the essence of academic writing up front: diploma … · academic writing up front: diploma...
TRANSCRIPT
June 2011! EATAW 2011 ! 1
The Essence of Academic Writing Up Front:
Diploma Students Working with a Peer-Reviewed Article in Week One"
Anker Helms Jørgensen !
IT University of Copenhagen !
June 2011! EATAW 2011 ! 2
Advance Organiser!
• An activity performed in the first week in the first term with diploma-students: little or no academic background and working full time.!
• They read a genuine peer-reviewed journal article: "Why are mobile phones annoying?""
• Accompanied by scaffolding!– explanations of salient features!– two sets of questions: on structure and content!
• They were to read the article, work with the questions, and write 10-15 line summaries.!
• Context!– A course on how to conduct an academic empirical project and report it
while adhering to Academic Writing principles; so not writing course.!– I'm not a writing teacher, I'm a reflective practitioner!
• Does this make sense ?!
.!
June 2011! EATAW 2011 ! 3
Organisation of the talk!
1. The problem and my solution!2. Grounding in theory !3. Method!4. What did I discover!5. Validity and Conclusions!
June 2011! EATAW 2011 ! 4
1. The problem and my solution!
• My specific problem:Getting diploma students started, not used to essay writing, let alone academic writing!
• The general problem:Collegues often complain that students' writing skillsare poor
• Solution: Let the students be confronted with and learn from the gold in academia: a peer reviewed article ?!– an expression of the essence of academia!– how we work and how we communicate our findings
June 2011! EATAW 2011 ! 5
2. Grounding in theory!
• After my first attempt: "Surely, I can't be the first who has done this !""
• Swales and Feak (2004, 218) suggested using a 2-page article on bats, including six questions!
• Yakhontova (2010) employed a made-up 2-page paper on nutrition and student performance!
• Murray (1985) suggested to start writing about anything
! Have any of you done something similar ?"" Do you know of anyone who has done something similar? "
June 2011! EATAW 2011 ! 6
3. Method: Overview!
A. Find article!B. Create Annotations !C. Develop scaffolding materials: explanation, questions, ...!D. Feasibility studies (spring 2010)!E. Apply in course
20 students in the fall 2010 29 students in the spring 2011 !
June 2011! EATAW 2011 ! 7
A. Find article!
• A host of issues: Topic, jargon, theory, methods, ....!– topic everyday-ish!– approach comprehensible, preferably empirical !– writing clear, down-to-earth and well organised!
• Monk, Carrol, Parker & Blythe (2004): Why are Mobile Phones Annoying. Behaviour and Information Technology, 23 (1) 33-41.!
June 2011! EATAW 2011 ! 8
The article!
• A classic experiment on annoyment in mobile phones !• Travellers were exposed to conversations !• Three independent variables in each two levels !
– mobile vs. face-to-face conversations !– normal vs loud sound level !– passengers on train vs. waiting at bus station !
• Eight combinations of these variables, e.g., train passengers exposed to loud mobile conversations !
• Passengers rated six dependent variables!– The conversation was very noticeable "– I found the conversation annoying
....... !
June 2011! EATAW 2011 ! 9
The article!
• Nine pages!• Process well documented!• Results well illustrated!• IMRD: Introduction, Method,
Results, Discussion, Design Implications"
"I found myself listening to the conversation""
June 2011! EATAW 2011 ! 10
B. Annotations!
• I went through the article and identifed 44 relevant points on structure and contents!– motivation, earlier work, arguments, evidence, statistics,
experimental design, qualifications, conclusions, ... !– .... !
• !
June 2011! EATAW 2011 ! 11
C. Teaching Materials: Six-pack!
1. An introduction to the exercise (1.5 p)!
2. An explanation of key features of the article (3.5 p, 45 points) - What is a 2 * 2 * 2 experimental between-subjects design? !
3. A set of 18 questions, primarily on structure, incl. answers (2 p) - Where are possible explanations to the annoyance presented?"
4. A set of 9 questions, primarily on contents, incl. answers (1.5 p) - What do you think about the section on design implications? - Does the paper actually deliver what the title states? "
5. The original article with numbers 1 - 45 (9 p)!
6. The original article without numbers (9 p)!
June 2011! EATAW 2011 ! 12
D. Feasibility Study!
• Presented to four collegues !– This is brilliant !!– Seemingly a strong need for such material
• Pilot Study!– Three diploma students volunteered in spring 2010!
