Transcript Slide 1

Writing the Results Section
Annie Pezalla, Ph.D.
Dissertation Editor, Writing Faculty,
and Interim Director for Academic Skills
The agenda
• Discuss the elements that should be found in
any chapter 4
• Share 5 writing tips on presenting your
methods
• Q&A
2
Required Elements in Chapter 4
•
•
•
•
•
3
Introduction
Data collection
Data analysis
Findings
Conclusions
Quantitative
4
Organization
• Chapter 4 is structured around the research
questions and/or hypotheses addressed in
the study, reporting the findings related to
each.
5
Research Tools
• Data collection instruments have been used
correctly.
• Measures obtained are reported clearly,
following standard procedures.
• Adjustments or revisions to the use of
standardized instruments have been justified,
and any effects on interpretation of findings
are clearly described.
6
Consistency of Analyses
• Overall, data analysis is consistent with
research questions or hypotheses and
underlying theoretical conceptual framework
for the study.
– Check: Are hypotheses/research questions
consistent between chapters 1, 3, and 4?
– Check: Are the analyses consistent with what
was proposed in chapter 3?
7
Data Analyses
• Logically and sequentially address all
research questions or hypotheses.
• Where appropriate, outcomes of hypothesis
testing procedures are clearly reported (e.g.,
findings reject or fail to reject the null).
• Does not contain any evident statistical
errors.
8
Tables and Figures
• As self-descriptive as possible, informative,
and conform to standard dissertation format.
• Are directly related to and referred to within
the narrative text included in the chapter.
• Have immediate adjacent comments.
– For example, any table notes are at the bottom.
• Are properly titled and captioned.
• Show copyright permission if not in the public
domain.
9
Conclusion
• In a concluding section of chapter 4,
outcomes are logically and systematically
summarized in relation to their importance to
the research questions and hypotheses.
10
Qualitative
11
Data
• The process by which data were generated,
gathered, and recorded is identified.
• The systems for keeping track of data and
emerging understandings (research logs,
reflective journals, cataloging systems) are
clearly described.
12
Findings
• Build logically from the problem and the research
design.
• Are presented in a manner that addresses the
research questions.
• Discrepant cases and nonconfirming data are
included in the findings.
• Patterns, relationships, and themes described as
findings are supported by the data. All salient data
are accounted for in the findings.
13
Evidence of Quality
• A discussion on evidence of quality shows
how this study followed procedures to assure
accuracy of the data (e.g., trustworthiness,
member checks, triangulation, etc.).
Appropriate evidence occurs in the
appendixes (sample transcripts, researcher
logs, field notes, etc.). (May appear in
chapter 5.)
14
5 Writing Tips for Chapter 4
15
Tip # 1: Select the right tool for the right job
• You have 3 main tools for presenting your results:
prose, tables, and figures. Your choice of tools
depends on several factors:
– How many numbers you need to report.
– How much time (or patience) your audience will
have to grasp your data.
– Whether your readers need exact values.
16
Tables vs. Text
• Only use tables to simplify text that otherwise would be dense
with numbers.
• From your APA manual:
(Dense)
– The mean final errors (with standard deviations in
parentheses) for the Age x Level of Difficulty interaction were
.05, (.08), .05 (.07), and .11 (.10) for the younger participants
and .14 (.15), .17 (.15), and .26 (.21) for the older participants
at low, moderate, and high levels of difficulty, respectively.
17
Tables vs. Text
• Only use tables to simplify text that otherwise would be dense
with numbers.
• From your APA manual:
(Better)
Standard
deviation
Mean error rate
Level of
difficulty
18
Sample size
Younger
Older
Younger
Older
Younger
Older
Low
.05
.14
.08
.15
12
18
Moderate
.05
.17
.07
.15
15
12
High
.11
.26
.10
.21
16
14
Tables vs. Figures
• Use tables when you need to present exact figures
• Use figures when you want your reader to
understand an overall pattern of results at a quick
glance.
19
Tip #2: Summarize patterns
-
Find a generalization that fits most of the data.
Report a few illustrative numbers from the
associated table or figure.
Describe exceptions to the general pattern.
- DON’T repeat all the numbers in a table.
20
How would you report these results?
Table 1
Writing Self-Efficacy Means for Walden Students Who Did and Did
Not Visit the Writing Center
Writing Center Use
Writing selfefficacy
Yes
No
t
df
4.28
3.33
4.40***
179
(0.75)
(0.92)
Note. Standard deviations appear in parentheses below means. ***p < .001
Walden students who used the Writing Center reported greater levels of
writing self-efficacy (M = 4.28, SD = 0.92) than Walden students who did
not (M = 3.33, SD = 0.92), t(179) = 4.40, p < .001.
21
How would you report these results?
Table 2
Mean IQ Scores by Brain Size
Brain Size
IQ
Large
Small
t
df
98
101
0.68
183
(20)
(14)
Note. Standard deviations appear in parentheses below means.
IQ scores for individuals with large brains (M = 98, SD = 20) were not
significantly higher than individuals with small brains (M = 101, SD = 14),
t(183) = 0.68, p > .05.
22
Tip #2 continued: Don’t report every number
-
23
Paint the big picture, rather than reiterating the
little details. If readers are interested in specific
values within the patterns you describe, they can
look them up in the accompanying table or figure.
How would you report these results?
Table 3
Mean Scores of Liking for the Book ‘Twilight’ by Gender
Gender
Twilight
Liking
Male
Female
T
Df
1.32
6.55
5.34**
167
(0.87)
(1.15)
Note. Standard deviations appear in parentheses below means.
