Upload
damisi
View
75
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Kendall Richards. Academic Support Adviser Engineering, Computing & Creative Industries C77 [email protected] X2659. Where did you search? How reliable is it? Skim the conclusion, abstract, introduction and headings Write a paragraph Main argument/point/position/findings - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Kendall RichardsAcademic Support Adviser Engineering, Computing &
Creative IndustriesC77
You should have one or two articles
Where did you search?How reliable is it?Skim the conclusion, abstract, introduction and headingsWrite a paragraphMain argument/point/position/findingsBibliographical details
Look at each other’s text: Did they:
1. State what happened?2. State what something is like?3. Give the story?4. State the order in which events occurred?5. Note the method used?6. Say when something occurred?7. List details?8. State links between items?9. Give information?
That would be descriptive
What tense was used?
ScholarshipSignificance:
Criticality - Analysis, Critique
Sources – Range and Use
Focus - Relevance and links to question
Structure - Overall text and paragraphs
Language - Academic and appropriate?
1 Critical, Justified, Analytical, Original
Excellent range of sources; balanced, contextualised, evidenced, critiqued. Plagiarism.
Totally focused on the task, nothing irrelevant
No changes – nothing to remove, nothing to add
Totally appropriate, nothing redundant
2 Critical, Justified, Analytical Excellent range of sources; balanced and contextualised, used for evidence. Plagiarism.
Almost always focused on the task and very little irrelevant.
All parts exist – some parts could be fuller / some could be removed
Almost totally appropriate / very little redundant
3 Critical, not always justified, not enough analysis
Very good range of sources, some use of evidence. Plagiarism.
Mostly focused on the task and relevant, some parts not
All parts exist, some should be fuller / some should be removed
Mostly appropriate
4 Sometimes critical, not always justified, not always analytical
Good range of sources, little balance / evidence / context. Plagiarism
Much relevance, much irrelevance, much absence
All parts exist, some very incomplete, some redundant
Generally appropriate
5 Small amount of criticality – mostly narrative
Some sources used, key sources missing. Plagiarism.
Often irrelevant and unfocused Some parts missing Often inappropriate / incomprehensible
6 Very little criticality – almost all narrative
Very few sources, key ones missing. Plagiarism
Highly irrelevant, very little focus on the question
Many parts missing Highly inappropriate/ incomprehensible
7 No criticality – all narrative None used / danger of plagiarism Totally irrelevant, no focus at all on the question
No structure at all Totally inappropriate / incomprehensible
Principles of Academic Communication
Honesty-state only that which can be supportedReality-be clear and direct in style and aims and objectives and explain what needs to be explainedRelevance
Who Are You Writing for?
Who wants the report/paper?Why do they want it?What are they going to do with it?What do they want it to cover?What will the report/paper not cover?What will happen as a result of the report/paper?
A report/paper should have a clear objective.
Clear objective = clear focus = easier to write.
The following will be taken into account, as appropriate to each assignment:
Structure Original insight Writing style Research methodology Subject knowledge (including the
ability to critically reflect upon the chosen subject)
Analytical skills
Structure
Any thoughts?Brainstorm ideas in groups.
Academic writing: Structure?
1.Introduction2.Body3.Conclusion
Sum upSupportThesis?Conclude
Thematic?Headings?Broad to specificSupport
ContextualiseOutlineOverviewThesis
A report usually has these components:
Title page Summary Table of Contents Introduction Middle sections with numbered headings (i.e., the body of the report) Conclusions References Appendices
Summary/executive summary/abstract
The summary:states the topic of the report outlines your approach to the task if applicable gives the most important findings of your research or investigation, or the key aspects of your design states the main outcomes or conclusions.
The summary does NOT:provide general background information explain why you are doing the research, investigation or design refer to later diagrams or references.
Abstract
‘This report details….’ShortStatement of objectivesSelf-containedClearTo the pointCreate interestMain findings and conclusionsWrite this last!
