Sample Methodology

36
Samples of Samples of Writing Writing ‘Methodology’ ‘Methodology’ WTUC WTUC March 2007 March 2007

description

 

Transcript of Sample Methodology

Page 1: Sample Methodology

Samples of Samples of WritingWriting

‘Methodology’‘Methodology’WTUCWTUC

March 2007March 2007

Page 2: Sample Methodology

Sample Consent FormsSample Consent Forms Available on the blog at Available on the blog at http://researchwriting.blogspot.com/2007/03/shttp://researchwriting.blogspot.com/2007/03/sample-consent-forms.htmlample-consent-forms.html

Page 3: Sample Methodology

Methodology ChecklistMethodology ChecklistDoes the Does the methodologymethodology (or (or research metresearch methodhod) section ) section explain when, where, and how the resexplain when, where, and how the research was done? earch was done? include subsections or informative heainclude subsections or informative headings as appropriate (e.g., evaluation cdings as appropriate (e.g., evaluation criteria)? riteria)?

http://www.efwr.ucalgary.ca/content/view/110/69/

Page 4: Sample Methodology

Sample 1Sample 1

http://llt.msu.edu/vol11num1/wagner/default.html

Page 5: Sample Methodology

http://llt.msu.edu/vol11num1/wagner/default.html

Page 6: Sample Methodology

http://llt.msu.edu/vol11num1/wagner/default.html

Page 7: Sample Methodology

http://llt.msu.edu/vol11num1/wagner/default.html

Page 8: Sample Methodology

http://llt.msu.edu/vol11num1/wagner/default.html

Page 9: Sample Methodology

http://llt.msu.edu/vol11num1/wagner/default.html

Page 10: Sample Methodology

http://llt.msu.edu/vol11num1/wagner/default.html

Page 11: Sample Methodology

http://llt.msu.edu/vol11num1/wagner/default.html

Page 12: Sample Methodology

http://llt.msu.edu/vol11num1/wagner/default.html

Page 13: Sample Methodology

http://llt.msu.edu/vol11num1/wagner/default.html

Page 14: Sample Methodology

http://llt.msu.edu/vol11num1/wagner/default.html

Page 15: Sample Methodology
Page 16: Sample Methodology
Page 17: Sample Methodology
Page 18: Sample Methodology

Sample 2Sample 2

http://www.surrey.ac.uk/ALRG/dissertations/

Page 19: Sample Methodology

http://www.surrey.ac.uk/ALRG/dissertations/pdf/Croussouard_B_2001.pdf

Page 20: Sample Methodology

http://www.surrey.ac.uk/ALRG/dissertations/pdf/Croussouard_B_2001.pdf

Page 21: Sample Methodology

http://www.surrey.ac.uk/ALRG/dissertations/pdf/Croussouard_B_2001.pdf

Page 22: Sample Methodology
Page 23: Sample Methodology

http://www.surrey.ac.uk/ALRG/dissertations/pdf/Croussouard_B_2001.pdf

Page 24: Sample Methodology

Sample 3Sample 3http://journals.tc-library.org/index.php/tesol

Page 25: Sample Methodology

Sample 3Sample 3 http://journals.tc-library.org/index.phhttp://journals.tc-library.org/index.php/tesol/article/view/206/193p/tesol/article/view/206/193

Page 26: Sample Methodology

http://journals.tc-library.org/index.php/tesol/article/view/206/193

Page 27: Sample Methodology

http://journals.tc-library.org/index.php/tesol/article/view/206/193

Page 28: Sample Methodology

http://journals.tc-library.org/index.php/tesol/article/view/206/193

Page 29: Sample Methodology
Page 30: Sample Methodology

http://journals.tc-library.org/index.php/tesol/article/view/206/193

Page 31: Sample Methodology

http://journals.tc-library.org/index.php/tesol/article/view/206/193

Page 32: Sample Methodology

Sample 4Sample 4

http://www.uic.edu/depts/sfip/news/slatenurestudy.html

Page 33: Sample Methodology

Data collection procedures Data collection procedures Data were collected through surveys that were mailed out to 72 participaData were collected through surveys that were mailed out to 72 participants in the United States and Canada. Participants in the project complnts in the United States and Canada. Participants in the project completed the survey anonymously and filled out a separate consent form. eted the survey anonymously and filled out a separate consent form. Recipients who choose not to participate were asked to simply return Recipients who choose not to participate were asked to simply return the materials. Respondents have appointments in a variety of departthe materials. Respondents have appointments in a variety of departments, including English, Linguistics, foreign languages (e.g., Spanisments, including English, Linguistics, foreign languages (e.g., Spanish, German), as well as in combined departments of Modern Languageh, German), as well as in combined departments of Modern Languages. A significant percentage of respondents are members of departmes. A significant percentage of respondents are members of departments dedicated specifically to the field, e.g., Second Language Studies.nts dedicated specifically to the field, e.g., Second Language Studies. Criteria for inclusion in the study were as follows:Criteria for inclusion in the study were as follows: Rank of associate of full professor at a Canadian or U.S. post-secondarRank of associate of full professor at a Canadian or U.S. post-secondary institutiony institution Published research in the field of second language acquisitionPublished research in the field of second language acquisition Respondents were faculty members from both private and public instituRespondents were faculty members from both private and public institutions, the majority being research oriented. To protect the anonymity tions, the majority being research oriented. To protect the anonymity of the respondents, we are unable to list the institutions here or to furof the respondents, we are unable to list the institutions here or to further identify them.ther identify them.http://www.uic.edu/depts/sfip/news/slatenurestudy.html

Page 34: Sample Methodology

The Survey The Survey The survey is included here as an appendix. RespThe survey is included here as an appendix. Respondents were asked questions regarding the miondents were asked questions regarding the minimum and optimum standards for tenure promnimum and optimum standards for tenure promotion to the rank of associate professor. Specificotion to the rank of associate professor. Specifically, they were asked their views on the importaally, they were asked their views on the importance of various types of publications and presentnce of various types of publications and presentations. They were also asked to rank various prations. They were also asked to rank various presses and journals for their importance in the fiesses and journals for their importance in the field of SLA. Space was included for respondents eld of SLA. Space was included for respondents to make comments on issues not covered by speto make comments on issues not covered by specific questions in the survey. cific questions in the survey.

http://www.uic.edu/depts/sfip/news/slatenurestudy.html

Page 35: Sample Methodology

Results Results There were 45 respondents to the study (63%). There were 45 respondents to the study (63%). Table 1 shows the breakdown for departmentTable 1 shows the breakdown for departmental affiliation, rank and language studied. In thal affiliation, rank and language studied. In the subsequent tables, a ranking of 1 indicates se subsequent tables, a ranking of 1 indicates strong disagreement with the statement and a trong disagreement with the statement and a ranking of 5, strong agreement. Table 2 showranking of 5, strong agreement. Table 2 shows the mean responses to questions pertaining s the mean responses to questions pertaining to the publication of a book as a tenure requirto the publication of a book as a tenure requirement. Tables 3 and 4 display responses on issement. Tables 3 and 4 display responses on issues other than book publication, principally, tues other than book publication, principally, the use of journal articles as a criterion for tenhe use of journal articles as a criterion for tenure and promotion. Table 5 displays the rankiure and promotion. Table 5 displays the ranking of major journals that publish work in SLA. ng of major journals that publish work in SLA.

Page 36: Sample Methodology

End of LectureEnd of Lecture