second set, and so on.
 The function of the Results section in academic writing is to
objectively present your key results, without interpretation, and in an
orderly and logical sequence using both illustrative materials (Tables
and Figures) and text.

 While the Methods section explains how the data were collected, the
Results section presents what data were accumulated. Summaries
of statistical analyses may appear either in the text or in the relevant
Tables or Figures.
 For example : Slatcher and Pennebaker (2006), Divide their
results section into two main parts (separated by the subheadings,
‘Relationship stability and language use’ and ‘Mediation effects
of changes in use of emotional words’). Results section is to take
the readers through a story. This does not mean working step by
step through the results obtained. they will discuss tables and
graphs in academic and scientific writing separately, in more
detail in Chapter 3.5.
 Salovey (2000) argues that the art of writing a good results
section is to take the readers through a story. This does not mean
working step by step through the results obtained, but rather as
implied above articulating what happened and illustrating it
clearly, usually with data. In my view, this story is clearer if the
sequence of topics addressed in the results section is the same as
that articulated in the introduction and the method(s) sections.
 Swales and Feak (2004) comment that the distinction between
the results and the subsequent discussion section is not always as
sharp as one might think. They cite a study by Thompson (1993)
that showed that the authors of papers in biochemistry used in a
variety of rhetorical devices in their results section to justify their
methodology, to interpret and comment on the findings, and to
relate them to previous research.
So, the conclusion from result is :
 The results section of the report clearly describes the findings of the study. It is
usually presented both in diagrams, text and charts in a logical order.
 The first sentence of a results section begins, ‘Table 1 shows that . . .’.

For example :
Look at the histogram above. This clearly shows that
 the proportion of male to female students
 which country has the most students
 which country has the fewest women
 the number of students from India.
 Discussions is like introductions that have a typical
 Swales and Feak (2004) describe typical ‘moves’ in
the discussion sections of academic research
5 typical ‘moves’ in the discussion
 Move 1: Restating the findings and accomplishments
Exp: Par.6 ‘‘Unlike previous expressive-writing studies,
this is the first to demonstrate . . .’’
 Move 2: Evaluating how the results fit in with previous
Exp: Par. 3: “In particular, the findings relating to increases
in emotion words illuminate previous research”
 Move 3: Stating the limitations
Exp: Par. 5: ‘There are some potential limitations in this
study. First. . . Second . . .’.
 Move 4: Warding off alternative explanations
Exp: Par. 5: ‘’. . . make this an unlikely possibility’’.
 Move 5: Stating implications
Exp: Par. 4: “. . . has clear implications for
 Discussion sections are difficult to write because their aim is
to discuss and comment on the findings, rather than just to
report them.
 Day and Gastel (2006) suggest that journal editors reject
many papers because of their weak discussions. They
recommend that discussions should end with a short
summary regarding the significance of the work, which they
claim is not always adequately considered.
Woods (1999) recommends:
1. Writers should keep notes about what it might be useful to
include in the discussion as ideas occur to them when they
are writing other sections
2. Might be wise to set aside a day or two to tackle this
section of the paper.