Analysis of Abstracts from Research Papers Belonging to the Fields of Medicine and Education

             

Introduction

Abstracts in Research Papers (RP) can be regarded as reduced summaries of the main text. Swales and Feak (1994) state that abstracts are more important for readers than for writers, as their primary purpose is to permit a quick review of the applicability, importance and validity of a RP, and to attract readers’ attention to the rest of a RP.

The American Psychological Association (APA) (2008) states that abstracts should achieve accuracy and clarity of expression, and be purely informative avoiding all sorts of judgments. Besides these inherent characteristics, the structure and type of abstract is directly linked to the field of investigation a RP belongs to.

The purpose of this analysis is to compare four abstracts from RP belonging to two different fields and to illustrate how the characteristics inherent to each field affect the content of the information presented. Rammal (2006) and Zhen-ye’s (2008) articles are concerned with educational issues, while Beckett et al. (2008) and Jorgensen, Zahl and Gotzsche’s (2009) articles belong to the field of medicine.

Analysis

Abstracts can be classified according to their organizational format: They can be unstructured or structured. The former consists of one long unbroken paragraph, while the latter contains headings identifying the main sections in the RP (Swales & Feak, 1994). According to this classification, Rammal (2006) and Zhen-ye’s (2008) abstracts can be regarded as unstructured, whereas Beckett et al. (2008) and Jorgensen et al.’s (2009) abstracts are structured, as both include bolded headings which parallel the structure of the whole paper, each of them referring to one section in the RP.

Beckett et al. (2008) and Jorgensen et al.’s (2009) abstracts follow the Introduction-Method-Results-And-Discussions (IMRAD) formula and are informative: They are heavy on data, look to the past, and describe what the researchers did. These abstracts from the medical field appear to be rather long, and the approach to writing used by the authors of both papers seems to be the RP summary approach (Swales and Feak, 1994), as a synthesis per each of the sections of the RP is provided.

Zhen-ye’s (2008) abstract seems to be written following the results-driven approach (Swales & Feak, 1994) as it focuses on the research findings and what might be concluded from them. The writer does not seem to apply the IMRAD formula in his abstract but concentrates on depicting the results and the possible implications of the research for English language teaching and learning. This abstract is written in a clear and organized manner and includes keywords.

On the other hand, Rammal’s (2006) abstract appears to be Indicative (Swales and Feak, 1994) since it provides a generalized summary of the information in the article, does not include specific results, looks to the future, and describes what the researcher intends to do. Moreover, the abstract is rather short in length, as it consists of two sentences, focuses on the implications of the research on foreign language learning, and does not follow the IMRAD formula.

Regarding the linguistic features of the abstracts, it appears that Zhen-ye’s (2008) abstract includes full sentences with a tense variation. The author first uses the past tense to describe the results of the research, and later he employs the present tense to introduce the discussion and implications of the study. As in every academic writing, it is noticeable the avoidance of abbreviations and jargon, and the use of the impersonal passive. In addition, ideas are presented in order, objectively, concisely and smoothly. By comparison, the abstract by Rammal (2006) presents the first sentence in the present tense, and the last sentence in future tense. This abstract includes full sentences, and active voice.

Alternatively, the abstracts from the medical field differ in length and linguistic features. Jorgensen et al.’s (2009) abstract contains full sentences, the use of the past tense through the whole abstract, active voice with the first person plural “We”, and the avoidance of unexplained abbreviations. This abstract, in contrast to the previous two, includes very specific details and information in a concise and formal style. As regards the abstract by Beckett et al. (2008), it is noticeable the use of full sentences, the inclusion of both active voice by the pronoun “We” and impersonal passive; the use of the past tense to describe the Background, Methods and Results, and the present tense to introduce the Conclusions. This abstract seems to be very detailed and formal.

Conclusion

After a deep analysis of four abstracts from two different fields, it can be stated that all abstracts follow academic conventions and are able to stand alone as they are unified, coherent and concise summaries of the main RP excepting Rammal’s (2006) abstract, which is more similar to an outline. However, they differ in organization patterns and linguistic features as the field and purpose of researches appear to have an important role when compiling information in an abstract.

