REU Writing Workshop III

John Anderson

Northwestern University

July 31 and August 1, 2007

Overview

• Large group discussion 20 min• Recap: the writing process in action• Using different types of feedback• Questions for revision: stories, structures, sentences• Using figures effectively• Writing an effective abstract

• Individual writing 30 min• Status of the project• Examining the structure of the draft• Flagging sentences for revision

• Small group discussion 40 min

One model of the writing process

• Create figures and draft captions• Figures express results and data

• Discuss with advisor• Make outline• Write draft• Review with other students

• May or may not be co-authors on the project

• Revise: prepare error-free draft for advisor• Iterate from there

• Abstract is usually written last

Some thoughts on process

• Stages are usually not a simple linear series• Planning, drafting, revising, more planning, more drafting, more

revising, editing, revising, editing, revising…

• Drafts are tools for getting feedback• Reflect on what decisions you need to make• Understand what kinds of feedback you can expect from different

readers• Bring different types of readers into the mix• Ask them specific questions

• Not all pieces of a draft may be equally “cooked”• So they may require different amounts of heat and pressure to

finish them

Revising vs. editing vs. proofreading

• Revision = seeing again• How can this point be different?• Global revision: questions about purpose, audience, meaning that

affect the whole thing (or a major section of the thing)• Local revision: questions about paragraphs and sentences

• Editing = clarifying meaning• How does this point connect with a reader• Once I know what I want to say, what is the best way to say it?

• Proofreading = eliminating mistakes• Better: eliminating ambiguity

• To make any of these steps easier, try breaking it down into distinct subcategories

Using different types of feedback

• Reader-based feedback• What happens when the reader reads: “movies of [the reader’s]

mind” (Peter Elbow)• Can help locate problem passages

• Criteria-based feedback• How the draft meets or does not meet specific parameters• Can mean mechanics: spelling, grammar, formatting• Can also mean conventions: expectations, style, voice• Submission guidelines: good example of criteria

• Learn how to get the most out of both types• Understand how one can masquerade as the other• Ask for what you need

Questions for revision

• What story are you telling?• What appears at the beginnings and ends of

sentences, paragraphs, and sections?• Where is new information introduced?• What are the “actors” and “actions?”• Do your actors and actions map on to subjects and

verbs?• Are the subject and verb close to each other?

(see Gopen and Swan)

Using figures effectively

• Choose appropriate figures• What type of data?• What type of story?

• Preserve the quality of the original graphic• Vector vs. raster• Screen vs. print resolution

• Make captions stand on their own• Avoid cryptic references to figures (“See figure 1”)• Avoid chartjunk

• Drop shadows• 3-D bar graphs and pie charts

Every picture tells a story…

But it doesn’t tell it on its own

Figure 9: AFM images of collagen type I fibrils on ethanol-cleaned glass slide. (Scan rate of 1.001 Hz.) Topography (left), amplitude (right).

Figure 10: Digitally processed images of Figure 9 (left) using the MetaMorph Image Acquisition and Image Processing Program (Universal Imaging, Inc.).

Explain what the figures show

Perhaps the most interesting image is shown in Figure 9. In this figure, and in the processed image (Figure 10), the ends of several collagen fibers are visible and appear to be composed of several smaller structures wound around each other into the larger collagen fiber. This suggests that these structures are indeed collagen fibrils, and these smaller strands represent microfibrils wound together. We can see that several of these fibrils have these unwound ends, indicating that they have potentially been broken. This theory is supported by the structure on the upper-right corner of the original image, which appears to have been broken and consequently shows this striated structure. This seems to suggest that, unlike the poly-L-lysine samples, something in the preparation of the ethanol-cleaned samples caused the collagen fibers to be broken and prevent them from cross-linking sufficiently. This would be an interesting relationship to examine further if more conditions were controlled in order to determine exactly what is causing this behavior. (Nocedal, 2006, emphasis added)