The introduction includes:
the background to the topic of your report to set your work in its broad context a clear statement of the purpose of the report, usually to present the results of your research, investigation, or design a clear statement of the aims of the project technical background necessary to understand the report; e.g. theory or assumptions a brief outline of the structure of the report if appropriate (this would not be necessary in a short report)
1.0. Introduction.There are problems of installing new tramways and light railway tracks in city streets congested with traffic and full of utility services underground. These problems have increased the price of rail based public transport, lengthened the construction period and generated public resistance to the dislocation of busy urban areas. Background
In an attempt to resolve some of these issues, as well as addressing some technical consideration like electrical stray currents and noise and vibration transmission a completely new rail track system has been developed. The new rail has no vertical web and is suspended at its top level. (Fig.1) rather than supported from its foot, like traditional rails. (Fig. 2).
Such a different rail form has generated considerable scepticism, and mirrors the difficulty of getting flat bottom (Vignoles) rails accepted in place of traditional bullhead rail in the UK. While Vignoles rails were invented in the third quarter of the 19th Century, they were not accepted as a standard on Britain's railways until 1951, and have only recently been accepted for London Underground.
In order to address these concerns a comprehensive battery of tests; computer simulation, laboratory and in field have been undertaken. This report sets out those tests and their results. Statement of purpose
Note: Use of tense and absence of personal pronouns.
Write a quick introduction to this coursework.
The purpose of this report is to……
Two alternative designs for a fuel cell powered car are presented.Car A, which uses hydrogen fuel, is a sedan designed for the executive market. It provides extra luxury for the driver, but is spacious enough for family use. Car B, powered by hydrogen and oxygen, is a medium sized hatchback which offers a range of features for the family. While both cars are efficient for short trips, they lack the range and speed desirable for long journeys.Both cars incorporate similar safety features and fulfil the design criteria of having low exhaust emissions and using environmentally friendly materials; however, Car B is recommended as it has slightly lower power consumption and is more economical to manufacture.
Conclusions
The conclusions section provides an effective ending to your report. The content should relate directly to the aims of the project as stated in the introduction, and sum up the essential features of your work. This section:states whether you have achieved your aims gives a brief summary of the key findings or information in your report highlights the major outcomes of your investigation and their significance.
Original insight
How would you demonstrate this?
Style?
FormalObjective Structured Example?
Style questions?
1. Can I use “I”?2. Can I give my opinion?3. How can I give my opinion?
Research Methodology
How might you approach this?
Subject knowledge
Critical reflection?
Analytical skills?
What are these?
Start with searching
Links Wiley Sage
Databases? Which ones?
IEEE Xplore- journals, conferences, standards, historic papers, weekly updates
ScholarshipSignificance:
Criticality - Analysis, Critique
Sources – Range and Use
Focus - Relevance and links to question
Structure - Overall text and paragraphs
Language - Academic and appropriate?
1 Critical, Justified, Analytical, Original
Excellent range of sources; balanced, contextualised, evidenced, critiqued. Plagiarism.
Totally focused on the task, nothing irrelevant
No changes – nothing to remove, nothing to add
Totally appropriate, nothing redundant
2 Critical, Justified, Analytical Excellent range of sources; balanced and contextualised, used for evidence. Plagiarism.
Almost always focused on the task and very little irrelevant.
All parts exist – some parts could be fuller / some could be removed
Almost totally appropriate / very little redundant
3 Critical, not always justified, not enough analysis
Very good range of sources, some use of evidence. Plagiarism.
Mostly focused on the task and relevant, some parts not
All parts exist, some should be fuller / some should be removed
Mostly appropriate
4 Sometimes critical, not always justified, not always analytical
Good range of sources, little balance / evidence / context. Plagiarism
Much relevance, much irrelevance, much absence
All parts exist, some very incomplete, some redundant
Generally appropriate
5 Small amount of criticality – mostly narrative
Some sources used, key sources missing. Plagiarism.
