Structuring and Wri-ng a Thesis Part Three: Methods, Results and Discussion

Transcription

1 Structuring and Wri-ng a Thesis Part Three: Methds, Results and Discussin Cpyright Heather McWhinney, 2017

2 Learning Outcmes fr Part Three By the end f this presenta+n, yu shuld be able t: Write a methds sec+n that is apprpriate fr yur discipline. Write a results sec+n that clearly and lgically presents yur findings. Write a discussin sec+n that places yur findings in the cntext f the literature.

3 Overview f Presenta-n (Part Three) 1. The methds sec+n 2. The results sec+n 3. The discussin sec+n

4 Methdlgy Describes the methds r mdels used in yur research and may include the fllwing: subjects r par+cipants materials instrumenta+n and apparatus lca+n sampling technique data cllec+n prcedures data analysis prcedures

5 Methdlgy Has huge discipline- specific varia+n. Links the methds with the research ques+ns, bjec+ves r hyptheses. Begins with an verview f the underpinning apprach and general descrip+n f the design. Jus+fies the reasns fr chsing these methds and links the methds back t the literature. Addresses pten+al biases and ther limita+ns with the methds.

6 Sample Extract frm a Methds Sec-n frm a Prpsal 4.3 Methdlgy Matched t Objec+ves Objec+ve 1: T determine hydraulic prper+es during snwmelt infiltra+n by cnduc+ng and analyzing field- based bserva+ns f snwmelt infiltra+n T accmplish this bjec+ve, it is cri+cal t understand snwmelt infiltra+n under different types f land cver and sil. Observa+ns f snwmelt infiltra+n will be made at six field sites in Old Jack Pine Breal Frest and six in the St. Denis Na+nal Wildlife Area. See Figure 4.8 fr the lca+n f these sites. Each site has different sil prper+es. Table 4.7 cntains a descrip+n f these 12 types f sil prper+es. The bserva+ns will be analyzed t determine hw the mel+ng snwpack is par++ned between runff and infiltra+n This analysis will include the fllwing: determina+n f sil water strage rela+ve t the snwpack under different land cvers and in different types f sil; analysis f the pa]ern f the zer- degree istherm t determine the frzen sil depth; and assessment f the water table respnse t snwmelt. Curtesy f a Frmer Student

7 Results Present yur data and their sta+s+cal treatment. Fllw cnven+ns fr presen+ng sta+s+cs. Present yur findings in a lgical rder, usually in the rder in which yu presented yur research ques+ns, bjec+ves and hyptheses. Use visuals (tables and figures) t highlight key results. Fllw disciplinary guidelines. Use the text t highlight the stry the visuals tell.

8 Results Cne and Fster (2006) suggest ding a mck up f yur results sec+n at the prpsal stage. This mck up will help yu t create a framewrk fr the sec+n. They als suggest sta+ng the finding first, fllwed by the data and sta+s+cal analysis. Cne, J.D., & Fster, S.L. Disserta:ns and Theses frm Start t Finish (2 nd Ed.). Washingtn, D.C.: American Psychlgical Asscia+n, p

9 Example f the Presenta-n f a Finding Table 11.1 shws that the means fr bys fr all three games invlving such ac+vity are significantly higher than fr girls (main effect fr gender [1, 59]= 4.62, p <.05). Bys were fund t spend mre +me in types f play invlving large muscle ac+vity. This can be seen in Table 11.1, in which the means fr bys fr all three games invlving such ac+vity are significantly higher than fr girls (main effect fr gender [1, 59]= 4.62, p <.05). Cne, J.D., & Fster, S.L. Disserta:ns and Theses frm Start t Finish (2 nd Ed.). Washingtn, D.C.: American Psychlgical Asscia+n, p

10 Wri-ng Up Results Cne and Fster (2006) give this advice abut wri+ng up results: A gd rule t fllw is be mntnusly repe++ve! Decide n a par+cular sentence structure that mst clearly presents the results f a par+cular type, and s+ck with that structure fr all results that are similar. [E.g.], if yu discuss data fr females first fr the first dependent variable, discuss them first fr all the rest. Cnsistency and symmetry will aid [yur reader] greatly in understanding yur results. The reader will fllw yur presenta+n mre easily if yu minimize variety in sentence structure and write clearly and cncisely. (p. 254) Cne, J.D., & Fster, S.L. Disserta:ns and Theses frm Start t Finish (2 nd Ed.). Washingtn, D.C.: American Psychlgical Asscia+n, p

11 Shuld Yur Results Sec-n Cntain Interpreta-ns? Penrse and Katz (1998) have this t say: Reducing the data and highligh+ng specific cases are all highly interpre+ve prcesses. We dn t let the data speak fr themselves in research reprts; in summarizing ur results, we interpret them fr the reader. (p. 56) Penrse, A.M., & Katz, S.B. (1998). Wri+ng in the sciences: Explring cnven+ns f scien+fic discurse. New Yrk, N.Y.: St. Mar+n s Press (as cited in Swales, J.M., & Feak, C.M. (2004). Academic wri:ng fr graduate students: Essen:al tasks and skills (2 nd ed.). Ann Arbr MI: University f Michigan Press, p. 234.

