Text organization to be heard

Researchers may have a great deal of knowledge, experience and confidence in their field; however, when they want to inform or persuade the members of their discourse community they need to organize their ideas within a model for text organization in order to be heard. Swales and Feak (1994) suggest organizing informational writing in a general to specific pattern, moving from general ideas to specific details and closing the text with general ideas, again. It is the purpose of this work to compare two studies; one from the medicine field and the other from education. Oanh and Hienn (2006) and Green, Anderson, Ralston, Catz, Fishman and Cook (2011) have similar organizational frameworks. Both frameworks consist of an abstract, an introduction, methods and results. The former is a research article about education and the latter is a research article about medicine. If we consider the introduction, both pieces of writings state the relevance of the study. Oanh and Hienn (2006) inquire whether memorization is a learning strategy and they also inquire students’ beliefs and attitudes towards memorization in learning EFL. Green et al. (2011) sustain that the internet may help to monitor patients suffering from blood pressure and the results of their work “will provide a context for engaging participation in and designing future Web-based interventions that lead to improved health outcomes for all populations.” These studies are successful at both attracting readers’ attention while setting a general background and providing a rationale for their investigation. There is a difference between the structure of Oanh and Hienn (2006) and Green et al.’s studies (2011); whereas the former has a special section devoted to a literature review, the latter does not revise previous findings. Despite that, it can be appreciated that Green et al. (2011) use a wide variety of sources which give a solid foundation to their work. These sources are acknowledged through endnotes in a reference section. Unlike Green et al. (2011), Oanh and Hienn’s (2006) literature review includes first a definition of memorization, but no authors’ personal definition is provided. Second, some definitions of EFL learning strategies are explained; besides the authors’ position is pointed out. In Green et al. (2011), the methods section is made up of three components: study setting, recruitment, measures and statistical analysis. The study setting details when, where and the means used to accomplish the study; the recruitment describes the participant involved in the research. The measures explain the variables in technology infrastructure and human resources. The last component is the statistical analysis which illustrates the models used to analyze and evaluate the data collected. Despite labeling the sections in a different fashion to Green et al. (2011), the information dealt within methods in Oanh and Hienn (2006) is similar. They depict the participants, materials and analysis. As regards the participants the real names were not provided, only pseudonyms. The materials included appendices at the end of the work. The analysis explains how the data was collected and categorized. There is a coincidence in both works: they present the results supported by sources they acknowledge. In Green et al. (2011) not only the findings and conclusions are supplied, but the weaknesses and strengths as well. What is different in Oanh and Hienn (2006) is that they do not account for the strengths and weaknesses in their work. On the other hand, it is important to notice how the use of tables helps the readers achieve a clear understanding of the results. Other elements included in both articles are references and copyright. While in Green et al. (2011) the references are part of an endnote as it was already mentioned, in Oanh and Hienn (2006) the references relate to in-text citations where the author and year of publication are stated. In the former the readers may explore the text more easily; nevertheless, the latter gives a faster point of reference. All points considered, we may read both texts straightforwardly. A last point to be analyzed is the use of tenses. In Oanh and Hienn (2006) and in Green et al. (2011) it can be seen the use of tentative language in the abstract to set a background for the research. In order to describe the methods they use passive voice and simple past. The results are expressed through simple past. If we consider the conclusion, Green et al. (2011) use simple past and passive voice to point out what will be required, while Oanh and Hienn (2006) use should to suggest what is advisable taking into account their findings. In conclusion, Green et al. (2011) Oanh and Hienn (2006) have coincidences and differences in the structure they follow to organize their research articles. It may also be noticed that despite belonging to different discourse communities they follow similar rules: they respect copyrights acknowledging the sources revised; they also adhere to the same tense usage. What is more, they achieve their goals: not only do they convince the readers but also provide important, reliable and detailed information through a simple and concise style. References Green, B. B., Anderson, M. L., Ralston, J. D., Catz, S., PhD; Fishman, P. A. & Cook, A. J. (2011). Patient ability and willingness to participate in a web-based intervention to improve hypertension control. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13, 1, 2011. Retrieved April 2011, from http://www.jmir.org/2011/1/e1/ Oanh, D., Hien, N. (2006). Memorization and EFL students' strategies at university level in Vietnam. Teaching English as a Second and a Foreign Language. 10, 2. September 2006. Retrieved April 2011, from http://www.cc.kyoto-su.ac.jp/information/tesl-ej/ej38/a4.html Pintos, V. & Crimi, Y. (2011). Unit 2 The research article: introduction, literature review and methods sections. Universidad CAECE. Buenos Aires. Retrieved April 2011, from http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=8517