Often irrelevant and unfocused Some parts missing Often inappropriate / incomprehensible
6 Very little criticality – almost all narrative
Very few sources, key ones missing. Plagiarism
Highly irrelevant, very little focus on the question
Many parts missing Highly inappropriate/ incomprehensible
7 No criticality – all narrative None used / danger of plagiarism Totally irrelevant, no focus at all on the question
No structure at all Totally inappropriate / incomprehensible
So, what is critical thinking and analysis?
How do I do this?Discuss
How do I do this?
Note making not note takingWide and varied readingSynthesisAnalysis interpretation
Three questions
1. What am I looking at?2. Why am I looking at it?3. So what?
How might Critical Thinking be applied to your discipline?
Work with a partner (or more) and discuss areas for criticism
It is
Evaluation, discussion, comparison and contrast, analysis
Look for:SimilaritiesCommon issues raisedContradictions (why?)Criticisms
On balance, what is your academic opinion?
First sweep of literatureGrid of Literature
Source Notes Method/Approach Comments Learning as acquiring a discursive identity through participation in a community: A theoretical position on improving student learning in tertiary science and engineering programmes 2007 CREE Pos paper
Theoretical paper. Loads of authors. Emph imp of students developing discourses in Engineering.
Collaborative appr to write up but more a lit rev
More than 10 authors=value?
Learning to Improve: Using Writing to Increase Critical Thinking Performance in General Education Biology Ian J. Quitadamo* and Martha J. Kurtz† 2007
Empirical paper. Writing to develop crit th in science (biol) students
Quant. Ass based. No interviews Showing imp of crit th for sciences
The Role of Discourse in Group Knowledge Construction: A Case Study of Engineering Students Julie M. Kittleson,1 Sherry A. Southerland 2004
Emp paper Shows discussion can help and inhibit development of kn.
Qual. Analysing transcripts of lab sessions and using interviews to investigate the role of oral discourse
Group work but not individuals. Spoken not written. Engineer specific
A Collaborating Colleague Model for Inducting International Engineering Students into the Language and Culture of a Foreign Research Environment Ursula McGowan, Jo Seton, and Margaret Cargill 1996
Detail about Bridging prog designed to help IS from diff ling and cultural bkgrounds become familiar with eng learning culture in Aust
Descriptive Shows that students from a diff age and culture may need support and transition
Teaching ‘soft’ skills to engineers Susan H. Pulko1 and Samir Parikh2 Int Jn of Elect Eng 40
Separately teaching study skills to engineering students.
Analysis of evaluation forms shows that it is useful, gen apprec by those that go. Attendance only %50, but no diagnostic to investigate whether st
Do the same with your article, use whatever categories you like.
Use Grids.Th
emes
/Con
cept
s
Authors
How might Critical Thinking be applied to my project/dissertation?
Break down your discipline. What is it exactly that you will do in your dissertation/project?Literature reviewMethodologyCreation of somethingAnalysis Design Implementation Testing
Design?
What will you discuss?Link to specific examples from research
testing
Expected result?Result?What did you learn?Link to research
implementation
Comments?Link to research
How do I do this?
Wide and varied readingNote making not note takingSynthesisAnalysis interpretation
What questions would you ask of a source?
In small groups look at your articles and make a scale from strongest to weakest:
CriticalitySources FocusStructureLanguage
Criticality?
ScholarshipAnalysis
Sources
RelevanceHow they are usedAuthority
Focus
How much it focuses on taskRelevance
Structure
AcademicEasy to follow argumentLinks
Language
AcademicStyle
ScholarshipCriticality - Criticality / Scholarship / Analysis
Sources – How these are used in the assignment
Focus – How much the writing focuses on the task
Structure - of text and paragraphs
Language – Whether it is academic and appropriate
1 Critical, Justified, Analytical, Original
Excellent range of sources; balanced, contextualised, and critiqued
Totally focused on the task, nothing irrelevant
No changes – nothing to remove, nothing to add
Totally appropriate, nothing redundant
2 Critical, Justified, Analytical Excellent range of sources; balanced and contextualised
Almost totally focused on the task and very little irrelevant.
