Editing Practice of scholarship (Spring 2016)
From CommunityData
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 154: | Line 154: | ||
'''Assignment:''' | '''Assignment:''' | ||
* Based on your instructional reading ''and'' your model paper, prepare a check-list (or some similarly concise, usable representation) of attributes of excellently presented research evidence/findings. Your list (or whatever) should be the kind of thing you will use to guide your own work. Upload this to the [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/courses/36533/discussion_topics/239310 corresponding Canvas "Discussion."] We will use these | * Based on your instructional reading ''and'' your model paper, prepare a check-list (or some similarly concise, usable representation) of attributes of excellently presented research evidence/findings. Your list (or whatever) should be the kind of thing you will use to guide your own work. Upload this to the [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/courses/36533/discussion_topics/239310 corresponding Canvas "Discussion."] We will use these as a major part of our discussion in class. | ||
* Write up about 1000 words synthesizing the (anticipated) findings and discussing the significance of your research and upload that to the [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/courses/36533/discussion_topics/239311 corresponding Canvas "Discussion."] I recommend doing this in two parts: | * Write up about 1000 words synthesizing the (anticipated) findings and discussing the significance of your research and upload that to the [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/courses/36533/discussion_topics/239311 corresponding Canvas "Discussion."] I recommend doing this in two parts: | ||
** Write ~500 words explaining the (anticipated) findings from your study. Quite literally, explain what you (expect to) find. What patterns of evidence (would) support these findings? If appropriate, include any data visualizations or tables you (plan to) present. | ** Write ~500 words explaining the (anticipated) findings from your study. Quite literally, explain what you (expect to) find. What patterns of evidence (would) support these findings? If appropriate, include any data visualizations or tables you (plan to) present. | ||
Line 165: | Line 165: | ||
'''Assignment:''' | '''Assignment:''' | ||
* Pick two articles from the [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcom.2016.66.issue-1/issuetoc February, 2016 issue] of ''Journal of Communication'' (Volume 66, Issue 1) or two papers from [ | * Pick two articles from the [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcom.2016.66.issue-1/issuetoc February, 2016 issue] of ''Journal of Communication'' (Volume 66, Issue 1) or two papers from [https://chi2016.acm.org/wp/ CHI 2016] (or one from each). | ||
** If you choose JoC pieces, do not pick the Vorderer article. Do not pick a book review. | ** If you choose JoC pieces, do not pick the Vorderer article. Do not pick a book review. | ||
** If you choose CHI pieces, do not choose a Note or a Panel or something else that is not a full, peer reviewed paper. | ** If you choose CHI pieces, do not choose a Note or a Panel or something else that is not a full, peer reviewed paper. | ||
* Read the Introduction and Conclusion for both articles (ideally, don't read anything else — not even the abstract!) and respond to the following questions ( | * Read the Introduction and Conclusion for both articles (ideally, don't read anything else — not even the abstract!) and respond to the following questions (in writing, submitted via Canvas): | ||
#Provide a link/citation to the paper. | ##Provide a link/citation to the paper. | ||
#Briefly summarize the papers' respective central claims, evidence, and contributions in your own words. | ##Briefly summarize the papers' respective central claims, evidence, and contributions in your own words. | ||
#According to Little's templates (See above), what type of introduction does each paper have? | ##According to Little's templates (See above), what type of introduction does each paper have? | ||
#For your favorite of the two, identify something you think it does well in the introduction and something you think it does well in the conclusion. Justify these choices/preferences. | ##For your favorite of the two, identify something you think it does well in the introduction and something you think it does well in the conclusion. Justify these choices/preferences. | ||
#For the same article (your favorite), what suggestions would you make to the author(s) for improving the introduction? the conclusion? | ##For the same article (your favorite), what suggestions would you make to the author(s) for improving the introduction? the conclusion? | ||
#What can you take away from this favorite article for introducing/concluding your own work? | ##What can you take away from this favorite article for introducing/concluding your own work? | ||
* Write an introduction for your project | * Write an introduction for your project. Keep the Introduction under 800 words. Have it reflect your anticipated findings and contribution (from last week's assignment). | ||
=== Week 8: May 24 — Revise, revise, revise === | === Week 8: May 24 — Revise, revise, revise === | ||
Line 184: | Line 183: | ||
'''Assignment:''' | '''Assignment:''' | ||
=== Week 9: May 31 — Submission, reviews, and revision in publication === | === Week 9: May 31 — Submission, reviews, and revision in publication === | ||
'''Reading:''' | '''Reading:''' | ||
* King, Brayden. 2011. [https://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2011/05/31/the-editors-speak-what-makes-a-good-review/ "The editors speak: what makes a good review?] (read the entire post and all the statements from the journal editors). ''OrgTheory''. | * King, Brayden. 2011. [https://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2011/05/31/the-editors-speak-what-makes-a-good-review/ "The editors speak: what makes a good review?] (read the entire post and all the statements from the journal editors). ''OrgTheory''. | ||
'''Assignment:''' | '''Assignment:''' | ||
* | * Complete peer review assignment (''tbd''). | ||
* Complete self-assessment of your own writing process and your work in the course (''tbd''). | |||
=== Week 10: June 7 — Final projects due === | === Week 10: June 7 — Final projects due === |