Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

(21.1). Suggestions on writing the report by the AERA.

Journal Article 1: AERA (2004). Statements of purpose for AERA journals. Educational Researcher, 32, 42–53.

No Abstract.

(21.2).

Journal Article 2: Greenberg, K. P. (2012). A reliable and valid weighted scoring instrument for use in grading APA-style empirical research report. Teaching of Psychology, 39, 17–23.

Abstract: The scoring instrument described in this article is based on a deconstruction of the seven sections of an American Psychological Association (APA)-style empirical research report into a set of learning outcomes divided into content-, expression-, and form at related categories. A double-weighting scheme used to score the report yields a final grade that reflects the relative importance of outcomes in each category and the differential contribution of each section of the report to the report as a whole. The scores produced by the instrument are reliable between and within raters and significantly correlated with students’ cumulative grade point averages. The author hopes the instrument can provide a useful framework for scoring any set of learning outcomes an instructor defines as the essential elements of an APA-style research report.

(21.3).

Journal Article 3: Zientek, L. R., Capraro, M. M., & Capraro, R. M. (2016). Reporting practices in quantitative teacher education research: One look at the evidence cited in the AERA panel report. Educational Researcher, 37, 208–216.

Abstract: The authors of this article examine the analytic and reporting features of research articles cited in Studying Teacher Education: The Report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education (Cochran Smith & Zeichner, 2005b) that used quantitative reporting practices. Their purpose was to help to identify reporting practices that can be improved to further the creation of the best possible evidence base for teacher education. Their findings indicate that many study reports lack (a) effect sizes, (b) confidence intervals, and (c) reliability and validity coefficients. One possible solution is for journal editors to emphasize clearly the expectations established in Standards for Reporting on Empirical Social Science Research in AERA Publications (AERA, 2006).

(21.4).

Journal Article 4: Sandelowski, M., & Leeman, J. (2012). Writing usable qualitative health research findings. Qualitative Health Research, 22, 1404–1413.

Abstract: Scholars in diverse health-related disciplines and specialty fields of practice routinely promote qualitative research as an essential component of intervention and implementation programs of research and of a comprehensive evidence base for practice. Remarkably little attention, however, has been paid to the most important element of qualitative studies—the findings in reports of those studies—and specifically to enhancing the accessibility and utilization value of these findings for diverse audiences of users. The findings in reports of qualitative health research are too often difficult to understand and even to find owing to the way they are presented. A basic strategy for enhancing the presentation of these findings is to translate them into thematic statements, which can then in turn be translated into the language of intervention and implementation. Writers of qualitative health research reports might consider these strategies better to showcase the significance and actionability of findings to a wider audience.

(21.5).

Journal Article 5: Wolcott, H. F. (2002). Writing up qualitative research… better. Qualitative Health Research, 12, 91–103.

Abstract: The author presents his views for breaking from the traditional order (“Chapter Two” in many studies) and segregation of topics—literature review, theory, and method—in favor of integrating these components into a report only as needed. He urges researchers to consider alternative ways of satisfying the intent of a literature review. He questions whether traditional requirements result in theories being forced or presented prematurely, and raises the possibility of presenting multiple or cumulative theories toward the study’s end. He notes that qualitative research is based on participant observation and the resulting insights and wonders whether an emphasis on methodology detracts from our studies. Engaging writing can result when writers are free to break with tradition and present their findings in discovery-oriented ways.

(21.6). This is a nice article about writing mixed research.

Journal Article 6: Leech, N. L. (2012). Writing mixed research reports. American Behavioral Scientist, 56, 866–881.

Abstract: For many researchers, writing the research report is among the most difficult steps. When writing about a mixed methods research study, researchers have had little guidance for how to structure the manuscript. Thus, the purpose of this article is to present multiple approaches to reporting information from a mixed research study. Recommendations for mixed research writing from the extant literature are delineated, and 12 themes that were identified across these texts are presented. The multitude of approaches and organizational possibilities for the mixed research report are explored. Emphasis is placed on allowing the researcher to be creative in her or his presentation of a mixed methods research report.

(21.7).

Journal Article 7: Marshall, J. (2004). Living systemic thinking: Exploring quality in first-person action research. Action Research, 2, 305–325.

Abstract: In this article I explore how ideas of systemic thinking, drawn from the work of Gregory Bateson and others, influence my practice of first-person action research. I track a story of inquiry through several phases, including gaining feedback from others about my behaviour. I identify quality issues in first-person action research, also called self reflective inquiry, as I proceed.

(21.8).

Journal Article 8: Sommer, R. (2009). Dissemination in action research, Action Research, 7, 227–236.

Abstract: Lewin proposed three goals for action research: to advance knowledge; to improve a concrete situation; and to improve behavioral science methodology. The three objectives cannot be met by a single mode of dissemination. Innovative dissemination strategies will be necessary. Action researchers should publish substantive articles in technical journals to reach colleagues; applied articles in periodicals read by practitioners and the public; and methodological and reflective articles in associational and professional journals designed to improve the practice of action research.