Writing an effective abstract

• Make it complete• Abstract should stand on its own

• Test by reading as though skimming: abstract + figures = decision

• Follow the order of the paper• Purpose/problem

• Approach/methods

• Results/significance

• Make it succinct• Select key statements from the body

• Remove supporting details

• Remember that the abstract is not an introduction

Sample abstract: Nocedal

The aim of this research was to investigate the use of atomic force microscopy (AFM) for the high-resolution imaging of collagen fibers in aqueous media. Collagen plays a vital role in many processes in vivo, especially in structural integrity, yet few studies have used AFM to investigate the structure of these fibers. Type I collagen was used in this study on AP-mica, poly-L-lysine-coated glass slides and on ethanol-cleaned glass slides to determine what structures these fibers assume in vitro under the various conditions. It was found that AFM is in fact a viable method for determining collagen structure, and that type I fibrils can be seen in both cross-linked and isolated forms. A resolution of about 20–30 nm was achieved. This research forms a foundation for further investigation into the different types of collagen structures in vivo and the environmental conditions that cause them. (Nocedal, 2006)

Purpose Methods Results

Sample abstract: WeiThe use of a variable resistor-capacitor (RC) bridge circuit was previously reported to be a viable solution to the spurious contribution of fringe capacitance during nanoscale impedance microscopy (NIM). In this paper, a refinement of this technique combined with standard NIM is presented as an impedance characterization tool for organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs). In this technique, a sinusoidal bias is split into two equal branches, which are subsequently sent to the tunable RC circuit and the sample. By balancing the phase and magnitude of the two branches, the contribution to the current through the sample/tip junction can be directly monitored. To demonstrate the improved detection limit offered by this technique over more conventional NIM, conductive AFM measurements were performed on 8 μm by 8 μm OLED devices, demonstrating significant improvement in resolution in the current and phase maps. This paper also suggests possible future research that is necessary to fully enable impedance spectroscopy at the nanoscale. (Wei, 2006)

Purpose Methods Results

Example: deriving the purpose

Abstract:

The use of a variable resistor-capacitor (RC) bridge circuit was previously reported to be a viable solution to the spurious contribution of fringe capacitance during nanoscale impedance microscopy (NIM). In this paper, a refinement of this technique combined with standard NIM is presented as an impedance characterization tool for organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs).

Body:

A previous experiment9 presented the use of a variable resistor-capacitor (RC) circuit to compensate for the spurious contribution to the AC flow by fringe capacitance in NIM measurements. By analogy to the variable RC components in electrical bridge circuits, this technique was referred to as bridge enhanced nanoscale impedance microscopy (BE-NIM). In this experiment, cAFM scanning was performed on gold electrodes patterned on silicon oxide grown on n-type silicon at a single AC bias and frequency. It was demonstrated that with BE-NIM, the detection limit of NIM could be improved by at least several orders of magnitude. Here we present a refined BE-NIM technique that is applicable to operational OLEDs for the first time. This work may lead to future development in impedance study at various frequencies.

(Wei, 2006)

Which statement most accurately describes your current status?

• “We have results (or expect them very soon) that validate our hypothesis. The draft tells an interesting story (even if not complete yet), and I’m ready to write an abstract.”

• “We have results, but they’ve taken us in an unexpected direction. The draft tells a story, but I’m not sure it’s the one we want or need to tell.”

• “Our results are incomplete (or worse, uninteresting). We are in the process of changing our direction. I’m not sure what story I can tell about what we did.”

• “Technical difficulties have prevented us from following through. The draft tells a story, but it’s more about where the problem came from than what we did with it. There’s something interesting here, but results confirming the hypothesis will have to wait for another day.”

Write a statement that describes the current relationship of the writing to the research. How close is the story in the draft to the story you can tell (or will soon be able to tell) from the results?

Examining the structure of the draft

• In each section, mark the divisions between “chunks”• Larger than a paragraph• Smaller than a section• Any places where a subheading would be helpful

• In each paragraph, underline the most important sentence• What statements are essential to the meaning of the whole

paragraph?• Where are they located?

Flagging sentences for revision

• Assemble a collection of key sentences• Key sentence in each paragraph• Sentences at beginnings and ends of sections• Figure captions

• Draw a line under the first six words• How clear is the meaning of the sentence’s opening?

• Select three sentences to revise• Try this: bring subject and verb closer together• Try this: replace “placeholder” verb with real action• Try this: reverse order of information presented

Discussion

• Looking for stories• Compare notes: project status• For drafts closer to completion: review abstract, figure

captions• For earlier drafts: review introduction

• Looking for structure• How many subsections does each section have?• Where are sections in need of reordering?

• Looking at sentences• Compare originals and revisions