basics of paper writing and publishing in tel (jtel 2015 workshop)
TRANSCRIPT
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
1 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Basics of Paper Writing and
Publishing in TEL
Michael Derntl, Ḿíłốṩ Ǩŕåṽçïḱ, Ralf Klamma
RWTH Aachen UniversityAdvanced Community Information Systems (ACIS)
11th Joint European Summer School on
Technology Enhanced Learning (JTEL 2015)
July 6-10
Ischia, Italy
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
2
Managing Expectations
What we will tackle today
– Paper structure
– Organizing a piece of text
– Commence mini conference for the week
What we will tackle on Friday
– Discuss the mini conference reviews
– Elaborate a publication strategy in TEL
– Identify landmarks in your thesis field
– Mistakes to avoid
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
3
Scientific Texts –
Intentions vs Expectations
Intentions (authors)
– Communicate with peers
– Protect intellectual property
– Gain reputation
– Get promoted
– Progress science
– Remember
– Understand
– Gain perspective
[BCWi95] [Stoc00] [Ocon05] [PEBK02]
Expectations (readers)
– Standard form (sections,
paragraphs, sentences)
– Audience “coverage”
– Quality (relevance,
significance, soundness)
– Discussion (limitations,
embedding in existing
findings, implications, …)
– Correct language
All it takes is structure and practice!
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
4
Paper Structure
Hourglass Model [Swal93]
Introduction
Body
Conclusiongeneral
specific
specific
general
Section Theme
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
5
Paper Structure
“King Model” [Dern14]
Title
Abstract
Introduction
Body
Conclusion
References
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
6
Paper Structure:
Title
Very important part – why?
Rules of thumb:
– Fewest possible words that
adequately describe the paper
content
– Avoid waste words
– Nouns over verbs
Title
Abstract
Introduction
Body
Conclusion
References
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
7
Paper Structure:
Title
Types of title– Descriptive: Investigating the role of
academic conferences on shaping theresearch agenda
– Declarative: Academic conferencesshape the short-term research agenda
– Interrogative: Do academic conferencesshape the research agenda?
– Compound, e.g. separated by ? or :
Impact of title type:– Interrogative: more downloads, fewer
cites
– Compound with colon: longer; fewerdownloads and cites
– Long titles: fewer downloads
Title
Abstract
Introduction
Body
Conclusion
References[JaNi11]
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
8
Paper Structure:
Title
Title checklist
– includes main topic
– unambiguous
– specific
– attractive
– short
– accurate
– adequate
– no abbreviations
– consider audience
Title
Abstract
Introduction
Body
Conclusion
References
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
9
Paper Structure:
Title
Title checklist
includes main topic
unambiguous
specific
attractive
short
accurate
adequate
no abbreviations
consider audience
Examples titles:1. Report of the results of an IMS Learning Design
expert workshop
2. Educational Technology and Culture: The Influence of Ethnic and Professional Culture on Learners' Technology Acceptance
3. A New Framework for Dynamic Adaptations and Actions
4. CAMera for PLE
5. Go To Statement Considered Harmful
6. Users in the Driver's Seat: A New Approach to Classifying Teaching Methods in a University Repository
7. Considering formal assessment in learning analytics within a PLE
8. HT06, tagging paper, taxonomy, Flickr, academic article, to read
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
10
Paper Structure:
Abstract
Task:
– Read the four abstracts on the
handout
– Identify strong and weak points
– Identify criteria for good
abstracts
– Rank the four abstracts on the
provided ranking sheets
Title
Abstract
Introduction
Body
Conclusion
References
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
11
Paper Structure:
Abstract
Types
– Informative: what content is in the paper
– Indicative / descriptive: how is the content presented
Checklist, ~1 sentence each
– Motivation
– Problem definition
– Solution
– Results
– Implications
No go
– Exact title phrase
– Copy & paste from text
– Figures or tables
– Sources (depends)
Title
Abstract
Introduction
Body
Conclusion
References
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
12
Paper Structure:
Abstract
Low detail
No references
General example
Overview
High detail
All references
Specific examples
Reproducibility
Abstract Full text
A good abstract [ElseXX]:
Is specific and precise
Can stand alone
Uses little technical jargon
Uses no or few abbreviations
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
13
ABSTRACT RANKING
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
14
The Kelluwen project implements middle and high-schooleducational activities where the use of Web 2.0 tools isincorporated to improve collaboration construction, sharingand publishing of the learning outcomes. The Worklog tool,a microblogging space within the Kelluwen platform has anactive role in the educational activities. Using probabilistictopic models, correlation analysis and principal componentanalysis (PCA), we analyzed micropost of 85 class groupsparticipating in the Kelluwen project and found interestingrelations of the types of messages posted and other factorssuch as the teacher participation in the microblog, the ruralor urban nature of the schools and other aspects of theeducational experience.