All parts exist – some parts could be fuller / some could be removed
Almost totally appropriate / very little redundant
3 Critical, not always justified, not enough analysis
Very good range of sources Mostly relevant All parts exist, some should be fuller / some should be removed
Mostly appropriate
4 Sometimes critical, not always justified, not always analytical
Good range of sources Much relevance, much irrelevance, much absence
All parts exist, some very incomplete, some redundant
Generally appropriate
5 Very little criticality – mostly narrative
Some sources used Often irrelevant Some parts missing Often inappropriate
6 No criticality – all narrative Very few sources Highly irrelevant Many parts missing Highly inappropriate
7 No criticality – all narrative None used / danger of plagiarism Totally irrelevant Non-existent Totally inappropriate
Significance:
What Is Plagiarism?Plagiarism is to take someone else’s words or ideas and present them as your own without proper acknowledgement (Marshall and Rowland, 1998)
Is this plagiarism?Copying word for word sentences or whole paragraphsSummarising or changing some of the textUsing your own words to describe what someone else has written
Is this plagiarism?Repeating a commonly known fact or quoteWorking with another student on the same essay and submitting work that is similarWorking in a group and submitting similar workCopying files, pictures, data, graphs, algorithms or computer codeRepeating something you heard on a news bulletin
Forms of PlagiarismQuoting directly, paraphrasing or writing about someone’s ideas without giving a referenceUsing an author’s exact words without indicating they are quoted and referencedPresenting your own version of other people’s ideas without acknowledgementPutting ideas into your own words but only changing a few words
Forms of Plagiarism (Continued)
Taking an image, diagram or artwork from another source without acknowledgementCollaborating inappropriately with other students when individual work is requiredCopying another student’s work or someone else’s work and submitting it as your own
Three Main Rules1. Reference included every time
someone else’s ideas or information is used
2. Must be used when you quote, paraphrase, summarise and copy (reproduce figures/diagrams/tables)
3. References appear in the text of your document and in the reference list and/or bibliography
Benefits of good referencing
You demonstrate accountabilityYour work is comprehensible to readers
they can be confident that you have skills in literature searching and have researched the topic thoroughly to find and use material at the appropriate level
they can see how your ideas can be supported by earlier research
The readers have good signposts to original sources should they wish to follow them up
Referencing
Author-date (Harvard)
Number (Vancouver)
Reference lists
Bibliographies
2 key activities
Provision of in-text citations (in the body of the work)
Provision of full citations (usually at the end of the work)
Provision of in-text citations (in the body of the work)
Author-date (Harvard)
Number (Vancouver)
Referencing
Either/or
Provision of full citations (usually at the end of the work)
Referencing
Reference lists
Bibliographies
Sometimes you are required to provide - a reference list- a bibliography- both a reference list and a bibliography
Many standards exist, e.g. APA, British Standard, journal specific formats
In-text citations – author-date (Harvard) system
You should provide a reference in the text of your work whenever you use the work of someone else.At a minimum you give the author name and the date of the publication.If you paraphrase or quote that person’s work you also need to give the page number of the work (or paragraph number for material from a web page).The citation in the text is a pointer to the list(s) at the end of your work.
Huberman and Hogg (1994, pp. 2-3) present a "detailed model of collaborative performance enhancement and examine its dynamical consequences for the community as a whole" with direct reference to informal networks supported by incentive schemes as facilitators of learning and problem solving "enhanced by exchanging information". This approach is also illustrated in several papers presented at a recent conference (Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Organizational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities, 2002), for example work presented on inter-organizational communities of practice (Huang, Newell, & Galliers, 2002). Similarly knowledge sharing as "exchange" is described in the context of studies of collaborative software development (e.g., Lerner, 2001; Scott & Kaindl, 2000, p. 119); economic self-interest in electronic discussion groups (Gray & Meister, 2001); intranets as tools for knowledge transfer (e.g., Hendriks, 1999; Newell, Scarbrough, & Swan 2001); the creation of models of knowledge transactions in computer-mediated networks of practice from a social capital perspective (Faraj & Wasko, 2001); and the development of a knowledge sharing typology based on empirical research with management consultancy firms in Denmark (Jacoby Petersen & Poulfelt, 2002).