Beckett et al. (2008) and Jorgensen et al.’s (2009) abstracts, which belong to the medical field, appear strictly structured and seem to follow an IMRAD formula which contains the scope, purpose, results, and contents of the work. This may be due to the fact that readers of medical RP usually need a concise but complete and detailed account of every part of the overall investigation. On the other hand, Rammal (2006) and Zhen-ye’s (2008) abstracts, which are concerned about education, comprise a long paragraph with the thesis, background, and conclusion of the larger work. The effectiveness of abstracts within this field relies heavily on the use of linguistic features to develop interpretative arguments.

References

American Psychological Association (2008). Publication Manual (5^th ed.). Washington, DC: British Library Cataloguing-in-publication Data.

Beckett, N. S., Peters, R., Fletcher, A. E., Staessen, J. A., Liu, L., Dumitrascu, D., Stoyanovsky, V., Antikainen, R. L., Nikitin, Y., Anderson, C., Belhani, A., Forette, F., Rajkumar, C., Thijs, L., Banya, W., & Bulpitt, C. J. (2008, May 1). Treatment of Hypertension in Patients 80 Years of Age or Older. The New England Journal of Medicine, 358 (18) 1887-1897. Retrieved 2010 from www.neim.org

Jorgensen, K. J., Zahl, P., & Gotzsche, P. C. (2009). Breast cancer mortality in organised mammography screening in Denmark: comparative study. Research. BMJ, Online first, 1-6. DOI: 10.1136/bjm.c1241

Rammal, S. (2006). Video in EFL Classrooms. Retrieved from www.usingenglish.com

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

Zhen-ye, N. (2008, July). A genre-based analysis of English research article abstracts and the linguistic feature of personal pronouns for financial economics, 5 (7)62-64. US-China Education Review, ISSN1548-6613, USA

Analyzing Academic Characteristics of Research Papers: Results, Discussions, and Conclusions Sections

Introduction

Hernandez Sampieri, Fernandez Collado and Lucio (2008) explain that academic research reports generally contain the following elements: Title, Abstract, Introduction, Literature Review, Methods, Results, Conclusions, References, and Appendixes. However, according to the area of inquiry, research reports vary in their academic style and format. The purpose of this paper is to compare and analyze the characteristics of two articles related to different areas of study, one belonging to the education field, while the other, to the medicine field. To be more specific, in this case only Results, Discussions, and Conclusions/ Recommendations sections will be evaluated.

Barrs’ (2012) article deals with the use of a Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) program to foster second language interaction beyond the classroom, while Di Angelantonio, Chowdhury, Sarwar, Aspelund, Danesh, and Gudnason’s (2010) paper is concerned about the associations of chronic kidney disease stages with major cardiovascular disease and non-vascular mortality. The method employed in Barrs’ (2012) article is action research, while Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) utilize a prospective population based cohort study. Apparently, the articles were written following different academic and citation styles, and the Results and Conclusions sections are structured in distinctive manners since both articles belong to different fields.

Analysis

Research Article (RA) writers may choose to write the Results, Discussions, and Conclusions sections separately or blend them into two sections, integrating the discussion into the Results section, or into the Conclusion section. Noticeably, Barrs (2012) divides the article’s sections in a distinctive manner: She includes three sections named Results, Limitations, and Conclusion and Reflections. It may be argued that the very last section of Barrs’ (2012) article complies with the standard requirements of a Conclusions and Discussions section since the author interprets the outcomes, and discusses the results of the research in this section.

On the other hand, Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) develop the sections following a dissimilar pattern. Although the authors employ the terms Results and Conclusions in the abstract of the paper, in the body of the article they use other expressions to name the equivalent sections: These are Hazard ratios with disease outcomes, Chronic kidney disease and coronary heart disease risk prediction, Strengths and limitations, and Conclusion. It appears that Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) divide the Results sections into subsections in order to present very specific and detailed information in a clear manner.