Motivation Problem Solution Results Implicationsinformative
4th Place: Abstract B
J. Born, E. Scheihing, J. Guerra, L. Cárcamo (2014). Proc. EC-TEL 2014, pp. 15-28 © Springer Verlag
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
15
3rd Place: Abstract D
Motivation Problem Solution Results Implications
R. Klemke, S. Ternier, M. Kalz, B. Schmitz, M. Specht (2014) Proc. EC-TEL 2014, pp. 207-220 © Springer Verlag
informative mixed
Serious gaming approaches so far focus mainly on skilldevelopment, motivational aspects or providing immersivelearning situations. Little work has been reported to fosterawareness and decision competencies in complex decisionsituations involving incomplete information and multiplestakeholders. We address this issue exploring the technicalrequirements and possibilities to design games for such situationsin three case studies: a hostage taking situation, a multi-stakeholder logistics case, and a health-care related emergencycase. To implement the games, we use a multi-user enabledmobile game development platform (ARLearn). We describe theunderlying real world situations and educational challenges andanalyse how these are reflected in the ARLearn games realized.Based on these cases we propose a way to increase theimmersiveness of mobile learning games.
informative
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
16
2nd Place: Abstract A
Motivation Problem Solution Results Implications
V. Bejdová, M. Homola, Z. Kubincová (2014) Proc. ICWL 2014, pp. 1-10 © Springer Verlag
In the course of several years, we employed bloggingassignments in an obligatory web design course. The assignmentwas able to attract interest of few students only, while the majoritydid not participate, or only very sparsely. It did not help much tomake the assignment part of the course evaluation. The coursereceived mixed reviews from the students. The students who werenot really interested in the subject, or considered it too much work,complained. In last two years we tried to address this problem byintroduction of a tight blogging schedule, and peer-reviews. As wereport in this paper, this step radically improved the participationrate, and also learning outcomes were higher, however thestudent’s opinion of these activities was not amended.
informative informativeinformative informative
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
17
Motivation Problem Solution Results Implications
A. Pardo, N. Mirrahi, S. Dawson, Y. & A. Zhao, D. Gašević (2015). Proc. LAK 2015, pp. 255-259 © ACM
The higher education sector has seen a shift in teaching approaches over the
past decade with an increase in the use of video for delivering lecture content as
part of a flipped classroom or blended learning model. Advances in video
technologies have provided opportunities for students to now annotate videos as
a strategy to support their achievement of the intended learning outcomes.
However, there are few studies exploring the relationship between video
annotations, student approaches to learning, and academic performance. This
study seeks to narrow this gap by investigating the impact of students' use of
video annotation software coupled with their approaches to learning and
academic performance in the context of a flipped learning environment.
