Introduction: What goes into the introduction may vary stylistically depending on length, discipline, and purpose. However, a good introduction will allow the reader to decide if they want to continue reading. When you have been asked to revise the introduction, the first thing you need to determine is was this the result of your writing not being focused or clear enough or is this the reviewer wanting you to change direction or refocus your paper? If it is your writing, you need to go back and reread your paper, especially findings/conclusions to make sure your introduction aligns with the rest of the paper.
It might help to do your introduction revisions last. This way you can frame your paper so the reader knows what to expect. This is contrary to your first draft where you frame your paper so you can write. Revisions usually move towards the reader's ability to understand what you write. So leaving introduction revisions to the end means you have a better idea of where you want your reader to end up.
Background/literature review
Often times, we have made claims or framed our paper based on previous theories, but then find that our research does not fit with those theories. This is the section where those that must cull words can do the most culling. This is also the section where you need to craft how your research is relevant.
1) If you are using hypotheses, make sure your develop how previous research supported the development of your hypotheses. This is where you explain you logic in developing the hypothesis, supporting it with research. You don't need to include all the research you have ever read (especially if there is a word limit or the piece is shorter; this is not necessarily true for a dissertation or thesis where breadth of literature is important) but only those pieces that had the most impact on your hypothesis development.
2) If you are using research questions (usually qualitative) to organize literature, use only the research that was relevant in creating the questions or will support the questions you asked.
3) If you have findings that you did not initially anticipate, you need to go back and revise your background information to explain your findings. During my dissertation, my focus was moved from collaborative writing to knowledge creation. As a result, I had to go back and see what the literature was on knowledge creation. I realized that in reframing my question (the question was the same, the answers were different than anticipated and a different discipline explained the answers better), there were no theoretical frameworks for the type of research I was working on. I ended up creating a framework based on the literature I collected AFTER my analysis. This is not an indication that you had a problem with your initial research but rather that you kept an open mind and did not change the data to match your assumptions. This is an attribute of good research.
4) Target any new literature searches to only those areas feedback has indicated as weak. Academic writers have the tendency to want to find new literature which might take them into new areas or give them new understanding of the topics. That is fine for the first draft. But the 2nd and 3rd drafts only need research that supports or frames their hypothesis/message/research questions. One thing I've found helpful is to save new ideas/literature for future articles by writing up memos I can revisit. This way, I don't feel as if I'm missing anything.
Saturday, November 16, 2013
Friday, November 15, 2013
Tips on Revision: Trouble shooting sections: Abstract/Executive summary
Troubleshooting sections
If your style is more working section by section, here are some tips for each section.
Abstract/Executive Summary: ECPublishing had a great insight into the importance of your abstract:
Although this is the first thing read by most readers, it is often the last thing written. Many people are afraid to give the results/conclusions of the paper because they want others to read it. However, without results/conclusions, a reader will not know if the paper is relevant. In fact, I never download a paper where I'm not sure what the results are. I tie the abstract closely with the conclusion of a paper. It forces the conclusion to be focused and it makes the abstract relevant to your paper's message. Another way to think of it is: If someone were to ask you what your paper was about and what impact it has for researchers in 5 sentences, what would you say? This is why most people say to write the abstract last.
One of the main problems in revisions, however, is that your message/conclusions and how you word them may change. If you have a teacher/supervisor/editor who wants you to shift focus, you may rewrite your conclusion. Remember to revise your abstract also.
If your style is more working section by section, here are some tips for each section.
Abstract/Executive Summary: ECPublishing had a great insight into the importance of your abstract:
Make sure your abstract and title truly reflect the content of your paper and are written well. You need to sell your paper and its significance. We can’t rewrite your abstract to make it more attractive to reviewers; you need to make it concise and full of impact.
Although this is the first thing read by most readers, it is often the last thing written. Many people are afraid to give the results/conclusions of the paper because they want others to read it. However, without results/conclusions, a reader will not know if the paper is relevant. In fact, I never download a paper where I'm not sure what the results are. I tie the abstract closely with the conclusion of a paper. It forces the conclusion to be focused and it makes the abstract relevant to your paper's message. Another way to think of it is: If someone were to ask you what your paper was about and what impact it has for researchers in 5 sentences, what would you say? This is why most people say to write the abstract last.