Regarding the tenses used in the results section, it can be noticed that Barrs (2012) and Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) utilize past tenses to describe the outcomes of their researches. The authors of both papers employ general to specific text types to present the results of their investigations, though they differ in style and content. Whereas Barrs (2012) interprets data with two different but complementary approaches, or a “new conceptualization of established approaches” as she explains (p. 13), Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) introduce the results in a more clear and concise fashion, in the form of short sentences charged with technical terms and numbers. This may be supported by the assumption that Di Angelantonio et al.’s (2010) paper aims at interpreting purely hard evidence, where the importance lies in succinctness rather than eloquence.

Moreover, the authors of both articles use figures and tables to represent the results of their investigations. These tools enable researchers to present a large proportion of information in a small amount of space, and to describe the results of statistical analysis or pertinent quantitative data (APA, 2007). Barrs (2012) appears to format the tables in her article according to some APA (2007) standards: She numbers all tables, names the tables with an individual title, italicizes and presents them with each word capitalized and uses horizontal lines to separate information. However, the author does not present tables on a separate page as the APA (2007) establishes.

Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) do not seem to follow APA (2007) standards to format tables, since the authors do not number the graphs, do not italicize the titles, or present the titles with each word capitalized. Additionally, the authors place the tables among paragraphs. These authors seem to make a more strategic use of figures to achieve clarity of expression in the interpretation of the results, more common in the scientific field.

Discussions sections are usually argumentative and evaluative as they follow a certain parameter to present information. Although parts may not appear in order, Discussions present situations, problems, solutions and evaluations, and this is clearly seen in the articles analyzed. Di Angelantonio et al.’s (2010) paper deals with a separate section to discuss the results but avoids to follow the standard order, as it is noticeable that the two paragraphs that form the section commence with the evaluation or solutions rather than stating the situation. Barrs (2012) fails to include a separate part to discuss the results and blends the discussions section together with the conclusion.

As regards the Conclusions section of both articles, a clear difference in length and content can be noticed. Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) limit the Conclusions section to a summary of the main finding of the research, and to comment on the limitations of the study. The authors of this RA repeat the same information presented in the abstract in the Conclusions section. Conversely, Barrs (2012) writes a detailed and complete conclusion because, as it was explained before, the author avoids including a section for discussing the results of the investigation. In order to compensate this decision, the last section in the article is strongly persuasive and argumentative as it summarizes main findings, interprets results, explains unexpected outcomes, highlights the importance of the study, and states recommendations for further investigations. The author’s arguments are supported by the use of qualifying adjectives, like “useful” and “viable”, and expressions for presenting facts such as “…it was also shown through the difference in results…” (Barrs, 2012, p. 22) instead of holding evidence by opinions.

Conclusion

It is widely known that RA must include the results of the investigation and its posterior discussion and evaluation, together with a conclusion to support or reject the initial hypothesis. However, papers may vary in the style and structuring of the information, and this is conditioned by the original purpose of the research.    

Di Angelantonio et al.’s (2010) paper focuses on interpreting hard evidence and explaining the meaning of the results in order to find a single right answer, thus results are presented in a concise and clear style. The authors belong to a scientific context where new discoveries need to be supported by hard evidence and facts, hence it can be noticed that the Discussions section is one of its strongest parts, and the Conclusion is more modest and terse.

On the other hand, Barrs (2012) needs to resort to more argumentative and persuasive language to achieve the aim of her study. Researches in the humanities contexts base their investigations on the interpretation of data and how they support or reject previous theories, thus Barrs (2012) makes a more strategic use of the conclusion and utilizes a persuasive style.

References

American Psychological Association (2007). Concise rules of APA style. Washington, DC: British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.

Barrs, K. (2012, February). Action research: Fostering computer-mediated L2 interaction beyond the classroom. Language Learning & 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, N. (2010). Chronic kidney disease and risk of major cardiovascular disease and non-vascular mortality: Prospective population based cohort study. Research. BMJ, Online first, 1-7. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c4986

Hernández Sampieri, R., Fernández-Collado, C., & Lucio, B.P. (2008). Metodología de la Investigación (4th ed.). México: McGraw-Hill.

Comparative Analysis of Articles in the Fields of Medicine and Education

Introduction

Research is essential for the growth and development of any science. Only through sound, scientific and critical research can new and old ideas get tested. Research Articles (RA) and Research Papers (RP) are the medium of excellence for communicating new knowledge.

