Checklist of items to include in your Abstract:

• motivation,
• problem statement,
• approach,
• results, and
• conclusions.

Following this checklist should increase the chance of people taking the time to obtain and read your complete paper. 

• Motivation:

  Why do we care about the problem and the results? If the problem isn't obviously "interesting" it might be better to put motivation first; but if your work is incremental progress on a problem that is widely recognized as important, then it is probably better to put the problem statement first to indicate which piece of the larger problem you are breaking off to work on. This section should include the importance of your work, the difficulty of the area, and the impact it might have if successful.

• Problem statement:

  What problem are you trying to solve? What is the scope of your work (a generalized approach, or for a specific situation)? Be careful not to use too much jargon. In some cases it is appropriate to put the problem statement before the motivation, but usually this only works if most readers already understand why the problem is important.

• Approach:

  How did you go about solving or making progress on the problem? Did you use simulation, analytic models, prototype construction, or analysis of field data for an actual product? What was the extent of your work (did you look at one application program or a hundred programs in twenty different programming languages?) What important variables did you control, ignore, or measure?

• Results:

  What's the answer? Specifically, most good computer architecture papers conclude that something is so many percent faster, cheaper, smaller, or otherwise better than something else. Put the result there, in numbers. Avoid vague, hand-waving results such as "very", "small", or "significant." If you must be vague, you are only given license to do so when you can talk about orders-of-magnitude improvement. There is a tension here in that you should not provide numbers that can be easily misinterpreted, but on the other hand you don't have room for all the caveats.

• Conclusions:

  What are the implications of your answer? Is it going to change the world (unlikely), be a significant "win", be a nice hack, or simply serve as a road sign indicating that this path is a waste of time (all of the previous results are useful). Are your results general, potentially generalizable, or specific to a particular case?

Source: http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/essays/abstract.html

PRACTICE ACTIVITY

Look at the abstract below and identify the parts of the abstract  using the checklist above.

The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning

RICHARD W. SCHMIDT

The University of Hawaii at Manoa

This paper summarizes recent psychological research and theory on the topic of consciousness and looks at three questions in second language learning related to the role of consciousness in input processing: whether conscious awareness at the level of 'noticing' is necessary for language learning (the subliminal learning issue); whether it is necessary to consciously 'pay attention' in order to learn (the incidental learning issue); and whether learner hypotheses based on input are the result of conscious insight and understanding or an unconscious process of abstraction (the implicit learning issue). I conclude that subliminal language learning is impossible, and that noticing is the necessary and sufficient condition for converting input to intake. Incidental learning, on the other hand, is clearly both possible and effective when the demands of a task focus attention on what is to be learned. Even so, paying attention is probably facilitative, and may be necessary if adult learners are to acquire redundant grammatical features. The implicit learning issue is the most difficult to resolve. There is evidence for it, as well as for a facilitative effect for conscious understanding, but accounting for implicit learning may entail abandonment of the notion of unconscious 'rules'of the type usually assumed in applied linguistics.

Source: http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/11/2/129

Look at other sample abstracts

http://ltr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/5/3/189

http://rel.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/28/1/89

http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/content/vol29/issue2/index.dtl 

Abstract_Conclusion