One of the main problems in revisions, however, is that your message/conclusions and how you word them may change. If you have a teacher/supervisor/editor who wants you to shift focus, you may rewrite your conclusion. Remember to revise your abstract also.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Tips on Revision: Major revisions
Major Revisions
The first thing you must determine when faced when major revisions (including total overhaul of organization, reformulating your research, cutting out large amounts of your document) is whether to start the writing process over or try starting over. The reason most people don't do this is because they feel they will have wasted time writing the first draft. However, sometimes the structural or content changes are so major it is better to start from scratch, using the ideas and insights you created while writing your first draft.
One suggestion in starting over is to answer the question: What are the three major things I want the reader to take away from this. This is the equivalent of the 3 minute pitch. This should help you to focus your writing on only the most important elements for this one particular piece of writing. Once you have these three major points, you can use them to write your introduction. If you have specific passages that support those three points, you can cut and paste them into your new structure, but only as they support your introduction. Anything else should be excluded and saved for later. I did this for my dissertation. While editing and revision was an interesting topic, it did not fit my introduction, nor did it really answer my research questions. As a result, I am now doing further research just on that topic for a journal article.
This last suggestion also works when you need to cut a lot out to fit a required word limit. By focusing on your research questions and introduction, you can cut out parts that are not directly relevant. You need to be ruthless in your cuts, however, keep the sections for further publications.
The first thing you must determine when faced when major revisions (including total overhaul of organization, reformulating your research, cutting out large amounts of your document) is whether to start the writing process over or try starting over. The reason most people don't do this is because they feel they will have wasted time writing the first draft. However, sometimes the structural or content changes are so major it is better to start from scratch, using the ideas and insights you created while writing your first draft.
One suggestion in starting over is to answer the question: What are the three major things I want the reader to take away from this. This is the equivalent of the 3 minute pitch. This should help you to focus your writing on only the most important elements for this one particular piece of writing. Once you have these three major points, you can use them to write your introduction. If you have specific passages that support those three points, you can cut and paste them into your new structure, but only as they support your introduction. Anything else should be excluded and saved for later. I did this for my dissertation. While editing and revision was an interesting topic, it did not fit my introduction, nor did it really answer my research questions. As a result, I am now doing further research just on that topic for a journal article.
This last suggestion also works when you need to cut a lot out to fit a required word limit. By focusing on your research questions and introduction, you can cut out parts that are not directly relevant. You need to be ruthless in your cuts, however, keep the sections for further publications.
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Tips on revising: Overview
Introduction
My original intent was to have one comprehensive post. But as I was putting the finishing touches on the post, I realized it was a lot of reading (especially for #acwrimo participants who may not have time to read it all in one sitting. So I have decided to divide this into a daily post over the next week. Hope it is helpful.
Making Revisions
All writing will need revisions. Hopefully in the previous two posts, you have identified when to get feedback and the tasks and roles in the editing process. Now you need to take the feedback and make revisions. This can be difficult. The first thing to do is to identify what you will change. You don't have to take all recommendations, but you do need to review and evaluate feedback.
Because the revision process can be emotional, you may need to take a few days between the time that you read over the feedback and when you actually make the revisions. This will allow you to evaluate the suggestions and address how you will approach revisions you need. You may also want clarification about the feedback also during this time. Finally, revision can be tedious and tiring. After all of the work, there still might be the feeling that you have not accomplished much. One of the suggestions on #acwrimo was to set a page goal (3 pages revised a day, for example). This will make you feel as if you have been productive.
Finally, set a deadline. Allow yourself only a short time to make revisions (i.e. 2 weeks). This will help prevent you from overthinking your revisions and trying to create the "perfect paper" which never gets published or presented to the appropriate audiences. You may need to make revisions a 2nd or 3rd time, but leave that decision up to the reviewers. Remember, now that you are revising, the focus will be on the reviewer/reader as much as your own ideas. Therefore, it is important to check back with them during the process if you have a question. But you do still have control over the process. Revision then becomes a balancing act of pleasing the reader and making the paper what you perceive as perfect. Let go of your concepts of perfection and give yourself over to negotiated expectations!
The series:
Major revisions
Troubleshooting:
Abstract/Executive Summary
Introduction and Background/Lit review
Body of Writing and Visuals
Conclusion
Final Edits
My original intent was to have one comprehensive post. But as I was putting the finishing touches on the post, I realized it was a lot of reading (especially for #acwrimo participants who may not have time to read it all in one sitting. So I have decided to divide this into a daily post over the next week. Hope it is helpful.