Preliminary findings reveal a significant positive relationship between annotating
videos and exam results. However, negative effects of surface approaches to
learning, cognitive strategy use and test anxiety on midterm grades were also
noted. This indicates a need to better promote and scaffold higher order cognitive
strategies and deeper learning with the use of video annotation software.
informative informative informative
1st place: Abstract C
informative informative
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
18
Paper Structure:
Introduction
“Pick up” the reader (and reviewer!)– Some generally known statements
– Motivating example
– Tighten thematic focus
– Mention key literature
– General background info to support understanding
– (Indicate the structure)
Three phases [Swal93]– (Where?) Establish territory
– (What?) Establish a niche
– (How?) Occupy niche
Title
Abstract
Introduction
Body
Conclusion
References
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
19
Paper Structure:
Introduction – Example
Example 1: Computers & Education 59 (2): 182-195
Establish territory / common-sense statement:
Peer review is an instructional method aiming to help
students elaborate on domain-specific knowledge, while
simultaneously developing methodological review skills.Establish niche / tighten thematic focus:
We use the term „assigned-pair protocol“ here to refer to
the class of peer review methods that involve static author-
reviewer dyads.
Occupy niche / arrive at core paper topic:
Our focus was to (a) … and (b) …
Outline paper structure
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
20
Paper Structure:
Introduction – Example
Example 2: Transactions
on Learning Technologies
5 (1): 38-51
Establish territory / common-sense statement:
The concept of Adaptive Hypermedia Systems (AHS)
has existed for years now [19], and it has amply
proved its utility particularly in education …Establish niche / tighten thematic focus:
In fact, authors have to define a domain model …
Indeed, authors have to specify an adaptation model…Indicate existing solutions, point to shortcomings:
Multiple solutions have been proposed …
These works fail to answer the third challenge …
Occupy niche, indicate leap forward
This paper addresses these three challenges …
We perceive an adaptation strategy as a combination of
elementary parts …
Outline paper structure
This paper is organized as follows…
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
21
Paper Structure:
Body
Reports actual research
done to answer research
question/problem
Typically several
(sub)sections
Structure, organization, and
content depend heavily on
the type of paper
Title
Abstract
Introduction
Body
Conclusion
References
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
22
Paper Structure:
Body
Empirical paper– Methodology, data, material, participants,
results, (discussion)
– Goal: reproducibility
Case study paper– Report application of existing methods, tools,
theories
– Goal: abstraction from case
Survey paper– Reviewing and synthesize existing work
– Typically little original contributions
– Goal: Completeness, soundness, …
Theory paper– Principles, concepts or models in the field
– Goals: Originality, soundness, Relevance
Others: methodology papers, review papers, …
Title
Abstract
Introduction
Body
Conclusion
References[CHI98]
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
23
Paper Structure:
Conclusion
Discussion / Conclusion– Counterpart to introduction
– Generalize results
– Sometimes separate (particularlyempirical papers)
– Recap of background and aims
– Summary and discussion / implications of key findings
– Answer your research questions
– Compare results to published work
– Discussion of limitations, shortcomings, significance
– Identification of follow-up research
Title
Abstract
Introduction
Body
Conclusion
References
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
24
Paper Structure:
References
Key rules for reference list
– List all cited references
– Do not list non-cited references
– Cite all used references
– Do not cite references you have
not read
– Make sure the most relevant
references are in the list
– Adhere to publisher’s style
guide
Title
Abstract
Introduction
Body
Conclusion
References
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
25
Paper Structure:
Additional bits
Authors + affiliations– Who is on the author list?
– In what order?
Acknowledgments– Funding source(s), Study participants, Helpers, …
Keywords– Free-text and/or from taxonomy
Classification – ACM classification
Appendix – Detailed tables, source codes, proofs, …
– Author bios
– …
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
26
Task: Mini Conference
Choose one of your recent submissions (where you wrote the abstract!)– If not available take your summer school submission, your current state of
the thesis, or any other piece of research you’re involved in
Rework your submission into a one-paragraph abstract of max. 300 words (strict!)
