前文谈了如何引用文献，引起了一些讨论，这很正常也很必要。本文想再谈谈引言的写作，因为我以前在科学网已经发表过类似的博文，但是感觉那篇博文太过于简单，因此再花点时间来叙说一下。

那么怎么写引言（Introduction）？简而言之，引言应该回答“为什么”的问题，为什么选择该主题进行研究；为什么？为什么重要？为什么您采用特定的研究方法；等等。您也可以将“引言”视为指出本文其余部分将填补的知识空白的部分，或者是您在广阔的研究领域中定义和主张自己的领地的部分。

引言的另一项工作是提供一些背景信息并设置上下文。您可以通过描述您考虑的研究问题或提出的研究问题来做到这一点（在本文的主体中，您将提供问题的解决方案或问题的答案）并简要回顾任何过去已经尝试过的其他解决方案或方法，以及这些方案对学术文献的贡献（切记太简单，比如，有些作者说某某和某某对图书馆数字化做了研究【XXX， 2011，XXX， 2012】，一句话就完了。这等于没说，要稍微展开一下，他们的主要贡献是啥，和本研究有啥关联，或对本研究有啥启发？）

英文期刊的论文通常都有一个单独的章节，名为“文学评论“（literature review），或”相关研究“（related works）， 这在英文期刊中几乎已成规定的内容，但某些研究论文没有这样的章节；那么在简介中就要包含这样的简短的评论。

给出了背景并设置了上下文后，引言的最后一部分应该指定论文中描述的实验或研究分析的目标。引言的最后部分应包括具体细节或确切的稍后在本文中予以回答问题或假设。

这里要再谈一下引言写作技巧。前文讲到引言叙说要客观有逻辑（所谓客观，就是要引用现有研究成果来组织叙说，最好每句话都有出处，有已经得到验证的学术理论支持，而不是自己在那里主观叙说，见本文所附实例），倒三角叙说从大的主题范围(general background and broad topic）逐步缩小到你的主题（specific background and topic）, 相关研究回顾和目前的知识差距（related works and their contributions to the literature, knowledge gap），最终引出自己要研究的问题(research question(s))或假设(hypothesis or hypotheses)以及本文将如何展示这个研究结果。

用一句话总结就是：引言将读者从一般主题领域引向特定的研究主题。通过总结当前对该主题的理解和背景信息，确定研究的范围，背景和意义，以假设或一组问题支持的研究问题的形式陈述工作的目的，并简要说明用来研究研究问题的方法论方法，突出显示您的研究可以揭示的潜在结果，并概述论文的其余结构和组织。

引言写作非常重要，某些学者把引言称作文章最重要的部分之一，但往往被某些作者特别是刚步入研究行列的作者忽视，有些作者的引言就寥寥两三段文字，而且以主观叙说为主，以图情领域为例，我审稿遇到的引言往往是作者从某个大的领域开始（这很好）比如大学图书馆数字化，喜欢引用国家出台了啥啥政策某某协会（喜欢大的，如国际图联，美国图书馆学会）颁布了大纲指南（这不好，这不是学术的东西，政策和指南是面向公众的），然后就国外怎么做的，他们很有经验，然后就是分析某个大学喜欢举例世界名校比如哈佛，然后就会就说对我国很有启发（往往是对他们的网站进行分析，而没有关于哈佛数字化的文献回顾）。这几个部分有必然的逻辑联系吗？政策法规和指南和本文研究的主题关系是啥没讲清楚，似乎暗示国家已经颁布法规，行业协会有指南了，就一定和本文研究的主题有关。哈佛的做法一定就对我国有启示？逻辑关系是啥？这样的写法和思路还停留在改革开放阶段，那时候觉得国外的一定好，一定适合我们借鉴。这种逻辑在学术上是讲不通的。哈佛的做法一定适用于国内大学吗？特别是非985大学甚至职业技术大学（如果作者来自职业技术大学）？没有理论和已有研究来佐证这样的逻辑。有些作者虽然简单引用某某在图书馆数字化方面做了研究，但几乎是一句话带过，这样的叙说给人一种主观拼凑的感觉。

啥叫客观叙说，举个例子，作者从”图书馆数字技术”（digital technology）这个大的主题的应用开始介绍（注意引用事实和文献），图书馆数字技术应用的领域有哪些（注意引用事实和文献），缩小范围到“数字学术”（digital scholarship，主要研究和文献贡献有哪些），然后缩小范围到“研究数据管理”（research data management）较小的主题（主要研究贡献和文献，有哪些差距gaps），然后引出本文的研究主题或假设（范围更小，比如研究数据管理对我校图书馆的服务（research data service），假定目前来说对我校是空白或处于初始阶段，现状如何？可以从哪些方面开始，期望解决怎样的问题？比如研究问题是能不能把已经建立的机构库用作开放数据保存和管理供其他研究人员重复使用(research question)？或已经这么做了，做个假设(hypothesis)，假设效果很好，那么搞个研究方法比如做问卷调查和采访(research methods)，做个实施后评估post-implementation assessment，看看效果如何支持假设吗）。这样写至少看起来像学术文献。至于那些国家颁布的政策，行业指南，我的个人呢看法没有必要引用（往往太笼统general）。