Although RA and RP follow a set of conventions when produced, the characteristics of the field indirectly affect the content of the information presented. Biber and Finegan (1994) explain that a number of factors such as setting, interactivity, role relations among participants, production circumstances, topic, and purpose condition systematic differences among registers. It may also be discussed that, within the same register, productions can have multiple purposes in different degrees. This analysis attempts to compare two RA, one in the medical field and other related to education, and illustrate the singularities that may arise when attempting to communicate research results with different purposes.

Analysis

Roth, Stabell, Ravn, Rodrigues, Lisse, Yazdanbakhsh, Whittle and Aaby’s (2009) article is concerned with the effect of revaccination with BCG in early childhood on mortality, while Sun and Chang’s (2012) paper examines the benefits of the use of blogs in the development of academic writing. Swales and Feak (1994) state that it is in introductions where RA writers compete for acceptance and recognition. In an attempt to provide a guideline to structure introductions, Swales and Feak (1994) developed the Create a Research Space Model (CARS) which provides the basis for our analysis.

Although the introductions of both RA comply with most of the suggested moves in the CARS model, there are some variations as regards content and order. The moves in Sun and Chang’s (2012) paper seem to appear in the order proposed by the model. Move 1 achieves its aim of establishing a research territory, as there is an extended definition of blogs at the start, then a strong theoretical account of the advantages of blogging in foreign language classes and a reference to previous research on the field. The move ends with a description of the difficulties students face when writing in a foreign language. This first part of the introduction provides the grounds for move 2, as Sung and Chang (2012) claim that after their literature review, they found that little research was made on the use of blogs in the field of academic writing. In an attempt to strengthen this idea, the authors employed a useful tool, a rhetorical question, to make readers aware of the significance of their research. The question introduces move 3 which outlines the purposes of the study and explains the tasks selected for the investigation. Neither the results nor the structure of the RP are presented in the introduction, perhaps to avoid audience to stop reading there.

The article by Roth et al. (2009) is slightly different in style in its introduction, mainly because eloquence is not relevant for the scientific community when attempting to reach consensus about a new discovery. Though, clarity of expression and conciseness are of utmost importance in this kind of papers. Move 1 and move 2 appear to be entangled, as the need to show the importance of this research on revaccination is supported by the findings of previous research and experiments in the field. The literature review seems quite extensive and detailed, as it explains the advances in the topic of research over the last century and up to the present. Besides, the scope of the study is particularly narrow, thus there is a need to specify the qualities of previous research. Though it is not written, the importance of the research seems to be implicitly established in all the facts and figures the authors included in the paper. Move 3 occupies the last two paragraphs of the introduction, and once again the purposes for the study are based on the negative findings of previous investigations. There is a short insight of the method but the principal findings are still absent.

According to Swales and Feak (1994), writers in the academic field coincide in some aspects regarding the format and style of the methods section: It should be divided in participants, materials and procedure; these subsections are typed in the left margin, and the tense used is passive voice, among other aspects. However, some differences can be found in the articles analyzed. The method employed in Sun and Chang’s (2012) research is a case study, while Roth et al. (2009) utilize a scientific experiment. Apart from the difference in the method employed, it seems that the authors of both articles wrote the section using different academic conventions. Sun and Chang (2012) have not centered the word Methods at the start of the section as it is suggested (Swales & Feak, 1994). The authors have divided the section in three parts: Participants, procedure and data analysis, and the tense used is past passive. It may be stated that the section is well organized, structured and clear.

The article by Roth et al. (2009) does not present a clear structure of the Methods section. Conversely, the authors divided the research in subsections as setting, study population and routine data collection, intervention, enrolment, randomisation, masking, conduct of the trial, among other parts. In other words, Roth et al.(2009) do not appear to follow the style conventions for writing RP and RA, which are mostly divided in the following parts: Title, Abstract, Acknowledgements, Introduction, Literature review, Methods, Results, Discussions, Recommendations, References, and Appendixes. The mostly used tense is past passive voice, and it may be argued that the section is not ordered but it is very detailed.