Carefully choose a title
Submit by Wednesday via Easychairhttp://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=jtelpw2015– There will be an excursion Wednesday afternoon, so please plan for
submitting your abstract by Wednesday noon
Review your assigned abstracts on Thursday
Read the reviews on your abstract on Friday for the 2nd session of our workshop (at 9:45 am)
Task description also available at http://is.gd/jtel2015pw
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
27
Mini Conference – Results
Best Overall ScoresRange: -3 = strong reject … 3 = strong accept
1. Matthias Heintz. Online Tool Usage Supports Solution-
based Requirements Engineering for E-Learning
Applications [2.3]
2. István Koren. Scalable Design of a Wearable-Enhanced
Learning Case [2.3]
3. Steven White. The practical focus of MOOC media
discourse in HE magazines and institutions [2.3]
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
28
In a traditional e-learning development project setup, the initial user-basedrequirements engineering process and the technical implementation process runone after the other, but time pressure and specific project arrangementsincreasingly lead to settings where those two processes are launched at about thesame time. This paper presents the requirements engineering work conducted inthe Go-Lab project, which aims to improve science education through inclusion ofonline labs and faced the challenges caused by the described parallel instead ofsequential setup of the initial project phases. They were tackled by developing aParticipatory Design approach to gather solution-based requirements, which issupported by PDot, an online tool to gather user requirements and feedback. In thispaper, we present preliminary Usability and User Experience evaluation results ofPDot, showing that the current prototype is already well perceived by the two maintarget groups, students and teachers, but still has some improvement potential, forexample regarding the visual design of the tool. Our results show that the proposedapproach and the PDot tool could be applied by other research projects, developinge-learning applications for teachers and students, to overcome the challengescaused by the same or a similar project setup.
Mini Conference – Best Abstract
Motivation Problem Solution Results Implications
M. Heintz (2015). JTEL Paper Writing Workshop 2015 © 2015 Matthias Heintz
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
29
Mini Conference – Other Top Scores
Best StructureSteven White. The practical focus of MOOC media discourse in HE magazines and institutions [4.67 / 5]
Best TitleCarmen Wolf. Improvement of university students’ self-reflection with a self-coaching app [4.33 / 5]
István Koren. Scalable Design of a Wearable-Enhanced Learning Case [4.33 / 5]
Best ReadabilitySteven White. The practical focus of MOOC media discourse in HE magazines and institutions [4.67 / 5]
Matthias Heintz. Online Tool Usage Supports Solution-based Requirements Engineering for E-Learning Applications [4.67 / 5]
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
30
PUBLICATION STRATEGY
IN TEL
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
31
Publication Outlets – Journals
High reputation
Completed studies
Significant original contribution
Lengthy publication process
No interaction with key people
Detailed reviews
Typical types: long, short, survey
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
32
Publication Outlets – Conference
Reputation depends on discipline
Original contributions
Often smaller delta or WIP acceptable
Interaction with key people
Review quality depends on conference
Typical types: long, short, poster, demo
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
33
Publication Outlets – Workshop et al.
Workshops
– Focused topic, emerging community
– Work in progress, ideas, positions etc. acceptable
– Interaction with key people
– Reputation not the key point
– Review quality depends
– Typical types: short, long, positions, demos
Doctoral Consortia and others
Edited books
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
34
Current Situation
TEL is interdisciplinary
Many different publication venues
Venues have different subject focus
Different venue types (journals, conferences,
workshops, exhibits, etc.)
Different paper types (long, short, demo, poster, …)
Different stages / significance of available results
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
35
Exercise
Questions
– Which factors do/should determine your decision where to
publish a piece of (your) TEL research?
– During your PhD process, what is your publication
strategy?
Task:
– Explore the above questions in a small group [10 mins]
– Pitch your results
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
36
Exercise
Results
– Main focus of paper should decide which conference to
choose; choose disciplinary conf
– Check cfp for topics
– Think ahead in career, what are you doing after your
PhD?
– Scope of study is important
– Reach for the stars, land amongst the clouds. Go for the
best. Paper trajectories
– Publisher
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
37
Venue (Pre-)Selection
Pre-selection– Go to scientific indexes and look for similar work where
was it published?
– Identify the key people in your field where do they publish?
– Subscribe to CFP mailing lists and portals what’s up?
– Follow research blogs, e.g. http://beamtenherrschaft.blogspot.com
Selection depends on
– Formal criteria in your institution?