Making Revisions
All writing will need revisions. Hopefully in the previous two posts, you have identified when to get feedback and the tasks and roles in the editing process. Now you need to take the feedback and make revisions. This can be difficult. The first thing to do is to identify what you will change. You don't have to take all recommendations, but you do need to review and evaluate feedback.
Because the revision process can be emotional, you may need to take a few days between the time that you read over the feedback and when you actually make the revisions. This will allow you to evaluate the suggestions and address how you will approach revisions you need. You may also want clarification about the feedback also during this time. Finally, revision can be tedious and tiring. After all of the work, there still might be the feeling that you have not accomplished much. One of the suggestions on #acwrimo was to set a page goal (3 pages revised a day, for example). This will make you feel as if you have been productive.
Finally, set a deadline. Allow yourself only a short time to make revisions (i.e. 2 weeks). This will help prevent you from overthinking your revisions and trying to create the "perfect paper" which never gets published or presented to the appropriate audiences. You may need to make revisions a 2nd or 3rd time, but leave that decision up to the reviewers. Remember, now that you are revising, the focus will be on the reviewer/reader as much as your own ideas. Therefore, it is important to check back with them during the process if you have a question. But you do still have control over the process. Revision then becomes a balancing act of pleasing the reader and making the paper what you perceive as perfect. Let go of your concepts of perfection and give yourself over to negotiated expectations!
The series:
Major revisions
Troubleshooting:
Abstract/Executive Summary
Introduction and Background/Lit review
Body of Writing and Visuals
Conclusion
Final Edits
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Roles and Tasks in Academic Editing #acwrimo
We are told repeatedly that feedback in an important part of the writing process. However, very little has actually been written/researched about writing feedback (other than that it should be done). My own research has indicated that there are seven different roles an editor/reviewer can play which will result in different types of feedback. These might help when you are submitting a paper (whether to an adviser/supervisor, an editor, an instructor, or a colleague).
1) Contributor: This person adds content to your writing. This is found in collaborative writing projects, but also in some academic writing. An instructor or reviewer may require that you add something verbatim into your written product. I think of grant applications or review board/ethics forms.
2) Owner: This is the person/entity that owns your product. This could be you (as the writer), a group, your instructor, your department (for which you are writing on their behalf), your institution (especially if writing is being used to evaluate), funders, publishers, or stakeholders (especially if you are doing participatory research). According to my research, sometimes it is easier to accept criticism if ownership is not the writer per se. However, this also means the writer needs to align their writer with that of the perceived owner of the document. So outside feedback from the owner becomes even more important.
3) Approver: This is the person that has the final say. This can be group members, an instructor/adviser/supervisor, a manager, a funder, participants. The approver will give you an okay or not okay, perhaps some reasons why, but not much feedback on how to change it. Papers/writing should not be submitted to Approvers until you are almost finished, although informal conversations may be needed to make sure writer(s) are on the right track.
4) Formatter: The formatter’s job is to make sure a paper is structurally, grammatically, stylistically appropriate. Many times the formatter is the writer. However, the formatter can also be a group member, editor, or consultant used to ensure writing aligns with stylistic/language/structure in which writing is situated. For example, an American writing for a British based journal will need to check for spelling conventions. This is the “mechanics” editing many of us learn in school.
5) Gatekeeper: This person has two major roles: a) make sure the writing process progresses through to completion, and b) make sure final product meets the expectation of the audience. This person can give verbal feedback throughout the process, maintain writing tasks and draft versions, and do targeted reviews at any time in the writing process. The gatekeeper is different from the approver in that he, she, or they do not have the final say. Rather they keep the process going.
6) Negotiator: The negotiator identifies when there is ambiguity in the writing. The negotiator does not change the writing like the owner or contributor would. Rather, they give feedback on their understanding of piece and identify areas needed for clarification. Through their feedback, they help the writer(s) to develop their message and supporting information. The negotiator plays the role of the audience so the writer can understand the impact of their writing on the reader.
7) Author: The author is public face of the writer. The name(s) that go(es) on the document is author. They are ultimately responsible for the final written piece. The author can be different than the contributor (in collaborative writing, for example, the writer may just put together contributions or may have someone else who formats). However, many times the author plays many of the roles outlined above, especially for academic papers for evaluation (such as dissertation or class paper).
In analyzing these roles, the types of editing/feedback/revision tasks can be divided into formative (developing a written document), technical mechanics (structure, style, grammar), authoritative (approval), and meaning making.