Conclusion

Although the authors of both papers follow academic conventions, it may be argued that the research’s purpose has an important role when organizing information within an article. Sun and Chang (2012), and Roth et al. (2009) use organizational patterns to present information similarly, however, they vary the importance they attach to each part.

While Sun and Chang’s (2012)  paper establishes its basis in the interpretation of texts, Roth et al.’s (2009) article finds answers in the analysis of hard evidence. This is supported by the manner the moves within the introduction of both texts are organized. In the educational paper, moves follow the order and the content suggested by the C.A.R.S model but in the medical paper, moves appear to be mixed. Additionally, the methods section seems to be the most differently structured and organized part of both articles.

As regards style and language use, Sun and Chang (2012) develop interpretive arguments, in an attempt to convince readers that the claims are valid. Moreover, the authors use literary devices which make paragraphs and sentences more eloquent with long, complex thoughts. Roth et al.’s (2009) article, on the other hand, focuses on interpreting hard evidence and explaining the meaning of the results in order to find a single right answer. Thus, the authors present information in a style that is exceedingly clear and concise. 

References

 Biber, D. and Finegan, E. (1994). Intra-textual variation within medical research articles. In Oostidjk (Eds.), Corpus based research into language (pp. 201-222). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Rodopi B.V.

Roth, A. E., Benn, C. S., Ravn, H., Rodrigues, A., Lisse, I. M., Yazdanbakhsh, M., Whittle, H., & Aaby, P. (2009). Effect of revaccination with BCG in early childhood on mortality: Randomised trial in Guinea-Bissau. BMJ, Online first, 1-11. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.cmj.c671

Sun, Y., & Chang, Y. (2012, February). Blogging to learn: Becoming EFL academic writers through collaborative dialogues. Language learning & technology, 16 (46-61). Retrieved from http: //llt.msu.edu/issues/february2012/sunchang.pdf

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

Personal narratives

Critical incidents: Sources of analysis and learning

According to Fernández González, Escartín and Medina Pérez (2003), it is necessary that educators not only be experts in their subjects, but also able to reflect upon their teaching practices, and take suitable decisions when classroom problems appear. Thus, reflection on teaching practices appears as an important source for teachers’ development as professionals.

Critical incidents may be defined as events which are either unpleasant or unusual. However, these uncomfortable situations can be used in a positive manner: As sources of analysis and learning since they help teachers reflect upon their current practices (Pintos & Crimi, 2010). In other words, if a teacher or a community of teachers analyze and reflect upon a determined classroom problem and the different possibilities to solve it, they may take decisions based on deep analysis. Additionally, through this kind of reflection, teachers may become aware of successful or unsuccessful practices, which might determine future teaching strategies. Consequently, educators will be learning from experience and difficult classroom situations. 

As a teacher, I try to observe, reflect and analyze upon my practices and different classroom situations, and use critical incidents as a tool to improve my classroom performance. Since classroom problems vary according to the context and the students, I assume that reflection may help taking suitable decisions. 

All in all, it may be stated that critical incidents in education are a powerful tool for reflection, analysis and learning for pre-service and in-service teachers. Besides, if teachers consider difficult and unexpected situations as a source for professional development, they may face these events with a positive attitude.

References

Fernandez González, J., Elórtegui Escartín, N. & Medina Pérez, M. (2003). Los incidentes críticos en la formación y perfeccionamiento del profesorado de secundaria de ciencias de la naturaleza. Revista universitaria de Formación de Profesorado, 17- 001. Zaragoza, España: Universidad de Zaragoza. Retrieved September 2010, from

http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/redalyc/src/inicio/ArtPdfRed.jsp?iCve=27417107

Pintos, V., & Crimi, Y.  (2010). Unit 2: Personal narratives in teaching. Lengua inglesa especializada 1.  Universidad CAECE, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Retrieved September 2010, from http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=7214

A critical incident report: Learning from mistakes

In 2009, I started teaching in a full-time state-run secondary school from Mar de Ajó. I was the teacher of English of a 3^rd year, and the students’ ages ranged from fourteen to fifteen years old. There were 25 students from a lower class, and I had lessons on Mondays and Fridays from 12.30 to 2.30 in the afternoon. 