Mean scores of liking for the book Twilight differed significantly by gender, t
(167) = 5.34, p < .01. Women reported liking the book to a greater degree
than did men.
24
An example report…
Of the total superintendents surveyed, 61 (39.1%) had obtained a
doctorate degree. Within this category, 34 (55.7%) were servant leaders,
and 27 (44.3%) were nonservant leaders. A total of 15 superintendents
were education specialists, an official title defined in this state as having all
of their doctoral credits for formal coursework; however, deficient the
credits and final product of a doctoral study. Within this cohort of 15, 7
(46.7%) were servant leaders, and 8 (53.3%) were nonservant leaders. In
the most widespread category of this demographic, 80 (51.3%)
superintendents had obtained a master’s degree as their highest level of
formal education. Of these superintendents, 38 (47.5%) were designated
servant leaders, and 42 (52.5%) as nonservant leaders. Table 10 presents
a visual summary of the data from SASL response data.
25
The corresponding table…
Table 10
Self-Assessment of Servant Leadership Information for Highest Academic Degree
Obtained Results
Total
Highest degree
obtained
Servant leaders
N
Nonservant leaders
%
N
%
N
%
BA
0
0
0
0
0
0
MA
38
47.50
42
52.5
80
51.3
Ed. Specialist
7
46.7
8
53.3
15
9.63
Doctorate
34
55.7
27
44.3
61
39.1
Totals
79
26
77
156
What’s wrong with the report?
• It’s too detailed.
– It reports every piece of information from the table. This
paragraph would be more appropriate if it summarized the
major findings from the table, and used only a few
numbers to illustrate those findings.
27
A better report
Of the total superintendents surveyed (N = 156), 61 had
obtained a doctorate degree, and about half of this
group were servant leaders (n = 34). Eighty
superintendents had obtained a master’s degree as
their highest level of formal education; about half of this
group, too, were servant leaders (n = 38). Table 10
presents a visual summary of the data from SASL
response data.
28
What’s wrong with the table?
Total
Servant leaders
Highest degree
obtained
N
Nonservant leaders
%
N
%
N
%
BA
0
0
0
0
0
0
MA
38
47.50
42
52.5
80
51.3
Ed. Specialist
7
46.7
8
53.3
15
9.63
Doctorate
34
55.7
27
44.3
61
39.1
Totals
79
29
77
156
A better table
Servant leaders
Nonservant leaders
Total
Highest degree
obtained
n
%
n
%
N
%
MA
38
47.5
42
52.5
80
51.3
Ed. Specialist
7
46.7
8
53.3
15
9.6
Doctorate
34
55.7
27
44.3
61
39.1
Totals
79
30
77
156
Or, even better, a figure
39%
MA
51%
Ed. Specialist
Doctorate
10%
Figure 1. Distribution of superintendents by highest degree earned.
31
Or two
35%
43%
48%
55%
MA
MA
Ed.
Ed.
Doctorate
Doctorate
9%
Figure 1. Distribution of designated servants by
highest degree earned.
32
10%
Figure 2. Distribution of designated nonservants by
highest degree earned.
Or three
47%
48%
44%
53%
52%
56%
servants
servants
nonservants
nonservants
Figure 1. Distribution of master’s Figure 2. Distribution of education
level superintendents by servant specialist-level superintendents by
status.
servant status.
33
servants
nonservants
Figure 3. Distribution of doctorallevel superintendents by servant
status.
Tip # 3: Define your terms
-
Reporting results often requires technical
language. To make sure that your readers
comprehend your information, define your terms,
acronyms, and symbols.
-
34
Unfamiliar terms (“opportunity cost,” standardized
mortality ratio,” SES, LBW, PSA, etc.)
Terms that have more than one meaning (significant,
considerable, appreciable, big, etc.)
Do you need technical terms?
35
-
For all but the most technical situations, you
need to know the name and operation of the
tools you are using to present your results, but
your readers may not.
-
Carpenter analogy
Tip # 4: Avoid regressive material
-
36
Your readers don’t need a detailed description of how
you approached writing up p = .08, the steps to
calculate a mean, why you right-justified the numbers
in your table, or why you chose a stacked bar chart
rather than a pie chart.
Tip # 5: Accept the need for revision
-
Embrace the fact that writing your results will be
an iterative process.
-
37
Draft tables and charts with a pencil and paper before
creating a computerized version.
Outline key findings before you describe a complex
pattern.
From the Walden dissertation rubric:
• Writing Style and Composition:
– Written in scholarly language (accurate, balanced,
objective, tentative). The writing is clear, precise, and
avoids redundancy. Statements are specific and topical
sentences are established for paragraphs. The flow of
words is smooth and comprehensible. Bridges are
established between ideas.
– Scored on a Likert scale, ranging from 1 (must be revised
and resubmitted) to 5 (approved with commendation)
38
From the Walden dissertation rubric:
• Organization and Form:
– Is logically and comprehensive organized, using
subheadings where appropriate
– Has a professional, scholarly appearance
– Is written with correct grammar, punctuation, and spelling
– Includes citations for the following: direct quotes,
paraphrasing, facts, and references to research studies
– Includes in-text citations in the reference list.
– Scored on a Likert scale, ranging from 1 (must be revised
and resubmitted) to 5 (approved with commendation)
39
Resources for writing your dissertation
• General academic writing
– http://writingcenter.waldenu.edu
– Strunk & White (1999)
– Zinsser (1998)
• Writing about science
– Montgomery (2003)
• Revising prose
– Lanham (2000)
40
Questions?
41