It is important when asking for feedback that you identify which of these tasks you are expecting the reading to do. It is useful if you are able to identify what role you perceive the reader to have. Not only will that help guide the reader in the type of feedback you want, it also helps you choose reviewers at different stages of the writing process.
For example, asking a teacher to review one of your papers at the beginning of the writing process may not get you the formative or meaning making feedback you need. Instead, their feedback might be authoritative without the type of feedback that you need to help develop your ideas. On the other hand, expecting a friend or colleague to understand the alignment a paper needs to have with academic standards or a journal (which approvers have) means that the approval they give a paper will lack the authoritative feedback you may need. It may be better to submit a draft for preapproval feedback before it is too late to make revisions.
1) Contributor: This person adds content to your writing. This is found in collaborative writing projects, but also in some academic writing. An instructor or reviewer may require that you add something verbatim into your written product. I think of grant applications or review board/ethics forms.
2) Owner: This is the person/entity that owns your product. This could be you (as the writer), a group, your instructor, your department (for which you are writing on their behalf), your institution (especially if writing is being used to evaluate), funders, publishers, or stakeholders (especially if you are doing participatory research). According to my research, sometimes it is easier to accept criticism if ownership is not the writer per se. However, this also means the writer needs to align their writer with that of the perceived owner of the document. So outside feedback from the owner becomes even more important.
3) Approver: This is the person that has the final say. This can be group members, an instructor/adviser/supervisor, a manager, a funder, participants. The approver will give you an okay or not okay, perhaps some reasons why, but not much feedback on how to change it. Papers/writing should not be submitted to Approvers until you are almost finished, although informal conversations may be needed to make sure writer(s) are on the right track.
4) Formatter: The formatter’s job is to make sure a paper is structurally, grammatically, stylistically appropriate. Many times the formatter is the writer. However, the formatter can also be a group member, editor, or consultant used to ensure writing aligns with stylistic/language/structure in which writing is situated. For example, an American writing for a British based journal will need to check for spelling conventions. This is the “mechanics” editing many of us learn in school.
5) Gatekeeper: This person has two major roles: a) make sure the writing process progresses through to completion, and b) make sure final product meets the expectation of the audience. This person can give verbal feedback throughout the process, maintain writing tasks and draft versions, and do targeted reviews at any time in the writing process. The gatekeeper is different from the approver in that he, she, or they do not have the final say. Rather they keep the process going.
6) Negotiator: The negotiator identifies when there is ambiguity in the writing. The negotiator does not change the writing like the owner or contributor would. Rather, they give feedback on their understanding of piece and identify areas needed for clarification. Through their feedback, they help the writer(s) to develop their message and supporting information. The negotiator plays the role of the audience so the writer can understand the impact of their writing on the reader.
7) Author: The author is public face of the writer. The name(s) that go(es) on the document is author. They are ultimately responsible for the final written piece. The author can be different than the contributor (in collaborative writing, for example, the writer may just put together contributions or may have someone else who formats). However, many times the author plays many of the roles outlined above, especially for academic papers for evaluation (such as dissertation or class paper).
In analyzing these roles, the types of editing/feedback/revision tasks can be divided into formative (developing a written document), technical mechanics (structure, style, grammar), authoritative (approval), and meaning making.
It is important when asking for feedback that you identify which of these tasks you are expecting the reading to do. It is useful if you are able to identify what role you perceive the reader to have. Not only will that help guide the reader in the type of feedback you want, it also helps you choose reviewers at different stages of the writing process.
For example, asking a teacher to review one of your papers at the beginning of the writing process may not get you the formative or meaning making feedback you need. Instead, their feedback might be authoritative without the type of feedback that you need to help develop your ideas. On the other hand, expecting a friend or colleague to understand the alignment a paper needs to have with academic standards or a journal (which approvers have) means that the approval they give a paper will lack the authoritative feedback you may need. It may be better to submit a draft for preapproval feedback before it is too late to make revisions.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
#adjunctchat Nov 4: Attending conferences
As adjuncts, we are not expected to contribute research to our profession. However, the reality is that long-term academic positions have changed over the last 20 years and there is an expectation of academic publishing or presentation at conferences. However, there is little funding available for research or conference participation. So adjuncts that want to continue on an academic route may not have the opportunity to participate in conferences.
