Kendall Richards
Academic Support Adviser
Engineering, Computing &
Creative Industries
C77
k.richards@napier.ac.uk
X2659
You should have one or two
articles
Where did you search?
How reliable is it?
Skim the conclusion, abstract,
introduction and headings
Write a paragraph
Main
argument/point/position/findings
Bibliographical details
Look at each other’s text: Did
they:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
State what happened?
State what something is like?
Give the story?
State the order in which events occurred?
Note the method used?
Say when something occurred?
List details?
State links between items?
Give information?
That would be descriptive
What tense was used?
Significance:
Scholarship
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
supported
Reality-be clear and direct in style
and aims and objectives and explain
what needs to be explained
Relevance
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
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?
Contextualise
Outline
Overview
Thesis
1.Introduction
2.Body
3.Conclusion
Thematic?
Headings?
Broad to specific
Support
Sum up
Support
Thesis?
Conclude
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….’
Short
Statement of objectives
Self-contained
Clear
To the point
Create interest
Main findings and conclusions
Write 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?
Formal
Objective
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
Significance:
Scholarship
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 taking
Wide and varied reading
Synthesis
Analysis 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:
Similarities
Common issues raised
Contradictions (why?)
Criticisms
On balance, what is your academic opinion?
First sweep of literature
Grid of Literature
Source
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
Notes
Theoretical paper. Loads of authors.
Emph imp of students developing
discourses in Engineering.
Method/Approach
Collaborative appr to write up but
more a lit rev
Comments
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
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
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
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
Julie M. Kittleson,1 Sherry A.
Southerland 2004
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
Teaching ‘soft’ skills to engineers
Susan H. Pulko1 and Samir Parikh2
Int Jn of Elect Eng 40
Do the same with your article,
use whatever categories you like.
Use Grids.
Themes/Concepts
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 review
Methodology
Creation of something
Analysis
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 reading
Note making not note taking
Synthesis
Analysis interpretation
What questions would you ask of
a source?
In small groups look at your
articles and make a scale from
strongest to weakest:
Criticality
Sources
Focus
Structure
Language
Criticality?
Scholarship
Analysis
Sources
Relevance
How they are used
Authority
Focus
How much it focuses on task
Relevance
Structure
Academic
Easy to follow argument
Links
Language
Academic
Style
Significance:
Scholarship
Criticality - 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
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 paragraphs
Summarising or changing some of the
text
Using your own words to describe
what someone else has written
Is this plagiarism?
Repeating a commonly known fact or quote
Working with another student on the same
essay and submitting work that is similar
Working in a group and submitting similar
work
Copying files, pictures, data, graphs,
algorithms or computer code
Repeating something you heard on a news
bulletin
Forms of Plagiarism
Quoting directly, paraphrasing or writing
about someone’s ideas without giving a
reference
Using an author’s exact words without
indicating they are quoted and referenced
Presenting your own version of other
people’s ideas without acknowledgement
Putting 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 acknowledgement
Collaborating inappropriately with other
students when individual work is required
Copying another student’s work or someone
else’s work and submitting it as your own
Three Main Rules
1. 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 accountability
Your 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
Provision of in-text citations
(in the body of the work)
Author-date (Harvard)
Number (Vancouver)
Provision of full citations
(usually at the end of the work)
Reference lists
Bibliographies
2 key activities
Referencing
Provision of in-text citations
(in the body of the work)
Author-date (Harvard)
Number (Vancouver)
Either/or
Referencing
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
Provision of full citations
(usually at the end of the work)
Reference lists
Bibliographies
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.
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).
In-text references are citation pointers
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).
Take care with positioning of citation pointer
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).
Take care with positioning of citation pointer
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).
Consider the value of quoting over paraphrasing
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).
Provision of page numbers (or non-provision) is meaningful
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).
Use appropriate abbreviations
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).
Lists
There are two types of list:
reference lists
bibliographies
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 styles
Key information required is standard across styles
Rules 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/595
3365