不当之处，欢迎批评指正。

附件1： 关于引言倒三角写作，可以参考Harvard和MIT的写作实验室https://mitcommlab.mit.edu/broad/commkit/journal-article-introduction/

每个学科的写作要求也不完全相同，有兴趣的读者可以参看普渡大学写作实验室的写作指南

https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/purdue_owl.html

附件2： 给个例子，这篇稿子我是审稿人之一。发表在欧洲《高等教育中的高科技》（SSCI期刊），题目是“Using Hypervideo to support undergraduate students’ reflection on work practices: a qualitative study”，https://educationaltechnologyjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41239-019-0156-z

作者在这个领域比较多产，可以看见有功底的作者是怎么写引言introduction的，这篇引言比较长，分几个部分，但写的非常好：

Introduction

先作背景介绍，注意使用已经发表的文献组织叙说。

Since the turn of the century, the world economy has constantly been in flux because of globalization and the rapid evolution of technology. In order to meet emerging challenges, policymakers have consistently tried to innovate their respective educational systems in order to effectively face and keep up with the demands of the labor market (Paplova, 2009). For example, the European Union (EU) introduced the Lifelong Learning program in 2006, establishing a common framework of key competencies that member States had to aspire to in order to try and close the gap between educational and work contexts (European Council, 2006). Despite the educational reforms led by this intervention, the issue is still open. Indeed, the EU recently proposed a renewal effort to address this gap through a new set of recommendations on key competencies for Lifelong Learning (European Commission, 2018). The need to connect educational and work contexts is not new in the field of educational research. A long tradition exists to study how such contexts can interact each other (e.g. Ludvigsen, Lund, Rasmussen, & Säljö, 2011; Stenström & Tynjälä, 2009; Tuomi-Gröhn & Engeström, 2003). Several pedagogical models similarly emphasize the need of a stronger articulation among learning locations and propose ways to realize it: we cite here the expansive learning model (Fuller & Unwin, 2003), the connective model (Griffiths & Guile, 2003; Guile & Griffiths, 2001), the integrative pedadogics model (Tynjälä, 2005, 2008, 2009), and the hybrid curriculum model (Zitter, Hoeve, & de Bruijn, 2016). The same perspective is also assumed when studying the knowledge inherent in teachers’ work experience in order to make it available for in-training teachers (Tacconi, 2011; Tacconi & Gomez, 2010; Tacconi & Hunde, 2017; Mortari, 2010).

Advocated across these methods, two theoretical concepts that have a central role in describing potential ways for closing the gap between different learning contexts are boundary crossing, and boundary objects. The concept of “boundary crossing”, introduced by Suchman (1994) and refined by Engeström, Engeström, and Kärkkäinen (1995), denotes how an expert worker or a practitioner may need to combine and negotiate elements belonging to different contexts (e.g. routinely workplace, past learning situations, etc.) when s/he needs to challenge new and/or unfamiliar hybrid situations. An unfamiliar hybrid situation occurs when the characteristic conditions of different contexts occur at the same time with novel combinations. The concept of boundary crossing bases on that of boundary objects (Star & Griesemer, 1989). “Boundary objects […] both inhabit [these] intersecting social worlds […] and satisfy the informational requirements of each of them […] maintainin[ing] a common identity across the sites” (p. 393). The results of a literature review drafted by Akkerman & Bakker, 2011, through which they examined 181 papers to better understand the learning potential of boundaries, reveals reflection to be one of the four potential dialogical learning mechanisms taking place at the boundaries, together with identification, coordination and transformation. In particular, reflection “is about expanding one’s perspectives on the practices” (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011, p. 150).

Reflection, technologies and the Efrahrraum model

文章中使用的理论和模型，注意引用。

The relevance of reflection for better articulating the distances between different learning contexts has been enhanced also by more recent studies, which are not included in the review cited above (e.g. Perini, 2017; Bronkhorst & Akkerman, 2016; Schwendimann et al., 2015). According to the conclusion of an ethnographic study conducted into the Vocational Education and Training (VET) healthcare context, the “reflective processes take place within a range of settings, contacts and through activities, many of which are initiated and enacted by the [participants] themselves” (Wegener, 2013, p. 471). The reflection process is a recurring element in several experiential learning theories. It assumes different roles, as it can be seen in the following illustrative examples: a) according to the Dewey’s (1933) experiential learning theories, the reflective thought allows to verify the foundations of beliefs, and the validity of the routinely practices, as well as the knowledge on which they are based; b) the four-stage experiential learning model by Kolb (1984), provides for a reflective observation phase, between the concrete experience and the abstract conceptualization phases; c) according to Schön’s (1987) view on the nature of the reflective practices, reflection allows practitioners to learn from unexpected outcomes and from events that come out of the routinely actions, activating the attention and creating a prerequisite for self-learning which takes place through reflection. These and many other theoretical frameworks (e.g., Boud, Keogh, & Walker, 1985; Engeström, 1987; Jarvis, 2009; Moon, 1999) define the role of reflection in learning processes, but, just taking a look at the encyclopedic definition attributed to reflection it is possible to understand its role in the learning processes related to work and to the skills development:

