| Results section
| Structure
|
| This study evaluated the effects of time limits and television exposure on reading comprehension.
Effects of Time Limits
Participants who read the text without a time limit comprehended more (M = 5.1, SD = 1.91) than participants who read with a time limit (M = 3.3, SD = 1.70). This effect was very statistically significant, F (1, 36) = 9.592, p <.004. Participants with no time limits answered, on average, 55% more of the multiple-choice questions correctly.
Effects of Television Exposure
Participants who read the text with television exposure comprehended more (M = 6.5, SD = 1.65) than participants who read without television exposure (M = 5.1, SD = 1.91). The effect was statistically significant, F (1, 36) = 5.803, p <.021. This result was not the expected outcome.
A separate analysis with Television Exposure and Age as factors confirmed that the effect of television exposure was not due to age, F (1, 36) <1.
A separate analysis with Television Exposure and Gender as factors confirmed that the effect of television exposure was not due to gender, F (1, 36) <1.
Interaction of Television Exposure and Time Limits
The interaction of time limits and television exposure was not significant, F (1, 34) < 1, for the current data set. The difference between no television and television for the no time limit group was the same for the time limit group. The highest average was for the condition with television exposure and no time limits (M = 6.5, SD = 1.65). The lowest average was for the condition of time limitations and no television exposure (M = 3.3, SD = 1.70). Time limitations may have influenced all conditions equally.
| < Introduction
< Descriptive statistics
< Significance test
< Additional information
< ……
< Significance test
< ……
< Additional analyses
< ……
< Additional information
<……
|
Table 1
Mean (and standard deviation) Number Correct Answers as a Function of Time Limits and Presence or Absence of Television (N = 40)
|
Television Exposure
| Time Limits
| | Without Time Limit
| With Time Limit
| | Without Television
| 6.30 (2.1)
| 5.20 (1.4)
| | With Television
| 7.80 (1.2)
| 6.80 (1.8)
|
Figure 1
Mean Number Correct Answers as a Function of Time Limits and Presence or Absence of Television (N = 40)
|
1) Is it a good idea to use subheadings like these? Why?
2) Why is descriptive statistics used?
3) What is the purpose of using statistical tests?
4) Does the text draw reader’s attention to the important things that are in the tables or graphs? What words and phrases are used?
5) When should you use graphs and when tables?
6) Are the results described from most general to most specific? Is it common in the result section?
C) It is often said that all evaluation and commentary should be left until the discussion section, however some scientists in particular spheres of science don’t postpone critical comments until the final section. Carefully study results sections from at least five articles in your field of science. And do the following tasks:
1) Consider which of the following types are the passages most like:
a) The section gives only description of the author’s results, no commentary (or just very few obvious highlighting statements) is included.
b) The section presents straightforward description of author’s findings, but includes a few minor uses of commentary.
c) The section consists of both description of the author’s results and commentary.
d) The section includes a lot of commentary, may almost be taken for a discussion section.
2) What types of commentary is given in result sections, if there are any:
a) justifying the methodology
b) interpreting the results
c) citing agreement with previous studies
d) commenting on the data
e) admitting difficulties in interpretation
f) pointing out discrepancies
g) calling for further research