The core material I used in the course was a textbook by Longman, which I followed rigorously. In general, the group behaved well, had a positive attitude towards learning English, and participated in the lessons. However, there was a boy named Leandro who disliked the idea of learning a foreign language. He used to take the book to the lessons but he used it to make drawings, he did not participate and did hardly any activity.

After some weeks, I realized that Leandro was not motivated to learn English. I thought it was due to the fact that I had not taken into consideration the students’ interests in order to plan the units of work. The following lesson, I asked Leandro about his interests, and he expressed that he liked music very much. I also asked the rest of the students about their interests, and I wrote down the answers.

On the subsequent lessons, I introduced the topics chosen by the students to the course. Moreover, one English song per fortnight selected by the students was listened and analyzed. Through these modifications in my teaching practices, I noticed that Leandro improved his performance in the English lessons, started to participate in the activities and even worked with the textbook.

After this experience, I realized the importance of considering students’ feelings and interests in the teaching-learning process. As a consequence, I started to consider the learners’ emotional domain in order to plan lessons which result meaningful for specific groups of students.

Note: The name of the student has been changed in order to preserve his identity.

Defining a discourse community

 A discourse community is a knowledge community in which its members develop and use systems of speech and writing that are sometimes quite specific to a particular community’s needs and goals. It is composed of a minimum number of expert members and a frequently larger number of apprentice members who operate on the basis of implicit and explicit goals. Community members often use participatory mechanisms to transmit information and feedback, such as meetings and publications (Johns, 1990; Swales, 1990; cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010). According to Swales (1990), a discourse community should meet the following requirements to be considered as such: It should have common goals, participatory mechanisms, information exchange, community-specific genres, specialized terminology and high general level of expertise.

Wenzlaff and Wieseman (2004) examine a specific discourse community: The discourse community of teachers. It may be argued that they support Swales’ (1990) theory when they state that teachers need teachers to grow. In this way, they imply that through participatory mechanisms and information exchange, teachers will be immersed in a collaborative culture that allows them to learn from one another as colleagues. They also state that “for teacher learning to occur, teachers need opportunities to participate in professional communities that discuss learning theories, and various teacher materials and pedagogy” (p. 2). In other words, it could be assumed that the community of teachers share common goals, use specialized terminology and have a certain level of expertise.

Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles and Lopez-Torres (2003) develop the issue of reflection on teaching practice, and state that refection should be viewed both as a meta-cognitive mechanism and a social practice. This is because interaction with colleagues in goal-directed activities is an important medium in which reflection occurs, as well as the exchange of ideas about different dimensions of their labor. Consequently, it can be claimed that Hoffman-Kipp et al. (2003) highlight the roles of common goals, participatory mechanisms and information exchange in teaching practice. The named authors also take into consideration that high general levels of expertise and specialized terminology should be achieved by the discourse community members in order to share ideas and points of view on different topics: “…teachers need to reflect on the political and historical dimensions of their labor” (p. 7).

Kelly-Kleese (2001, 2004) states that a community college can be understood as a discourse community. This is because its members have, over time, developed a common discourse that involves shared knowledge, common relationships, and similar attitudes and values. As a result, it may be concluded that Kelly-Kleese supports Swales’ (1990) description of a discourse community. She highlights the requirements of the community sharing a common discourse, which should include a specific genre, specialized terminology and a certain level of expertise. Moreover, the idea of the group having common relationships, similar values and attitudes may be related to the requirements of sharing a common goal and information exchange. 

In conclusion, it may be stated that there is evidence to support Swales’ (1990) theory of discourse community in Hoffman-Kipp et al., Kelly-Kleese, and Wenzlaff and Wieseman’s articles. This is due to the authors, throughout their papers, appear to show that the members of a discourse community should meet the requirements of having common goals, participatory mechanisms, information exchange, community specific genres, specialized terminology and a certain level of expertise.

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. (2010). Unit 1: Building up a community of teachers and prospective researchers. Universidad 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

introductory letter

This blog was created in order to share my writing assignments from the English for Academic Purposes class at Universidad CAECE. Here, you will find my productions and reflections on academic writing. I hope you enjoy it! Sabrina Vera.