“Reflection plays an important role in experiential learning, both cognitively and metacognitively. It has been widely discussed in the literature as an important approach for promoting learning and higher order thinking skills, developing professional practices, and facilitating and structuring learning through experiences” (Looi & Wu, 2015, p. 610)

Technology is often identified in the literature as a means to support reflection and then able to foster the “bridging function” between the working and school context, because technologies “can serve many roles to support work-based learning” (Margaryan, 2008, p. 17). In this framework, the “Efrahrraum” is a pedagogical model (Schwendimann et al., 2015), consisting “of technology-enhanced spaces that facilitate conversations between work and school […] context in iterative loops” (p. 373). In the Erfahrraum, the boundary-crossing between the contexts is allowed by a scaffolded space for reflection on experiences. In fact, the name of the model is the result of the combination of the German terms ‘Erfahrung’ (experience) and ‘Raum’ (space). Conceived to be compliant with dual vocational education, and then to favor learning across contexts, the model is grounded on experiential learning; it gives technologies a special role to create a specific “space” sustaining a reflective process that allows real experiences to become knowledge (Schwendimann et al., 2015). This model confirms then the role of technologies as boundary objects, given that they “could serve as bridges between the school and the workplace as well as between the actors of these different locations” (Schwendimann et al., 2015, p. 371). Furthermore, it highlights reflection as a technology-scaffolded activity able to turn experiences into knowledge, without restrictions about the types of technology used for implementation. As anticipated, this model, like many of the studies concerning its bridging activity, has been developed in and for the VET context. Vocational education is a privileged location for studying this topic, especially within states that provide a dual-system (e.g. Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark etc.) which allows students (apprentices) to carry out the curricular activities alternating in its different learning contexts: in the VET school (in the classroom) and in the workplace (working for a company) (Cattaneo & Aprea, 2018).

The Hypervideo and video annotation

文章中使用的理论和模型，注意引用。

According to several exploratory studies conducted within - but not only - the Swiss dual-system, the HyperVideo (HV) seems to be particularly effective in highlighting connections between classroom and work context, between authentic work situations and theoretical subjects (Cattaneo, Nguyen, Sauli, & Aprea, 2015; Cattaneo & Nguyen, 2016; Cattaneo & Sauli, 2017; Cattaneo, van der Meij, Aprea, Sauli, & Zahn, 2018; Sauli, Cattaneo, & van der Meij, 2018). Moreover, as claimed by Cattaneo & Aprea (2018a) and Schwendimann et al. (2015), it seems particularly suitable for implementing the Efrahrraum model. In 2018 Sauli and colleagues published a literature review which aimed at highlighting the concept and use of HV. The authors drawn the characteristics which distinguish the “classic” video and the HV, splitting them into two groups: 1) the fundamental features allow a non-linear video navigation (e.g. through segmentation or visual tables of content), advanced control features and the possibility to link or include additional material to it (e.g. documents, other videos, descriptions etc.); 2) the optional features allow to insert individual or collaborative video annotation and/or generate manual or automated feedback (Sauli et al., 2018). The second features’ group in particular “allow reflection about the contents and deeper understanding, which is an important aspect of learning with videos” (Sauli et al., 2018, p. 126). Above all, according to several studies summarized by Cattaneo and Boldrini (2016), “Video annotation facilitates individual reflection on practices, thereby supporting ex-post monitoring and evaluating processes, as well as anticipatory ones (Cattaneo, Nguyen, Sauli, & Aprea, 2015, p. 41)”. As reported above, the efficacy of video annotation has already been studied by several researchers (e.g. Colasante, Kimpton, & Hallam, 2014; Rich & Hannafin, 2009). However, to the best of our knowledge, studies about the qualitative differences between a reflection process activated with and without the use of video annotation still require investigation. Furthermore, the use of HV should also be examined out of the VET context, in order to foster the connection between different learning location, workplace and school in particular.

Research aims and questions

引出本文的研究目标和研究问题，谁谁的理论支持我的研究。

It is thought that having more information about the qualitative features of the reflective process activated by the video annotation could support teachers and trainers - especially those in VET - in teaching design, because, in order to obtain an effective learning process support, technologies need to be adapted and contextualized depending on the learning context, as remarked by Hattie’s metanalysis (Hattie, 2009). Therefore, the present study is focused on the reflective processes activated by the students while carrying out a reflective activity on self-made video interviews using the video annotation tool. This study aims to verify whether the use of this innovative teaching tool in a VET-oriented university context can stimulate learning processes that encourage reflection on working practices. So, the research question that guided the present study is the following: Does the use of the video annotation, a feature of the HV, allow the students to activate a qualitatively different reflective practice compared to the reflective practice activated without the support of this technology? Or better yet, how can the HV be useful for VET teachers and training operators to foster a connection between theoretical concepts and work practices? This study represents the first, exploratory, phase of a wider research project aimed at discovering the potential of video-related technologies in VET-teacher education.