2010-10-13
Outline
Referencing
Academic Writing 2
The critique
Working with feedback
Language issues
Juha Takkinen, juha.takkinen@liu.se
Proofing
Department of Computer and Information Science
Linköping University
Style and presentation
20102010-1010-14
2010-10-14
2010-10-14
p. 3
TGTU39 Academic writing II
Source: TGTU39 Academic writing/
McMillan & Weyers ”Citing and listing references”
Referencing:
Harvard
Sid 2
TGTU39 Academic writing II
Harvard:
Different
sources
2010-10-14
p. 4
TGTU39 Academic writing II
1
2010-10-13
Referencing:
Vancouver
2010-10-14
p. 5
TGTU39 Academic writing II
Vancouver:
Different
sources
2010-10-14
TGTU39 Academic writing II
When and how do you give critique?
Definition: Constructive criticism
to each other?
”Constructive”
to the lecturer?
"tending to construct, as opposed to destructive"
[Cas94]
to the university?
construct what?
”Criticism”
Are you encouraged to give feedback?
the act of judging
How?
2010-10-14
p. 6
Page 7
TGTU39 Academic writing II
2010-10-14
Page 8
TGTU39 Academic writing II
2
2010-10-13
Why critique as a writing task?
Critique vs. Summary
ensure that reading assignments are done
summary an accurate account of the content of
the source material (paper, report, etc.)
assessment of understanding
critique contains evaluations within the “field’s
accepted standards of judgement”
develop analytical reading
develop critical writing
integrate new knowledge with previous
knowledge
develop research skills
provide a better picture of what is expected
in your research field
2010-10-14
Page 9
TGTU39 Academic writing II
2010-10-14
Evaluating an article: General questions
Page 10
TGTU39 Academic writing II
How to express it
Who is the audience?
What is the purpose of the article?
Saying what the author should have done but did
not
What research questions are being addressed?
What conclusions does the author draw from the
research? (Answer to research questions?)
“This was a well-written survey of current
information but the connection between nutrient
stress, secondary compounds, and herbivory
rates in wetland plats could have received
greater coverage.”
What kind of evidence is offered to support the
conclusions?
Are the conclusions valid or plausible based on the
evidence? Why or why not?
Are there important assumptions underlying the article?
Do they influence it? How?
“The discussion would have been somewhat
more relevant if the author had used more
recent literature to support his views.”
Does the research make an original contribution
to the field? Why or why not?
2010-10-14
Page 11
TGTU39 Academic writing II
2010-10-14
Page 12
TGTU39 Academic writing II
3
2010-10-13
How to express it, cont’d
Criticism vs. Suggestion
past unreal conditionals, format:
Make your points with appropriate amount of
strength
... should/could/would/might have been (better,
stronger, etc.) ... if ...
Which one is stronger?
should
could
... as opposed to
might
present unreal conditionals:
“Your paper would be stronger if you included
some additional information.”
Too strong and lacks support?
Too weak?
(When is this used?)
2010-10-14
Page 13
2010-10-14
TGTU39 Academic writing II
Page 14
TGTU39 Academic writing II
Evaluative language
Example evaluative terms
“In this __________ study, Jones and Wang attempt to show that ...”
All disciplines:
Good: useful, important, interesting
2010-10-14
unusual
significant
small
competent
limited
traditional
restricted
remarkable
ambitious
innovative
important
impressive
modest
complex
flawed
preliminary
useful
interesting
careful
elegant
simple
small scale
exploratory
unsatisfactory
Page 15
TGTU39 Academic writing II
Poor: difficult
”soft” fields:
Good: clarity, accessibility, insightful, scholarly, original,
perceptive, rigorous, complex (sociology)
Average: sound
Poor: inconsistent, restricted, misleading, thin, anecdotal,
simple (sociology)
”hard” sciences:
Good: detailed, up-to-date, comprehensive, practical,
elegant, economical, simple (science and medicine)
Average: accurate
Poor: sloppy, complex (science and medicine)
2010-10-14
Page 16
TGTU39 Academic writing II
4
2010-10-13
Critique should be fair and
reasonable
Fair or Unreasonable?
critique should be fair, i.e., keep it to the specific
tradition within the field
The school may not be a typical institution;
therefore, the research should have been carried
out across a range of schools.
examples, different types of critique in different
fields:
The sample of 238 may be too small to really
draw any good conclusions.
humanities: “interesting” arguments
There should have been equal numbers of boys
and girls as well as equal numbers in each age
group.
social sciences: the methodology
natural sciences and engineering: the results and their
implications
2010-10-14
Page 17
TGTU39 Academic writing II
2010-10-14
TGTU39 Academic writing II
Fair or Unreasonable? cont’d
Beginning the critique
It is important to know more about the specific
ages of the students since this may affect the
results.
[Author names] present a plausible case that ...
Less adequate is their discussion of ...
[Author names] take on the difficult task of ...
Unfortunately ...
The definition of bullying seems a bit too broad.
Almost any kind of aggression seems to be
called bullying.
[Author names] present an important discussion
of ... Although we may not agree on all the
issues raised in the article, we praise the authors
for ...
If you look at the kind of bullying for the whole
school, not just for students that were bullied, the
amount of bullying activity does not seem so
high.
2010-10-14
Page 18
Page 19
TGTU39 Academic writing II
2010-10-14
Page 20
TGTU39 Academic writing II
5
2010-10-13
Critique: Response guide
Beginning the critique, cont’d
The article by [author names] is an ambitious
feat of synthesis, encompassing diverse theories
of ... This effort, however, is not fully successful.
