Kendall RichardsAcademic Support Adviser Engineering, Computing &

Creative IndustriesC77

k.richards@napier.ac.ukX2659

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?

Academic phrasebank

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