Examples of in-text references
Huberman and Hogg (1994, pp. 2-3) present a "detailed model of collaborative performance enhancement and examine its dynamical consequences for the community as a whole" with direct reference to informal networks supported by incentive schemes as facilitators of learning and problem solving "enhanced by exchanging information". This approach is also illustrated in several papers presented at a recent conference (Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Organizational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities, 2002), for example work presented on inter-organizational communities of practice (Huang, Newell, & Galliers, 2002). Similarly knowledge sharing as "exchange" is described in the context of studies of collaborative software development (e.g., Lerner, 2001; Scott & Kaindl, 2000, p. 119); economic self-interest in electronic discussion groups (Gray & Meister, 2001); intranets as tools for knowledge transfer (e.g., Hendriks, 1999; Newell, Scarbrough, & Swan 2001); the creation of models of knowledge transactions in computer-mediated networks of practice from a social capital perspective (Faraj & Wasko, 2001); and the development of a knowledge sharing typology based on empirical research with management consultancy firms in Denmark (Jacoby Petersen & Poulfelt, 2002).
Examples of in-text referencesIn-text references are citation pointers
Huberman and Hogg (1994, pp. 2-3) present a "detailed model of collaborative performance enhancement and examine its dynamical consequences for the community as a whole" with direct reference to informal networks supported by incentive schemes as facilitators of learning and problem solving "enhanced by exchanging information". This approach is also illustrated in several papers presented at a recent conference (Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Organizational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities, 2002), for example work presented on inter-organizational communities of practice (Huang, Newell, & Galliers, 2002). Similarly knowledge sharing as "exchange" is described in the context of studies of collaborative software development (e.g., Lerner, 2001; Scott & Kaindl, 2000, p. 119); economic self-interest in electronic discussion groups (Gray & Meister, 2001); intranets as tools for knowledge transfer (e.g., Hendriks, 1999; Newell, Scarbrough, & Swan 2001); the creation of models of knowledge transactions in computer-mediated networks of practice from a social capital perspective (Faraj & Wasko, 2001); and the development of a knowledge sharing typology based on empirical research with management consultancy firms in Denmark (Jacoby Petersen & Poulfelt, 2002).
Examples of in-text referencesTake care with positioning of citation pointer
Huberman and Hogg (1994, pp. 2-3) present a "detailed model of collaborative performance enhancement and examine its dynamical consequences for the community as a whole" with direct reference to informal networks supported by incentive schemes as facilitators of learning and problem solving "enhanced by exchanging information". This approach is also illustrated in several papers presented at a recent conference (Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Organizational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities, 2002), for example work presented on inter-organizational communities of practice (Huang, Newell, & Galliers, 2002). Similarly knowledge sharing as "exchange" is described in the context of studies of collaborative software development (e.g., Lerner, 2001; Scott & Kaindl, 2000, p. 119); economic self-interest in electronic discussion groups (Gray & Meister, 2001); intranets as tools for knowledge transfer (e.g., Hendriks, 1999; Newell, Scarbrough, & Swan 2001); the creation of models of knowledge transactions in computer-mediated networks of practice from a social capital perspective (Faraj & Wasko, 2001); and the development of a knowledge sharing typology based on empirical research with management consultancy firms in Denmark (Jacoby Petersen & Poulfelt, 2002).