[Author names] have written an important and
timely article on ... Despite its many strengths,
there are a number of small, but important
weaknesses.
What is the strength of the paper? Most
informative figure?
Where is the reader under/overestimated?
Effective headings? Related to content of
section? Well-balanced sections?
Suggested improvements?
How informative title? Indicates topic, scope and
approach? Self-explanatory?
Abstract? Organization?
How introduction organized? Relevance of cited work
to present work? Purpose of paper? Why is this work
done? What research questions?
Method described? How carefully? Can it be
replicated?
2010-10-14
Page 21
TGTU39 Academic writing II
2010-10-14
TGTU39 Academic writing II
Critique: Response guide (cont’d)
Critique: Response guide (cont’d)
How is results section organized? Unnecessary
repetitions? Highlighted striking results? Summarize in
one brief sentence the most important results of the
paper. How are text and figures linked? How do figures
contribute to better understanding?
Language and style
Mark sentences which are particularly clear and well
written. Mark sentences that are too long or difficult.
Mark any lacks of links between sentences and
paragraphs.
How is discussion section organized? Results
repeated? How are new results related to previous
results in field? How are writer’s claims supported? Is
there a conclusion?
Mark passages where the writer has indicated how
the text should be interpreted, i.e., reader
instructions. Are they enough or is more needed?
How is the “news value” highlighted in the paper?
Practical applications of work? Benefits of results?
Mark any incomplete figure captions.
Mark any passages that are colloquial (informal).
Inconsistencies in bibliography (reference list)? All
citations documented in reference list?
2010-10-14
Page 22
Page 23
TGTU39 Academic writing II
2010-10-14
Page 24
TGTU39 Academic writing II
6
2010-10-13
Working with feedback:
Most common feedback areas
Reading
Planning and text organization
Critical writing
Referencing
Editing.
2010-10-14
p. 25
TGTU39 Academic writing II
7
2010-10-13
Your writing: Language issues
American or British English?
Be consistent. Synonyms not often a good idea
…
Passive or active voice?
Tense usage?
Learn “connectives” that can make your text
cohesive.
Use proofing tools and other people for
reviewing your text.
2010-10-14
Sid 30
TGTU39 Academic writing II
Proofing tools
Spell checkers
Grammar tools
Hyphenation
Many false alarms
Improved considerably the last ten years! Use
them!
An automatically grammar checked text is far
from being a good text.
But … best “proofing tool” is probably a
colleague.
2010-10-14
p. 31
TGTU39 Academic writing II
2010-10-14
Sid 32
TGTU39 Academic writing II
8
2010-10-13
Linguistic characteristics of RP
sections
Style
Keep it consistent and appropriate for the message
and audience
Beware of grammar-checking tools
Passive voice should be used in some cases
Avoid
contractions, e.g., ”don’t” and ”we’re”
”I” and use ”We” (but depends …)
informal elements, such as beginning sentences
with ”But …”
2010-10-14
33
TGTU39 Academic writing II
Style: active vs. passive voice
Passive voice
often in process
descriptions
•
2010-10-14
2010-10-14
TGTU39 Academic writing II
Style: active vs. passive voice, cont’d
Sometimes
different agents
are important for
the different steps
in the process
If agent is important
(uncommon), better
to describe the
process as follows:
how something is
done
With active
voice, focus on
stages is lost
•
p. 34
process is
backgrounded
35
TGTU39 Academic writing II
2010-10-14
36
TGTU39 Academic writing II
9
2010-10-13
Flow: Moving from one statement in a text to the next
Style, cont’d
Choose more formal alternative of verb, noun
or other part of speech:
coming up with clear proof offering clear proof
looking into ways to … reviewing ways to …
keep up numbers maintain numbers
gone down in numbers decreased in numbers
really important for an integral part of
a lot of interest considerable interest
That is, reduce informality!
2010-10-14
37
2010-10-14
TGTU39 Academic writing II
Proofread
Look like carefully prepared?
Subject-verb agreement?
Clear paragraphs?
Appropriate verb tenses?
Line spacing appropriate?
Articles used when
necessary? (a, an, the)
Standard fonts and sizes?
Check for misspelled words
TGTU39 Academic writing II
Presentation, cont’d
Presentation: a checklist
Consider overall format
38
Used ”the” too much?
Correct homophones?
Spell-checker missed
anything?
2010-10-14
39
TGTU39 Academic writing II
2010-10-14
40
TGTU39 Academic writing II
10
2010-10-13
Presentation, cont’d
Bibliography
Takkinen, Juha (Ed.) (2010), TGTU39 Academic writing. Pearson Custom
Publishing.
Björk, Lennart A. & Räisänen, Christine (2003), Academic writing: A university
writing course. Third edition. Studentlitteratur.
Zobel, Justin (2004), Writing for computer science. Second edition. Springer.
OWL at Purdue, 2005. Online Writing Lab at Purdue University, Avoiding
Plagiarism. http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/research/r_plagiar.html
(visited 2010-10-11)
Swales, John M. & Feak, Christine B. (2004), Academic Writing for Graduate
Students - Essential Tasks and Skills, .University of Michigan Press .
Berndtsson, Mikael & Hansson, Jörgen & Olsson, Björn & Lundell, Björn (2002),
Planning and Implementing Your Final Year Project with Success!
- A Guide for Students in Computer Science and Information Systems.
Springer-Verlag London Ltd. – Also available in a Second edition now.
2010-10-14
41
TGTU39 Academic writing II
2010-10-14
p. 42
TGTU39 Academic writing II
11