– Significance / originality of the contribution?
– Affordable risk of rejection?
– Need to engage with community?
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
38
Publication Venue Decision
Check distribution / subscription of the venue
Check indexing of the venue
Check citations to the venue
Check list of relevant topics of the venue
Consider closed access vs open access vs delayed open access
Formal requirements: length, deadline, funding, etc.
Tools: – AERCS Venue Comparison for DBLP: http://is.gd/seriescomp
– Publish or Perish: http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm
– Academic Search: http://academic.research.microsoft.com
– Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.com
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
39
Some Prominent TEL Venues
See http://www.slideshare.net/mikederntl/the-european-technology-enhanced-learning-lanscape
Artificial
Intelligence
Web /
Hypermedia
HCI
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
40
Some Prominent TEL Venues (2)
Conferences
EC-TEL
ICALT
ICWL
ITS, AIED
ICCE
CSCL
LAK, EDM
CATE
T4E
WMTE
DIGITEL
…
Journals
Educ. Tech. & Soc. (ETS)
IEEE Trans. Learn. Tech. (TLT)
Comput. & Educ. (C&E)
Int. J. TEL (IJTEL)
Res. Pract. TEL (RPTEL)
Int. J. Emerg. Tech. Learn. (IJET)
Int. J. Dist. Educ. Tech. (IJDET)
Int. J. Know. Learn. (IJKL)
Brit./Austr. J. Educ. Tech. (B/AJET)
Int. J. Artifi. Intel. in Edu. (AIEDU)
J. Comp. Ass. Learn. (JCAL)
Int. J. CSCL (IJCSCL)
…
There are also several institutional lists of “acceptable” journals, e.g. at Open University of
the Netherlands: http://celstec.org/content/advanced-learning-technologies-journal-list
Make sure you know the preferred journals of your department!
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
41
The Landmarks in Your Thesis Field
Hypothesis: If you can’t name the three most important
– Authors and their specific areas of interest,
– Journals, Conferences,
– Challenges,
– Papers that lay or have laid the path,
– Adjacent fields / communities
in your thesis field, then your PhD is in trouble.
Task
– Group around similar PhD subjects (max 5 per group)
– Discuss and shortlist the above items [8 mins]
– Pitch your results
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
42
Some Mistakes to Absolutely Avoid
Brainstorm!
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
43
Some Mistakes to Absolutely Avoid
Results
– Being untargeted
– Not citing important grounding work
– Plagiarize
– Bitching on facebook
– Falsify
– Faking results
– Reveal all limitations & future work; ignore limitations
– Send to the same place, ignoring previous reviews
– Piss off people
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
44
References
[BCWi95] Booth, W.C., Colomb, G.G., Williams, J.M.: The Craft of Research. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago (1995)
[CHI98] CHI'98 Conference Webpage: Types of papers. http://www.acm.org/sigchi/chi98/call/papers.html#types (1998)
[Dern14] Derntl, M.: Basics of research paper writing and publishing. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 6(2), 105-123, http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJTEL.2014.066856(2014)
[ElseXX] How to write a world-class methodology paper. http://www.paperpub.com.cn/admin/upload/file/200893103922625.pdf
[JaNi11] Jamali, H., Nikzad, M: Article title type and its relation with the number of downloads and citation. Scientometrics (2011) 88:653–661
[Ocon05] O'Connor, M.: Writing Successfully in Science. Chapman & Hall, London (1995)
[PEBK02] Peat, J., Elliott, E., Baur, L., Keena, V.: Scientfic Writing - Easy when you know how. BMJ Books, London (2002)
[Stoc00] Stock, W.G.: Was ist eine Publikation? Zum Problem der Einheitenbildung in der Wissenschaftsforschung. In Fuchs-Kittowski, K., Laitko, H., Parthey, H., Umst•atter, W., eds.: Wissenschaftsforschung Jahrbuch 1998. Verlag f•ur Wissenschaftsforschung, Berlin (2000) 239-282
[Swal93] Swales, J.M.: Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge (1993)