In a recent post for Vitae (the chronicle of higher education job search function), Kelly Baker spoke of the love of research and writing, and her ability to publish which did not get her that tenure track job. So while some adjuncts feel this is the only way to get a tenure track job, research tells a different story.
So the first question is:
1) Are conferences worth the time and effort for an adjunct?
If you decide conferences are work the time and effort, then:
2) What are the benefits to participating in a conference?
3) What are the challenges to participating in a conference?
4) What are some strategies finding conferences and participating in them?
5) What are realistic expectations for participating in conferences and the impact it will have on your career?
Even if you have never and never want to participate in a conference, I hope you'll participate in the discussion.
In a recent post for Vitae (the chronicle of higher education job search function), Kelly Baker spoke of the love of research and writing, and her ability to publish which did not get her that tenure track job. So while some adjuncts feel this is the only way to get a tenure track job, research tells a different story.
So the first question is:
1) Are conferences worth the time and effort for an adjunct?
If you decide conferences are work the time and effort, then:
2) What are the benefits to participating in a conference?
3) What are the challenges to participating in a conference?
4) What are some strategies finding conferences and participating in them?
5) What are realistic expectations for participating in conferences and the impact it will have on your career?
Even if you have never and never want to participate in a conference, I hope you'll participate in the discussion.
Friday, November 1, 2013
When, how and who to ask for academic writing feedback #acwrimo
In honor of Academic Writing Month (#acwrimo), I have decided to write a weekly series on feedback/revision/editing. This is an often overlooked, yet important, aspect of academic writing.
So now you’ve written your piece or perhaps you’re in the planning stages. It’s your work, so you want to maintain ownership. However, you also know you’re going to have to have your piece reviewed. Who do you ask? What type of feedback should you get before you submit a piece? How do you get feedback so that you maintain ownership of your scholarship, yet still are able to produce a publishable piece?
First, recognize that there is a difference between writing you do as a student compared to writing you do as a professional academic or researcher. As a student, you are writing (for the most part) to be evaluated on your knowledge of a topic. Therefore, when you write, there is a piece of you that goes into your writing. If your writing is evaluated as lacking, it reflects on you, the student. It is important as a student that you demonstrate what you know to the evaluator (teacher, evaluator(s), dissertation committee).
Professional writing, on the other hand, is to provide information/a view point/research to a readership that may be interested. As a result, peer reviewers and editors want your writing to align with the expectations of the readers. They are not looking at WHO wrote the piece, but the written piece itself. If they reject or want you to change something about your written product, they are not rejecting you as a person (many times, especially in blind reviews, they don’t even know who you are), but your writing, ideas, or the appropriateness of the writing for the audience they represent.
When to ask for feedback
This depends on how you write. I like to ask for feedback in the planning stages. I know of colleagues that send ideas to publishers and editors to ensure it is viable or get suggestions on how to frame a piece of writing for a particular audience. This can save you a lot of editing in the long run. On the other hand, if you are someone prone to writer’s block, this type of feedback could build the wall up to reinforce the writer’s block.
Book writing is very different than article writing. Often you need to submit an outline which includes an audience and justification for publishing. This is when feedback from colleagues or others in your profession come in handy. Identify some experts to submit your outline to for feedback. If you are in a very competitive discipline send them the general concept (as opposed to a fully developed proposal). Their feedback can then become part of your proposal.
Before you submit a first draft, have someone unfamiliar with the topic review what you’ve written. They can assess the clarity of your writing without having to analyze your content. Then you may want an expert to review your piece for the content/theoretical basis. It helps to identify for your editor/reader what you want them to look for. If you don’t ask them to correct typos or grammatical errors, don’t expect that they will do so.
Finally, expect you will need to make revisions. Sometimes this helps take the pressure off to be perfect which can create writer block. If the draft you submit is not perfect, don’t worry. Even if you think it’s perfect, most likely the peer reviewers will have suggestions. Don’t take this feedback for publication personally as the reviewer is probably just trying to align your writing to reader expectations. Once you get suggestion back, review each piece of feedback. It is not necessary that you make changes for everything suggested by reviewers. Rather, think of what they are saying and keep those things that you feel are important to keep. If you have reviewers that are contradicting in their feedback, work with the editor to determine what he or she wants you to do. The editor has the final say.
