Online Submission

Structured Abstract Guidelines and Sample

Submitting Your Material to ERIC

Material submitted to ERIC must include an abstract written in English.
Clarity, brevity, and accuracy are key to writing abstracts of maximum value to ERIC users. Please write your abstract using our suggestions for structure and style.

An increasingly popular form of abstract is the structured abstract. This format includes the names of the elements of the abstract and separates them, allowing readers to rapidly locate specific information. ERIC has developed a structured abstract initiative to adapt a model for indexing education-related research. This initiative is incorporated in ERIC's online submission system (beta). ERIC will use data provided in the structured abstract form to refine and test this feature. Until the structured abstract feature is finalized, materials so submitted will appear in ERIC with a narrative abstract.

Structured Abstract Elements
Some elements are optional in ERIC structured abstracts; required elements are marked with an asterisk (*). For additional descriptions and examples, select the element name. To see the template, download our flyer, Sample Structured Abstract Input Template. You may also download our flyer, Descriptions of Structured Abstract Elements.

Background*: Context of the study or the problem it addresses
Purpose*: What the research focused on and/or why
Research Design*: (Select one or more terms from the provided list)
Setting: Place and time the study was conducted
Study Sample: Number of sample members and information on relevant demographic variables (e.g., age, education level, race, gender, achievement, program participation). Include both control and experimental groups in this field if appropriate
Intervention: Description of the intervention implemented and how (if applicable) it differed from what the control/comparison group received (optional)
Control or Comparison Condition: What, if anything, control group received or participated in while the other group(s) received or participated in intervention(s) (not applicable to all designs)
Data Collection and Analysis: How and when outcomes were measured, including any instruments employed, and the statistical methods used to analyze data
Findings*: Study results; estimates of intervention's effects on measurable outcomes for the study sample and for subgroups
Conclusions*: Recommendations of author(s) based on findings and overall study
Citation*: The reference to be used when referring to the research

Writing Style

Use specific words, phrases, concepts, and keywords from your paper
Use precise, clear, descriptive language
Write from an objective, rather than evaluative point of view
Define unique terms and acronyms the first time used
Use complete sentences [Exceptions: purpose, setting, study sample, and citation]
Write in the third person; do not use I or we
Use verbs in the active voice

Slides and Power Point Presentations
The complete manuscript of your material must be submitted to ERIC. Slides in the form of Power Point presentations or Excel spreadsheets will be included only as an appendix to the complete text of your paper.

Sample Structured Abstract
Background: The Even Start Family Literacy Program has provided instructional services to low-income children and their parents since 1989. A previous randomized controlled trial in the early 1990s did not show this program to have positive impacts.

Purpose: To assess the effectiveness of Even Start in a group of grantees around the country. An earlier report from this study presented impact findings based on pretest and posttest data at the start and end of a school year. No program impacts were found. The purpose of the current report is to present impact analyses of follow-up data collected one year after posttest data.

Research Design: Experimental

Setting: 18 Even Start grantees in 14 states that operated in the 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 school years

Study Sample: 463 families eligible for and interested in participating in Even Start family literacy services; 309 families randomly assigned to Even Start; 154 families randomly assigned to control group

Intervention: Even Start families were offered family literacy services, defined as (1) interactive parent-child literacy activities, (2) parenting education, (3) adult education, and (4) early childhood education.

Control or Comparison Condition: Control families could participate in any educational and social services to which they were entitled, but they were not allowed to participate in Even Start for one year.

Data Collection and Analysis: Pretest data on child and adult literacy skills were collected in the fall, posttest data were collected in the spring/summer, and follow-up data were collected the next spring. Measures included direct assessment of children (Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Woodcock-Johnson Battery, Story & Print Concepts), direct assessment of parents (Woodcock-Johnson Battery), teacher reports on children (Social Skills Rating System), parent reports on economic and educational status, child literacy-related skills, and home literacy environment and activities, parent assessment of children (Vineland Communication Domain), and school records. A longitudinal sample (data at all three waves) of children and parents was created for each outcome measure, and t-tests were conducted to assess differences in gains between Even Start and control groups.

Findings: As was the case at posttest, Even Start children and parents made gains on a variety of literacy assessments and other measures at follow-up, but they did not gain more than children and parents in the control group. It had been hypothesized that follow-up data might show positive effects because (1) Even Start families had the opportunity to participate for a second school year, and (2) change in some outcomes might require more time than others. However, the follow-up data do not support either of these hypotheses.

Conclusions: The fundamental hypothesis underlying the family literacy model -- that the presence and integration of four instructional components will enhance literacy outcomes for children - was not supported by this study. Information from case studies of the 18 Even Start projects indicates that the quality of classroom instruction could be improved.

Citation: Ricciuti, A.E., R.G. St.Pierre, W. Lee, A. Parsad & T. Rimdzius. "Third National Even Start Evaluation: Follow-Up Findings from the Experimental Design Study". U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Washington, D.C., 2004.