Comparative Analysis of Two Research Articles

     Scholars belonging to a variety of fields all over the world identify an area of research interest and devote their time to conducting research in said field with the purpose of later sharing their findings with the scientific community. For these researchers, academic writing serves different purposes, on the one hand, to disseminate new knowledge discovered, and on the other hand, to provide grounds for subsequent research to be conducted in the future.  Researchers organize their Research Papers (RPs) by stating in the introduction section the rationale for the paper, moving from general discussion of the topic to the particular hypothesis being investigated (Swales and Feak, 1990). The methods section describes methodology, materials, and procedures used (ibid). There is a wide range of material describing the specific features of the introductions and methods sections; but there are no papers comparing and contrasting the aforementioned sections of the following articles, one from the field of medicine (Klauer et al., 2014) and the other from the field of education (AbuSeileek and Abualsha´r, 2014). Therefore, the purpose of this work is to analyze these sections in the above mentioned articles and identify any similarities and differences between them.

           The article from the field of medicine written by Klauer et al. (2014) provides a complete abstract divided into subheadings to indicate background, methods, results and conclusions. The introduction section, though lacking this proper heading, presents the issue to be discussed, the reasons why the researchers conducted this particular research, and the material they collected data with.

     In the methods section in the same article, the authors provide a comprehensive description of the characteristics of the participants as regards gender, age, participants´ experience in driving cars, the way these people were recruited and the compensation they received for taking part in the research. The authors point out that the two groups provided written consent to take part in the study and that the educational organizations they were affiliated to approved of it. A description of the study length, the specific periods the data was collected and the type of research conducted were given at this point. The equipment required to measure the findings, data coding and analysis of the findings, and statistics analysis were presented. Throughout the text, chronologically arranged endnotes were provided with superscript numbers, consequently American Psychological Association (APA) (2010) requirements were not met as far as in-text citation is considered. 

     The article from the field of education written by AbuSeileek and Abualsha´r (2014) offers a very thorough description of the interest of the research and the feedback aspects to be measured throughout it. An abstract precedes the introduction section. The literature review is embedded in this section and abundant bibliographical references were provided respecting APA (2010) guidelines.

     In the aforementioned article, the Methods heading has been substituted by This Study; however, all the components of the Methods sections have been included in it. Hence, the purpose, structure and questions to be answered are present at this point. A comprehensive description of the participants´ general characteristics concerning their relationship with the university, age, gender and linguistic level were provided as well as information about the instructors who would rate the essays and about the material used to develop the study. A series of three tables were included reporting the actual findings. Lastly, a statistical analysis was carried out. The authors disclosed certain information in order to account for delays. As regards the materials used, the authors expressed it was designed bearing in mind a mark scale of seven writing aspects designed ad hoc which had been piloted before actually administering it to the participants. The researchers set the different steps in the process that would pave the way towards controlled conditions that would prevent biases. Consequently, the group characteristics, place of test administration, topics and anonymity to avoid stress in participants were specified.

    The authors of both articles begin their introduction section with factual generalizations to provide further background as of the relevance of conducting these studies. The researchers have structured them in a general-specific fashion following the Create a Research Space Model (C.A.R.S.) (Swales and Feak, 1994, p.174). The three moves presented in the mentioned model can be clearly identified in both articles and serve the purpose of drawing readers´ attention towards the piece effectively. In the first move, they explore the current state of the arts of the researched topics and therefore, they establish a research territory. “As the use of computer-mediated corrective- feedback has become more common in writing classes, different studies have looked for more innovative ways to aid learners in developing their writing abilities […] and called for effectiveness of new technologies on teaching learners how to write […]” (AbuSeileek and Abualsha´r, 2014, p.76). Researchers´ motivation for the study establishes a niche for the research which indicates that a gap has been found in the area, leading to questions being formulated and expansion of knowledge. “Moreover […] there is a need to search for more helpful computer-mediated corrective-feedback methods and techniques that may support students when receiving peer-corrective feedback in the manner that may aid them more in the development of their writing performance” ( AbuSeileek and Abualsha´r, 2014, p.p. 76-77). In the last move, occupying the niche, researchers outline the purposes for the present study, announce principal findings and indicate the structure of the research paper. “Here we report the results of our analysis of both studies with respect to the prevalence of engagement in a secondary task and the associated risk of a crash or near-crash among novice and experienced drivers” (Klauer et al.,2014, p.55).

     On the other hand, different layouts and general paper organization were evident in post-comparison analysis. The article by AbuSeileek and Abualsha´ r (2014) presents much more detailing in both sections contrasted. The in-text citations and acknowledgement of sources are much clearer in this text as well as the literature review analysis, whereas in the article by Kaluer et al. (2014) these aspects are not fully developed. The methods sections in both papers are correctly presented since all the elements needed are appropriately treated.

     In conclusion, although both articles belong to different fields of science and the choice of layout and general organization is different, their authors succeeded in sharing with the professional communities their findings on the researches they conducted. The researchers accomplished this by providing in the introduction and in the methods sections the necessary elements to fully comprehend the studies.

References

Abuseileek, A.& Abu-al-Sha´r, A. (2014). Using peer computer-mediated  corrective                                feedback to support EFL learners´ writing. Language Learning and Technology, 19(1), 76-95. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/february2014/abuseileekabualshar.pdf

American Psychological Association (2010). APA formatting and style guide. Retrieved  from http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/

Klauer,S., Guo,F., Simmons-Morton, B., Ouimet, M., Lee, S., & Dingus, T. (2014). Distracted driving and risk of road crashes among novice and experienced drivers. The New England Journal of Medicine. DOI 10.1056/NEJMsa1204142.

Swales, J.M., & Feak, C.B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Harbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.