Introduction
Academic writing is a key skill for students to master during their time in higher education. Learning to write well academically can be a challenge due to the formal nature of academic writing and specific writing style that must be followed. This type of writing is assessed differently than other types of writing like creative or journalistic writing, and requires careful consideration of structure, argumentation, evidence, and referencing. In this essay, we will explore what constitutes strong academic writing by examining examples from published research papers. Specifically, we will analyze introductions, literature reviews, methods sections, results sections, discussion sections, and conclusions from peer-reviewed journal articles. Dissecting real examples allows students to grasp concrete models that they can emulate and learn from in their own academic writing.
Example of an Introduction Section
A strong introduction presents the topic of the paper and its importance or significance. It provides necessary background information and context, and clearly states the research problem or question that the paper seeks to address. For example, in the journal article “Toward a cognitive model of literary appreciation” published in Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, Norris et al. (2015) begin their paper as follows:
“Appreciation of artistic works involves intricate cognitive processes that allow perceivers to make sense of and find meaning in cultural artifacts. Works of literature in particular rely on subtle linguistic and narrative devices that require adept comprehension and interpretation. Yet theories of literary appreciation remain underdeveloped within empirical psychology. Existing models tend to focus narrowly on specific aspects of literary engagement such as emotional contagion, transportation, or appreciation of language, failing to provide an integrated view of the complex cognitive mechanisms underlying literary insights.”
This introduction establishes that literary appreciation is a complex cognitive process not well understood, and existing models are limited and do not provide a holistic view. The research problem – the lack of an integrated cognitive model of literary appreciation – is clearly stated at the end. Necessary background information on literature’s intricate linguistic devices and requirement of comprehension is also furnished. This hooks the reader and sets up the importance of addressing this research problem.
Example of a Literature Review Section
A thorough literature review should synthesize and critique previous relevant research on the topic. A well-written literature review in Norris et al. (2015) evaluates existing models of literary appreciation:
“Transportation theories focus on how literature allows readers to viscerally experience fictional worlds (Green & Brock, 2000), yet say little about deeper interpretive processes. Appreciation of creative language has been linked to feelings of fluency and processing ease (Reber et al., 2004), yet fluency alone does not guarantee literary insights. Models of emotional contagion examine how narratives influence perceptions and emotions (Oatley, 2002), but do not explain complex inferences or symbolic meanings.
While each perspective offers valuable insights, none provide an overarching framework linking basic comprehension with higher-level inference generation. A comprehensive model is needed to unite diverse findings regarding cognitive, affective, and social dimensions of literary reading under a coherent theoretical structure.”
This literature review critically assesses the limitations of existing transportation, fluency, and emotional contagion models of literary appreciation. It acknowledges their valuable insights but argues a comprehensive model is still needed to integrate these diverse perspectives. Relevant sources are synthesized and core arguments and gaps are identified to motivate the research.
Example of a Methods Section
The methods section should provide enough detail that another researcher could replicate the study. In Norris et al. (2015), two experimental studies are described to test hypotheses derived from their cognitive model of literary appreciation:
“Study 1 used short stories that varied in interpretive demands. 87 undergraduates read and answered comprehension and interpretive inference questions about four 400-word stories selected to represent a range of interpretive difficulty.
Study 2 manipulated narrative foreshadowing to test its role in facilitating interpretive inferences. 78 undergraduates read one of two 400-word stories that were identical except for the presence or absence of subtle foreshadowing. After reading, participants answered factual and inferential questions and completed interpretation ratings.
Both studies obtained informed consent, were approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board, and debriefed participants. Response times and accuracy on inference questions served as the primary dependent variables to gauge cognitive effort and success in interpretive processing.”
Clearly stating the research design, participants, materials, procedures, variables, and ethics approval allows readers to critically evaluate the research process and potential limitations or biases. Replication is made possible through provision of operational details.
Example of a Results Section
The results section should report relevant statistical findings in a logical manner without interpretation. Norris et al. (2015) report their statistical analyses accordingly:
“Study 1 results revealed longer response times, t(85) = 4.12, p < .001, and lower accuracy, t(85) = 3.27, p = .002, on interpretive than factual questions across stories. A 2 (Question Type: factual, interpretive) x 4 (Story: 1 through 4) mixed ANOVA found a significant main effect of Question Type, F(1, 86) = 15.78, p < .001, and a Question Type x Story interaction, F(3, 258) = 3.01, p = .03. Pairwise comparisons showed response times and accuracy differed most for the highest interpretively demanding story. Study 2 produced similar response time and accuracy advantages for factual over inferential questions. A significant main effect of Question Type, F(1, 76) = 12.46, p = .001, and a Question Type x Foreshadowing interaction, F(1, 76) = 4.32, p = .04, indicated faster and more accurate responses for inferences when stories included foreshadowing."
Results are reported clearly using appropriate statistical terminology and tests without subjective interpretation. This allows readers to assess the evidence objectively before considering the authors' conclusions in the discussion. Example of a Discussion Section The discussion section should interpret the results in the context of previous research and theorize their implications and meaning. Norris et al. (2015) skillfully discuss how their findings support their model: "Together, results provide strong evidence that deeper interpretive processing during literary reading relies on cognitive mechanisms beyond basic comprehension. Specifically, interpretive inferences impose greater demands on working memory and inferential reasoning abilities. Foreshadowing helps reduce this load by pre-activating relevant concepts. Such findings align with the proposed cognitive model's emphasis on the effortful, strategic nature of interpretive processes like sense-making, knowledge integration, and symbolism derivation. They also resonate with transportation theory's proposal that comprehending nuanced literary devices requires sustaining and manipulating situational models in working memory (Green & Brock, 2000)." The discussion clearly conveys how results bolster the cognitive model proposed while also relating findings back to the literature reviewed earlier. Limitations and future research directions are also suggested. A strong conclusion is then provided to wrap up the paper. Conclusion Through analyzing authentic examples from a published academic paper, this essay has aimed to illustrate what constitutes effective academic writing. Key elements like a hooked introduction, comprehensive literature review, clearly described methods, objectively reported results, and discussion that interprets results in context have been dissected. Of course, individual disciplinary and journal style requirements vary. Nevertheless, unpacking real examples allows students to grasp concrete models of structure and writing techniques that are prized in academic writing across fields. Mastering these fundamentals is essential for strong performance in higher education.
Andrew Stroud