Conclusion
So, 1) Don't be afraid to ask for feedback at any time during the writing process;
2) You don't have to accept everything a reviewer suggests, but you do need to consider his or her comments and be able to justify your choices;
3) Have at least one person who knows nothing about your topic review your writing for clarity;
4) During the formative writing process, tell your reviewers/readers what you want them to focus on in their feedback;
5) Don't take feedback personally, especially if you are writing for publication.
So now you’ve written your piece or perhaps you’re in the planning stages. It’s your work, so you want to maintain ownership. However, you also know you’re going to have to have your piece reviewed. Who do you ask? What type of feedback should you get before you submit a piece? How do you get feedback so that you maintain ownership of your scholarship, yet still are able to produce a publishable piece?
First, recognize that there is a difference between writing you do as a student compared to writing you do as a professional academic or researcher. As a student, you are writing (for the most part) to be evaluated on your knowledge of a topic. Therefore, when you write, there is a piece of you that goes into your writing. If your writing is evaluated as lacking, it reflects on you, the student. It is important as a student that you demonstrate what you know to the evaluator (teacher, evaluator(s), dissertation committee).
Professional writing, on the other hand, is to provide information/a view point/research to a readership that may be interested. As a result, peer reviewers and editors want your writing to align with the expectations of the readers. They are not looking at WHO wrote the piece, but the written piece itself. If they reject or want you to change something about your written product, they are not rejecting you as a person (many times, especially in blind reviews, they don’t even know who you are), but your writing, ideas, or the appropriateness of the writing for the audience they represent.
When to ask for feedback
This depends on how you write. I like to ask for feedback in the planning stages. I know of colleagues that send ideas to publishers and editors to ensure it is viable or get suggestions on how to frame a piece of writing for a particular audience. This can save you a lot of editing in the long run. On the other hand, if you are someone prone to writer’s block, this type of feedback could build the wall up to reinforce the writer’s block.
Book writing is very different than article writing. Often you need to submit an outline which includes an audience and justification for publishing. This is when feedback from colleagues or others in your profession come in handy. Identify some experts to submit your outline to for feedback. If you are in a very competitive discipline send them the general concept (as opposed to a fully developed proposal). Their feedback can then become part of your proposal.
Before you submit a first draft, have someone unfamiliar with the topic review what you’ve written. They can assess the clarity of your writing without having to analyze your content. Then you may want an expert to review your piece for the content/theoretical basis. It helps to identify for your editor/reader what you want them to look for. If you don’t ask them to correct typos or grammatical errors, don’t expect that they will do so.
Finally, expect you will need to make revisions. Sometimes this helps take the pressure off to be perfect which can create writer block. If the draft you submit is not perfect, don’t worry. Even if you think it’s perfect, most likely the peer reviewers will have suggestions. Don’t take this feedback for publication personally as the reviewer is probably just trying to align your writing to reader expectations. Once you get suggestion back, review each piece of feedback. It is not necessary that you make changes for everything suggested by reviewers. Rather, think of what they are saying and keep those things that you feel are important to keep. If you have reviewers that are contradicting in their feedback, work with the editor to determine what he or she wants you to do. The editor has the final say.
Conclusion
So, 1) Don't be afraid to ask for feedback at any time during the writing process;
2) You don't have to accept everything a reviewer suggests, but you do need to consider his or her comments and be able to justify your choices;
3) Have at least one person who knows nothing about your topic review your writing for clarity;
4) During the formative writing process, tell your reviewers/readers what you want them to focus on in their feedback;
5) Don't take feedback personally, especially if you are writing for publication.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
#Adjunctchat 10/22: Dealing with demanding students and student demands
We've all been there. The student who takes over the class while others role their eyes; the student that wants feedback on every section of their project within the next 24 hours; the student that insists that you graded him or her unfairly; the student that wants just a little more time on their paper because they were busy over the weekend; the student that plagiarizes; the student who needs a letter of recommendation for grad school, a job, an internship, or study abroad program.
The problem is that as adjunct or contingent faculty, we may not have the time, space, or support to accommodate these students. Some adjuncts may not have office space in which to meet students; some adjuncts may only be able to discuss issues with students over the internet; some contingent faculty are evaluated for further courses solely on student evaluations; some instructors only work at night when support services are not available. However, unlike tenured faculty, our jobs may be dependent upon how we react to these situations. In today's chat we'll discuss some of the problems with working with demanding or problem students and some strategies to ensure we have time for the rest of the class, class prep, and our own work outside of class. We'll also discuss strategies with managing legitimate student demands such as letters of recommendations, receiving feedback on assignments in a timely manner, or make-up exams.