Examples of in-text referencesTake care with positioning of citation pointer
Huberman and Hogg (1994, pp. 2-3) present a "detailed model of collaborative performance enhancement and examine its dynamical consequences for the community as a whole" with direct reference to informal networks supported by incentive schemes as facilitators of learning and problem solving "enhanced by exchanging information". This approach is also illustrated in several papers presented at a recent conference (Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Organizational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities, 2002), for example work presented on inter-organizational communities of practice (Huang, Newell, & Galliers, 2002). Similarly knowledge sharing as "exchange" is described in the context of studies of collaborative software development (e.g., Lerner, 2001; Scott & Kaindl, 2000, p. 119); economic self-interest in electronic discussion groups (Gray & Meister, 2001); intranets as tools for knowledge transfer (e.g., Hendriks, 1999; Newell, Scarbrough, & Swan 2001); the creation of models of knowledge transactions in computer-mediated networks of practice from a social capital perspective (Faraj & Wasko, 2001); and the development of a knowledge sharing typology based on empirical research with management consultancy firms in Denmark (Jacoby Petersen & Poulfelt, 2002).
Examples of in-text referencesConsider the value of quoting over paraphrasing
Huberman and Hogg (1994, pp. 2-3) present a "detailed model of collaborative performance enhancement and examine its dynamical consequences for the community as a whole" with direct reference to informal networks supported by incentive schemes as facilitators of learning and problem solving "enhanced by exchanging information". This approach is also illustrated in several papers presented at a recent conference (Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Organizational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities, 2002), for example work presented on inter-organizational communities of practice (Huang, Newell, & Galliers, 2002). Similarly knowledge sharing as "exchange" is described in the context of studies of collaborative software development (e.g., Lerner, 2001; Scott & Kaindl, 2000, p. 119); economic self-interest in electronic discussion groups (Gray & Meister, 2001); intranets as tools for knowledge transfer (e.g., Hendriks, 1999; Newell, Scarbrough, & Swan 2001); the creation of models of knowledge transactions in computer-mediated networks of practice from a social capital perspective (Faraj & Wasko, 2001); and the development of a knowledge sharing typology based on empirical research with management consultancy firms in Denmark (Jacoby Petersen & Poulfelt, 2002).
Examples of in-text referencesProvision of page numbers (or non-provision) is meaningful
Huberman and Hogg (1994, pp. 2-3) present a "detailed model of collaborative performance enhancement and examine its dynamical consequences for the community as a whole" with direct reference to informal networks supported by incentive schemes as facilitators of learning and problem solving "enhanced by exchanging information". This approach is also illustrated in several papers presented at a recent conference (Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Organizational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities, 2002), for example work presented on inter-organizational communities of practice (Huang, Newell, & Galliers, 2002). Similarly knowledge sharing as "exchange" is described in the context of studies of collaborative software development (e.g., Lerner, 2001; Scott & Kaindl, 2000, p. 119); economic self-interest in electronic discussion groups (Gray & Meister, 2001); intranets as tools for knowledge transfer (e.g., Hendriks, 1999; Newell, Scarbrough, & Swan 2001); the creation of models of knowledge transactions in computer-mediated networks of practice from a social capital perspective (Faraj & Wasko, 2001); and the development of a knowledge sharing typology based on empirical research with management consultancy firms in Denmark (Jacoby Petersen & Poulfelt, 2002).
Examples of in-text referencesUse appropriate abbreviations
ListsThere are two types of list:
reference listsbibliographies
Reference lists provide full citations for the in-text pointers.Bibliographies list all material that was useful in putting the work together, including material that is not actually cited in the main text.When you are preparing work (study deliverables, conference papers, journal articles etc.) check what is required: a reference list, a bibliography, both reference list and bibliography?
Formatting conventions for lists
Lots of stylesKey information required is standard across stylesRules that determine how to format this information in the list differ from style to style, but certain aspects are the same
title of books and journals are presented in italics (or underline)the main words in journal titles are capitalised
You need to know one style well (for your current work), and be prepared to use other styles when submitting work for presentation/publication
http://www.soc.napier.ac.uk/publication/op/getpublication/publicationid/5953365