• Questionnaire!– Did you get the overall idea? Yes!– Was the scaffolding helpful? Yes!– Suggestions for improvements? Yes, many!– Useful on the course? Yes! How?
- Start out with the template: IMRD - Olde article – 2004 !
June 2011! EATAW 2011 ! 13
E. Setting: First course for diploma students!
• Introducing these folks to research & writing
• Conduct and report an academic study!
• Light their fire !!
June 2011! EATAW 2011 ! 14
Setting: Diploma students!
• Part time students !– No or little academic background!– Working full time with IT or in IT-companies
• Do two courses in their first term at ITU!– Introduction to Academic projects 7.5 ECTS!– plus one other course 7.5 ECTS
• They pay for their courses (€ 1400 pr course)!– Expect value for the monies
• Coming from the labor market – certain mindset !– Firm answers here and now: This is how to do it! !– Hands-on, instrumental approach !
June 2011! EATAW 2011 ! 15
Introduction to Academic Projects: Two phases!
• First 5 weeks: Thursday sessions 5–8 pm !
• Last 10 weeks: project work in groups under supervision!– Select topic, create group, find literature, ... !– Plan and carry out an empirical study!– Write throughout ...... report 25-40 pages!
5 Thursdays!
Supervision!
June 2011! EATAW 2011 ! 16
The first five weeks!
• Read the mobile phones article !– write an abstract!
• Read an excellent report from the last term!– write an abstract!– write up 3-5 good and 3-5 bad aspects of it!
• Perform a mini-empirical study !– write it up on one page: IMRD structure!
• Search literature!– write list of literature!
• For the group project!– write research question!
June 2011! EATAW 2011 ! 17
How done!
• First Thursday: Motivation and instructions
• Until second Thursday:!– Read article and work with materials !– Write a 10-15 line abstract
• Second Thursday!– Student peer review on the abstracts!– Feedback from me!
• Unfortunately not time to go into the two sets of questions and answers!
June 2011! EATAW 2011 ! 18
4. What did I discover ? Overview!
• Their abstracts!• The questionnaire!• Later transfer!
• How much of the material did they work with?!– Almost all worked with most or all of the materials!
June 2011! EATAW 2011 ! 19
4. Writing an abstract ?!
Would you be in doubt whether they would write an abstract or not ?
How many students do you think wrote an abstract ?
0 25 50 75 100 %!
June 2011! EATAW 2011 ! 20
Their abstracts
• Abstracts 77 % Fall 2010 19 / 20 95 % Spring 2011 17 / 29 59 %!
• Varied from very good to quite poor!– coverage and completeness!– flow!– argumentation!– language
• But 77 % did it – requires some depth in understanding !
June 2011! EATAW 2011 ! 21
The questionnaire: 46 answers!
Relevance? !– Not ! ! 0!– Somewhat! ! 9!– Very ! !26!– Extremely! ! 6
Diffficult? !– Really difficult ! 0!– Quite difficult ! 4!– OK ! !33!– Easy ! ! 8!– Very easy! ! 1
Time spent 4.0 hrs (2 - 10+) !
Timing in course? !– Much later! ! 0!– Somewhat later ! 1!– OK ! !45!
Good impression of the genre? !– Yes ! !28!– A certain extent !15!– No ! ! 1
Use again next term? !– Yes ! !39!– Yes, if improved ! 6!– No ! ! 1!
June 2011! EATAW 2011 ! 22
Transfer!
• Structure IMRD!– All groups used this directly in their writing
• Question at oral exam, hinting at reflection:"What did you learn in this course/project?"Many references to the initial activities
• Søren Ambo: dropped out, but completed a report in another course; email recently "This is my first written report since my A-levels many years ago. I got the grade C - very satisfactory. This couldn't have happened without the tools in your course."
June 2011! EATAW 2011 ! 23
5. Validity and Conclusions!
• Validity: Two caps - biased!– The originator of the activity and the evaluator / researcher!– Indications at the level of experience, serve as inspiration ?
• Conclusions!– The students can actually work with the academic gold up front !– The clear IMRD-structure supports the students' writing later!– This illustrates a method that can be copied in any academic field:
- identify a clear and substantial paper - scaffolding it extensively - have faith that the students can actually do it in the first week of their first term at university
• Materials available at http://ankervejleder.wordpress.com!– In Danish unfortunately, an English version is underway!
June 2011! EATAW 2011 ! 24
Questions ?
Comments ?!