This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
— |
public:t-701-rem4:imrad [2007/10/08 00:42] (current) helgi created |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | <code Latex> | ||
+ | \documentclass{article} | ||
+ | % \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} | ||
+ | % \usepackage{graphicx} | ||
+ | \title{A Framework for assignments and reports: IMRaD} | ||
+ | \author{Helgi Thorsson} | ||
+ | \date{} | ||
+ | |||
+ | \begin{document} | ||
+ | \maketitle | ||
+ | |||
+ | % \tableofcontents | ||
+ | % \listoffigures | ||
+ | % \listoftables | ||
+ | |||
+ | \begin{abstract} | ||
+ | This article describes the IMRaD model for layout of assignments | ||
+ | and reports. | ||
+ | The model has four logical sections, | ||
+ | Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion (hence the acronym IMRaD). | ||
+ | Actual chapters may reflect these sections, | ||
+ | but sometimes it is practical to join sections | ||
+ | or break up a single one. | ||
+ | |||
+ | \end{abstract} | ||
+ | |||
+ | \section{Introduction} | ||
+ | This report is intended to present a well-known general model | ||
+ | for writing solutions to assignments and other topics | ||
+ | with a simple structure. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The model is taken from Chapter 12 in the book | ||
+ | Technical Report Writing Today by Riordan and Pauley. | ||
+ | While they call the model IMRD, the acronym IMRaD is often used | ||
+ | since it can be pronounced as a normal word. | ||
+ | Chapters 1-11 of the book deal with style, | ||
+ | the relationship of the writer to the reader | ||
+ | and other general subjects that add to and deepen understanding | ||
+ | of the concepts of chapter 12. | ||
+ | Nevertheless, the chapter 12 may be read alone. | ||
+ | Later chapters deal with other types of writing that | ||
+ | are outside the scope of this article. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The focus here is on reports, with additional descriptions of | ||
+ | particularities for assignment solutions. | ||
+ | |||
+ | \section{Method} | ||
+ | |||
+ | An IMRaD report contains four main sections which are: | ||
+ | \begin{enumerate} | ||
+ | \item Introduction | ||
+ | \item Methods | ||
+ | \item Results | ||
+ | \item Discussion and conclusions | ||
+ | \end{enumerate} | ||
+ | |||
+ | The \emph{Introduction} | ||
+ | descibes the background of the work and puts it in context. | ||
+ | If the report only deals with a part of a larger project, | ||
+ | its relationship to the overall work should be described. | ||
+ | The introduction should describe the status before the study | ||
+ | and mention former studies when it helps setting focus | ||
+ | for the subject of the report. | ||
+ | Former studies should not be described unless | ||
+ | the report is an overview of either the history | ||
+ | or the current status. | ||
+ | The introduction should end in a research | ||
+ | question to be answered by the report. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The \emph{Methods} | ||
+ | section describes the procedure used to answer the research question. | ||
+ | The description must be thorough enough for the reader to judge its | ||
+ | correctness and how complete it is. | ||
+ | A common requirement is that the description is detailed enough | ||
+ | for the reader to be able to repeat the experiment. | ||
+ | Then details may belong in an appendix rather than in the report itself. | ||
+ | If the choice of method needs to be justified, it should be done here. | ||
+ | If another method was tried but revealed itself unsatisfactory, | ||
+ | it may be mentioned, but normally the history of the work is not detailed. | ||
+ | Results do not belong here but in the next section. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The \emph{Results} | ||
+ | section just shows the results of the method described in the Methods section. | ||
+ | Summary statistics, figures and tables should be used | ||
+ | when convenient for the sections purpose. | ||
+ | Details such as listing of individual measurements | ||
+ | should most often be omitted or put in an appendix. | ||
+ | While this section should contain the explanations necessary | ||
+ | for it to be understandable, interpretations and deductions | ||
+ | are to be kept for the Discussions section. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The \emph{Discussion} | ||
+ | answers the research question and indicates how successful the work was. | ||
+ | Conclusions drawn from the results are presented and the significance | ||
+ | of the work (for the author or others) explained as needed. | ||
+ | The discussion should also include further questions that | ||
+ | got raised during the work, eventual continuation and | ||
+ | possible improvements to the method. | ||
+ | |||
+ | \subsection{Division into chapters} | ||
+ | |||
+ | The IMRaD model can often be reflected directly by the separate chapters of the report. | ||
+ | Sometimes, some sections are too small to merit a separate chapter, | ||
+ | for example a detailed assignment may not need a separate introduction | ||
+ | (for example hand in a solution of exercise 60 in chapter 3). | ||
+ | Also, some sections might need to be further broken down. | ||
+ | It might be better to put them into separate chapters rather | ||
+ | than use sub-chapters uniquely to stick to the IMRaD model. | ||
+ | |||
+ | \section{Other sections} | ||
+ | |||
+ | The four main sections may need to be completed by four more sections: | ||
+ | abstract, thanks, references and appendices. | ||
+ | |||
+ | An \emph{Abstract} or a \emph{Summary} | ||
+ | is needed when the report is long, | ||
+ | in particular if reading it is not mandatory for the receivers. | ||
+ | The abstract should be short, of the order of magnitude 100 words. | ||
+ | The abstract may not say anything not stated in the report itself, | ||
+ | it is not a conclusions chapter. | ||
+ | |||
+ | \emph{Thanks} | ||
+ | may be a separate chapter. | ||
+ | It should mention those that are close to being authors | ||
+ | without being responsible for the report's contents, | ||
+ | for example those delivering the data, | ||
+ | treating it, people putting forward important ideas in conversations with the author | ||
+ | as well as referrees and maybe readers of manuscripts. | ||
+ | |||
+ | \emph{References} | ||
+ | must be listed if more are used than mentioned in the title | ||
+ | and the textbooks of the course where the report is submitted. | ||
+ | All sources referred to in the text should be listed and no others. | ||
+ | If any standard is explicitly fixed in the course for the form of references in text | ||
+ | and the layout of the list of references, it should be adhered to. | ||
+ | Otherwise a general standard like API (American Psychological Institute) | ||
+ | should be followed. | ||
+ | |||
+ | \emph{Appendices} | ||
+ | may be used for material logically belonging to the report, | ||
+ | but too bulky to be part of the main text. | ||
+ | While an exact description of the conduct of an experiment (for example sampling method) | ||
+ | and detailed results are often necessary for the experiment to be replicated, | ||
+ | that material might make up a disproportionate part of the report | ||
+ | and merit an appendix or two. | ||
+ | In that case, these aspects should be summarized in the main text, | ||
+ | eventually through tables, summary statistics and figures. | ||
+ | |||
+ | \end{document} | ||
+ | |||
+ | </code> |