EXAMPLE 3: CONVERTING A POPULAR SCIENCE ARTICLE TO AN ABSTRACT
The students who completed this task were 2nd year mechanical engineering students.

STUDENT REPLY 1: Instructor's comments

 

Overall, the student’s abstract is appropriate in terms of some understanding of academic discourse conventions, language accuracy and summarising (for more details, see part of 3, 6 and 7 below). However, her/his attempt at converting a popular science article to the abstract of a research paper is inappropriate with regard to relevance of content, understanding the IMRD structure and providing an appropriate research title.

 

More specifically:

 

1. The student does not seem to understand the difference between summarising the main points from a given source and using the same information to compose a research abstract. S/he has followed to a large extent the structure of the original popular science article without choosing appropriate information relating to the IMRAD structure. In particular, almost half of the article contains introductory information (e.g. “silicon is one of the most essential substances used by humans ... For decades, ... cubic form”) that would be relevant and interesting in the Introduction section of a research paper but not in the abstract, where the main objective is to inform the reader of new information relating to the research at hand. Moreover, information about the methods and the results of the research is vague (e.g. “... could fully understand its nature). Finally, expressions that are typically used in abstract to signpost reference to specific sections of the IMRAD structure, such as “we investigate” or “we show” are completely missing from the student’s text. On the other hand, the implications of the current research are clearly and adequately referred to in the last sentence.

2. The student has not fully understood the task. Although it was plainly explained that citations are not used in abstracts and that the abstract should have been composed from the point of view of the researchers, s/he composed a text that summarised the original making reference to the researchers (rather than writing from their point of view). This is another main reason why the student’s text does not constitute an appropriate abstract.

3. With reference to language accuracy, the student seems to understand the conventions of academic writing to a certain extent in that s/he has used some examples of formal language (e.g. “a new method of synthesizing”, “could be processed”). However, s/he still makes widespread use of sensational language that is typical in the popular genre (e.g. “revealed”, perform spotlessly”, “endow it with great electronic properties”, “surpass”, “open the door for”).

4. The student has relatively inadequate understanding of what constitutes appropriate paraphrasing in that there are cases where the paraphrased sentence is essentially identical to the original. For instance, compare the original clause “...allows the preservation of highly oriented product crystals” and the student’s paraphrase “…preserve highly oriented product crystals” where the only difference concerns a change of word class (the noun “preservation” to the verb “preserves”). Another example is the following sentence from the original “…a new method for synthesizing a novel crystalline form of silicon with a hexagonal structure...” and the student’s summary “...a new method of synthesizing a novel crystalline form of silicon with a hexagonal structure” where the verbatim use of the original is obvious.

5. On the other hand, the student shows some good understanding of summarising skills, which may be seen in the following example.

• Original sentences: “In this new work, Shiell and Strobel led a team that used Si24 as the starting point in a multi-stage synthesis pathway that resulted in highly oriented crystals in a form called 4H-silicon, named for its four repeating layers in a hexagonal structure. ‘Interest in hexagonal silicon dates back to the 1960s, because of the possibility of tunable electronic properties, which could enhance performance beyond the cubic form’ Strobel explained.”

• Student’s summary: “It has four layers of hexagonal structure which endow it with great electronic properties which surpass those of the cubic form”.

• The student has written a good, succinct summary of the original, where, however, some popular language is used (see 3 above).

 

     6. It must be noted that the text is easy to follow without grammatical or syntactic errors. Discourse markers    

         are also appropriately used and the flow of the text is smooth.

​

     7. Finally, the student has not provided an appropriate research title. Research titles are descriptive of the    

         research and, in this case, only a popular title has been provided with obvious popular elements (e.g.

         “pathway to the future”) that do not inform the reader of the research objective.

​

Return to student replies