The questions will include:
Q1 How, where, and when do you interact with students outside of the scheduled class period?
Q2 What are some student demands you struggle with? How do you manage those demands?
Q3 How do you manage problem/demanding students? How might this be different than a tenure track or a tenured professor?
Q4 What support is available/should you ask for from the University in managing these demands?
Q5 How do you ensure a good reputation as an instructor while managing these demanding students/student demands?
The problem is that as adjunct or contingent faculty, we may not have the time, space, or support to accommodate these students. Some adjuncts may not have office space in which to meet students; some adjuncts may only be able to discuss issues with students over the internet; some contingent faculty are evaluated for further courses solely on student evaluations; some instructors only work at night when support services are not available. However, unlike tenured faculty, our jobs may be dependent upon how we react to these situations. In today's chat we'll discuss some of the problems with working with demanding or problem students and some strategies to ensure we have time for the rest of the class, class prep, and our own work outside of class. We'll also discuss strategies with managing legitimate student demands such as letters of recommendations, receiving feedback on assignments in a timely manner, or make-up exams.
The questions will include:
Q1 How, where, and when do you interact with students outside of the scheduled class period?
Q2 What are some student demands you struggle with? How do you manage those demands?
Q3 How do you manage problem/demanding students? How might this be different than a tenure track or a tenured professor?
Q4 What support is available/should you ask for from the University in managing these demands?
Q5 How do you ensure a good reputation as an instructor while managing these demanding students/student demands?
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
The importance of multiple languages to understand communication
Lately, my son has decided he needs to learn more languages to get into graduate school for History. He studied Spanish from grade 2-12, then took Italian for a year and a half, and Latin for a half a year. After studying in Italy for a semester, he came home this summer ready to tackle French. The second summer semester in which he would study French 2 was cancelled, so he decided to get a copy of his university's syllabus, order the book, and with help from me (I received certification to teach French in the state of Vermont), he is tackling French 2 so he can study French 3, German, and Latin next year.
Now, while it sounds as if he is a gifted language learner, the fact is that after 12 years of Spanish, a third and fourth language became easier to learn. I went through the same process, first studying Spanish in High School, then French in College, then studying at the University of Fribourg where the majority of my courses were taught in French.
In watching the process from afar (from my son), I realized how important it is to learn multiple languages to understand the communication process and one's own language. It also is important to be immersed in another language to understand linguistics, semantics, non-verbal communication, expressive language/language choice, and symbolic representation of language (writing in its various formats).
Studies on bi-lingual speakers have confirmed that bilingualism helps to create cognitive flexibility. I see this with my own niece who is English/Slovakian bilingual. It has helped with her reading comprehension, expressive writing skills, and critical thinking.
It is not enough to learn a second language, however. Learning a third language helps to establish language patterns from which speakers can understand differences and similarities. We don't stop teaching math at just algebra or science at just biology. There are some universal truths in each discipline, but just as many differences that create a deeper understanding through disruption of patterns.
This is a reality that is very difficult to convey to the majority of American teachers (especially ELA) who are monolingual. I have had many discussions in education, writing, and communication classes, workshops, and/or conferences in which the monolingual teacher does not understand the cognitive process that happens in speaking a foreign language. It is hard to articulate the communication process in understanding others who language does not fit the boundaries of native speakers (although at other times, different accents and non-standard language does fit the boundaries). This is where socio- and anthrolinguistics comes in. But this is difficult to understand if someone has never experienced when cultural boundaries of language are tested.
So my recommendation is that all linguistics, ELA, Writing, communication, and reading teachers be exposed to multiple language learning (we would be taught in a non-familiar language such as Thai, Chinese, Portuguese, or Hindi for the introduction of each topic in my language acquisition class), if not required to study at least 2 foreign languages and study in a non-English speaking country or territory.
Now, while it sounds as if he is a gifted language learner, the fact is that after 12 years of Spanish, a third and fourth language became easier to learn. I went through the same process, first studying Spanish in High School, then French in College, then studying at the University of Fribourg where the majority of my courses were taught in French.
In watching the process from afar (from my son), I realized how important it is to learn multiple languages to understand the communication process and one's own language. It also is important to be immersed in another language to understand linguistics, semantics, non-verbal communication, expressive language/language choice, and symbolic representation of language (writing in its various formats).
