The Academic Discourse Among Undergraduates : The Organizational Structure of Biology Students’ Laboratory Reports
Abstract
The academic discourse serves as a platform for the systematic communication of scientific findings, within laboratory reports being a primary type employed by researchers and students. These reports follow specific conventions and formats, ensuring clarity and credibility in the scientific communication. This study investigates the organizational structure of English-language Biology laboratory reports, focusing on students’ adherence to the Introduction, Methods, Results, And Discussion (IMRAD) model. After compiling a corpus of fifty Biology students’ laboratory reports from Ouargla University, Algeria, the researchers adopted a qualitative approach and a thematic analysis to data. The results revealed overall adherence to the IMRAD format, with minor variations, notably variations in subheadings within the Methods section, transitions between sections, and the structure of the Discussion section, reflecting disciplinary norms. These findings propose opportunities for teachers to explicitly address the nuances of IMRAD structure and writing conventions within Biology domain. By comprehending how students apply this model, instructors can design more effective lessons and writing instruction that foster clarity and disciplinary understanding in laboratory report writing. This study emphasizes the importance of exploring the impact of explicit instruction on student writing quality and understanding of IMRAD conventions. These variations are recommended to be further explored in order to enhance the comprehension of students’ communication skills, thereby improving their writing quality in the academic landscape. Additionally, this research stresses the importance of exploring the impact of explicit instruction on student writing quality and understanding of IMRAD conventions.
Keywords: academic discourse, Biology, disciplinary norms, IMRAD model, laboratory reports, variations.
References
Bhatia, V. K. (2004). Worlds of written discourse: A genre-based view. A&C Black.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77.
Carter, M., Ferzli, M., & Wiebe, E. N. (2007). Writing to Learn by Learning to Write in the Disciplines. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 21(3), 278–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651907300466
Council, N. R. (2009). A new biology for the 21st century. National Academies Press.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
El–Serag, H. B. (2012). Writing and publishing scientific papers. Gastroenterology, 142(2), 197–200.
Gardner, S., & Nesi, H. (2013). A classification of genre families in university student writing. Applied Linguistics, 34(1), 25–52.
Gilbert, N., & Stoneman, P. (2015). Researching social life. Sage.
Hanauer, D. I., & Englander, K. (2011). Quantifying the Burden of Writing Research Articles in a Second Language: Data From Mexican Scientists. Written Communication, 28(4), 403–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088311420056
Hinkel, E. (2003). Teaching academic ESL writing: Practical techniques in vocabulary and grammar. Routledge.
Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27(1), 4–21.
Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse: English in a global context. A&C Black.
Kalaskas, A. B. (2013). Science lab report writing in postsecondary education: Mediating teaching and learning strategies between students and instructors [PhD Thesis]. George Mason University.
Kumar, P. (2023). Improving IMRaD for writing research articles in social, and health sciences. International Research Journal of Economics and Management Studies IRJEMS, 2(1). https://irjems.org/irjems-v2i1p107.html
Li, Z., Makarova, V., & Wang, Z. (2023). Developing literature review writing and citation practices through an online writing tutorial series: Corpus-based evidence. Frontiers in Communication, 8, 1035394.
Lu, C., Bu, Y., Wang, J., Ding, Y., Torvik, V., Schnaars, M., & Zhang, C. (2019). Examining scientific writing styles from the perspective of linguistic complexity. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 70(5), 462–475. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24126
McMillan, V. (2012). Writing papers in the biological sciences. Macmillan.
Milard, B., & Tanguy, L. (2018). Citations in Scientific Texts: Do Social Relations Matter? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69(11), 1380–1395. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24061
Moskovitz, C., Harmon, B., & Saha, S. (2023). The Structure of Scientific Writing: An Empirical Analysis of Recent Research Articles in STEM. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 004728162311718. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472816231171851
Mosquera, E. M., & Quevedo-Hidalgo, B. (2020). Scientific writing within the framework of a microbiology laboratory. Signo y Pensamiento, 39(76).
Nair, P. R., & Nair, V. D. (2014). Scientific writing and communication in agriculture and natural resources. Springer Science & Business Media.
Pangesti, A., Ulfah, B., & Hartono, R. (2023). Investigating the Implementation of IMRaD Structure in Abstracts of Undergraduate Students’ Theses. Pedagogy: Journal of English Language Teaching, 11(2), 109–123.
Parkinson, J. (2013). English for Science and Technology. In Paltridge B. and Starfi eld S. (Eds) The Handbook of English for Specifi c Purposes (pp. 155–174). Wiley-Blackwell.
Parkinson, J. (2017). The student laboratory report genre: A genre analysis. English for Specific Purposes, 45, 1–13.
Parkinson, J. (2019). Use of personal pronouns in science laboratory reports. In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Science (pp. 150–163). Routledge.
Pechenik, J. A. (1993). A short guide to writing about biology. HarperCollins College Publishers.
Penrose, A. M., & Katz, S. B. (2004). Writing in the sciences. New York, NY: Pearson Longman.
Popova, N., Moiseenko, Y., & Beavitt, T. (2017). Conformity in modern science: An engine of societal transformation? Changing Societies & Personalities. 2017. Vol. 1. Iss. 3, 237–258.
Schimel, J. (2012). Writing science: How to write papers that get cited and proposals that get funded. OUP USA.
Sollaci, L. B., & Pereira, M. G. (2004). The introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD) structure: A fifty-year survey. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 92(3), 364.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students. University of Michigan Press Ann Arbor.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (Vol. 1). University of Michigan Press Ann Arbor, MI.
Vieira, R. F., Lima, R. C. de, & Mizubuti, E. S. G. (2019). How to write the discussion section of a scientific article. Acta Scientiarum. Agronomy, 41.
Wang, C. H., Harrison, J., Cardullo, V., & Xi, L. (2017). Exploring the relationship among international students’ English self-efficacy, using English to learn self-efficacy, and academic self-efficacy. Journal of International Students, 8(1), 233–250.
Yang, W., Li, Y., & Li, H. (2021). Supervisor as coauthor in writing for publication: Evidence from a cohort of non-native English-speaking Master of Education students. SN Social Sciences, 1(2), 44.
Zhao, J. C., & Mawhinney, T. (2015). Comparison of native Chinese-speaking and native English-speaking engineering students’ information literacy challenges. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(6), 712–724.