12 Results Sec-ns and Interpreta-ns Findings frm a study f the results sec+n f 20 bichemistry research papers fund the fllwing: Ninety- five percent included interpreta+ns. Ninety- five percent jus+fied the methds used. Fity- five percent indicated agreement r disagreement with ther research findings. Thmpsn, D.K. (1993). Arguing fr experimental facts in science: A study f research ar+cle results sec+ns in bichemistry. WriIen Cmmunica:ns, 10,

13 The Discussin Sec-n The discussin sec+n is perhaps the mst cri+cal part f yur thesis. Swales and Feak (2012, p. 366) say that the discussin sec+n is typically mre there+cal, mre abstract, mre general, mre integrated with the field, mre cnnected t the real wrld, and mre cncerned with the implica+ns r applica+ns than the results sec+n. It is als mre likely t discuss the limita+ns f the study. There is much disciplinary varia+n in discussin sec+ns. Swales, J.M., & Feak, C.B. (2012). Academic wri:ng fr graduate students: Essen:al tasks and skills (3 rd ed.). Ann Arbr MI: University f Michigan Press.

14 The Discussin Sec-n (cn&nued) Here is where yu cri+cally analyze and interpret yur findings in the cntext f the literature and within the framewrk f yur ques+ns, bjec+ves and hyptheses. Mst discussin sec+ns start with reitera+ng the main purpse f the research and then summarize the key findings. They are then rganized by majr finding r hypthesis, with thers findings and interpreta+ns integrated int the discussin f each finding, They include pssible explana+ns abut the findings. Unexpected findings are included, with pssible explana+ns.

15 The Discussin Sec-n (cn&nued) Limita+ns are usually treated next in a separate sec+n. Implica+ns (generalized frm the results) are then discussed, fllwed by ideas fr future research and prac+cal applica+ns. In a manuscript- style thesis, ideas fr future research are ten discussed at the end f an individual manuscript, and then that future research is the tpic f the next manuscript.

16 Discussin: Placing Yur Findings in Cntext A key rle f the discussin is t place the findings in cntext. Hw d yur findings cmpare with thse f ther studies? D they cncur with r cntradict previus findings? D they extend them? Yur wn findings might help yu t explain r clarify cntradic+ns in the literature. What if yur findings cntradict thers findings? Lk t yur methds. Perhaps different measures, prcedures, r sampling biases accunt fr the differences. What d these differences say abut the generalizability f thers and yur findings? Hw des yur study cntribute t the literature?

17 Sample Extract frm a Discussin Sec-n f a Thesis This hypthesis expected similar pa]erns t exist between phnlgical prcessing and reading abili+es in Chinese. [Hwever], the crrela+ns between these tasks did nt achieve significance, and rela+nships were nt demnstrated in the current study. Other studies (Leng, 1999; Perfev & Zhang, 1991) have shwn that Chinese reading is cmpsed f phnlgical prcessing, s t suggest reading in Chinese and phnlgical prcessing are nt related wuld dispute the evidence already published n the subject. There are several pssible explana+ns fr nt finding the expected rela+nships amng the Chinese tasks. One explana+n may be fund in the rela+vely limited number f par+cipants in the sample. The funding issue was als impediment t a brader par+cipant pl. [L]astly, the student base frm which t draw vlunteers was essen+ally exhausted. All students wh ini+ally vlunteered fr the study were accmmdated, and n thers were frthcming as the tes+ng cncluded Krl, L. M. (2004). Reading disabili:es in ESL learners. M.A. University f Saskatchewan Thesis.

18 Discussin: Limita-ns and Future Wrk Anther key rle f the discussin is t cncede limita+ns. These usually fall int tw categries: 1.) decisins made abut the research and 2.) unfreseen radblcks. Be hnest abut hw these decisins and difficul+es may have affected yur findings. Mst discussin sec+ns end with a brief discussin f addi+nal areas fr research. Think abut the ques+ns yur results prvke. Ask yurself what yu wuld like t study next.

19 Tips fr Wri-ng the Discussin Sec-n Jt dwn ntes while yu are ding yur research, analyzing yur results and reading the literature. Re- read the prpsal and sec+ns f the thesis especially the literature review in prepara+n fr wri+ng yur discussin. Make sure yu are current with the literature. Avid simply repea+ng yur results: analyze, interpret, synthesize and cri+que.

20 Tips fr Wri-ng the Discussin Sec-n (cn&nued) An+cipate yur readers respnses. Make yur arguments, but d nt ignre cunter- arguments r cmpe+ng explana+ns. Insert cncessins and rebu]als int yur discussin. Pay a]en+n t the strength f yur claims. Be wary f implying causa+n when it desn t exist. Use language such as was assciated with instead f caused.

21 Summary Link yur methds with the research ques+ns, bjec+ves r hyptheses. Be gramma+cally and lgically cnsistent in yur presenta+n f results. Begin paragraphs with a finding rather than its sta+s+cal treatment. Be aware that results sec+ns d include interpreta+ns. In yur discussin sec+n, give a deeper interpreta+n f yur results, cmparing them with thers results, prviding pssible explana+ns fr similari+es and differences, and shwing hw yur research advances the field.