Studies on bi-lingual speakers have confirmed that bilingualism helps to create cognitive flexibility. I see this with my own niece who is English/Slovakian bilingual. It has helped with her reading comprehension, expressive writing skills, and critical thinking.
It is not enough to learn a second language, however. Learning a third language helps to establish language patterns from which speakers can understand differences and similarities. We don't stop teaching math at just algebra or science at just biology. There are some universal truths in each discipline, but just as many differences that create a deeper understanding through disruption of patterns.
This is a reality that is very difficult to convey to the majority of American teachers (especially ELA) who are monolingual. I have had many discussions in education, writing, and communication classes, workshops, and/or conferences in which the monolingual teacher does not understand the cognitive process that happens in speaking a foreign language. It is hard to articulate the communication process in understanding others who language does not fit the boundaries of native speakers (although at other times, different accents and non-standard language does fit the boundaries). This is where socio- and anthrolinguistics comes in. But this is difficult to understand if someone has never experienced when cultural boundaries of language are tested.
So my recommendation is that all linguistics, ELA, Writing, communication, and reading teachers be exposed to multiple language learning (we would be taught in a non-familiar language such as Thai, Chinese, Portuguese, or Hindi for the introduction of each topic in my language acquisition class), if not required to study at least 2 foreign languages and study in a non-English speaking country or territory.
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
Organizational Creativity
A while back, I cowrote an article on the psychology of entrepreneurs. My role was to help update the paper that one of my colleagues had written a while before. I took a totally different approach as my background was in international management and communication. Our paper has been well received and still holds up. One reason it may still hold up is that we tried to identify the universals that came out of research regardless of discipline, culture, or methodology. These universals included a high locus of control, high tolerance of ambiguity, a risk taking personality, the ability to rebound after failure, and strong community/familiar support.
So how does that relate to organizational creativity? One of the concepts in the paper that I think was lacking was the creative mind of the entrepreneur. Part of the reason is that few people studied creativity among entrepreneurs is because we assume 1) entrepreneurs are already creative; 2) creativity is subjective and therefore difficult to measure or even observe; 3) business studies need to be “scientific” which means the “soft sciences” such as creativity, communication, innovation, and artistic sense do not have a place in business journals.
Recently, however, there has been a resurgence in research on organizational creativity and innovation. Just in searching “organizational creativity” on google scholar for 2013 (7 months) returned 14,800 hits compared to a total of 58,400 for the time period of 2000-2005 (an average of 11,800 per month). This does not include other concepts that might fall under “creativity” such as knowledge creation, innovation, product/idea development, organizational design, and collective knowledge.
My own research on knowledge creation in distributed groups has recently had me reevaluating my data to answer the following questions:
1) What organizational, departmental, and group processes affect individual creativity and the creativity at all levels of an organization? How do these processes inhibit or encourage innovation and creativity?
2) How do cultural practices (organizational, departmental, academic discipline/professional, societal) inhibit or encourage creativity? How creativity is perceived and/or defined?
3) What design features create the best environment for creativity? What environmental features? What interpersonal/societal/communication features?
I will be focusing on some of my findings about transactional and negotiated knowledge, knowledge boundaries at various levels, and the concept of “design” in organizational practices.
Reading list:
Shin, Soo-Young; Park, Won-Woo; Lim, Hyoun Sook, (2013). What Makes Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises Promote Organizational Creativity: The Contingency Perspective. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, Volume 41, Number 1, 2013 , pp. 71-82(12).
Anit Somech & Anat Drach-Zahavy (2013). Translating Team Creativity to Innovation Implementation
The Role of Team Composition and Climate for Innovation. Journal of Management. vol. 39 no. 3 684-708.
Cook, S & Yanow, D. (1993). Culture and organizational learning. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2 (4), 373-390.
Goodwin, C. (1994) Professional Vision. American Anthropologist, New Series, 96 (3), 606-633.
Mohammed, S., & Dumville, B. (2001). Team mental models in a team knowledge framework: Expanding theory and measurement across disciplinary boundaries. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 89-106.
Rouwette, E. & Vennix, J. (2008). Team learning on messy problems. In Sessa, V. & London, M. (Eds) Work Group Learning (pp. 243-284). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Moreland, R., & Levine, J. (2001). Socialization in organizations and work groups. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research (pp. 69-112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erbaum Associates.
Jehn, K., Northcraft, G., & Neale, M. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 741-763.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)