Basics of Paper Writing and Publishing in TEL (JTEL 2013)


Published on

Paper Writing Workshop at JTEL Summer School 2013, Limassol, Cyprus

Published in: Education, Business, Technology

Basics of Paper Writing and Publishing in TEL (JTEL 2013)

  1. 1. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems)Prof. Dr. M. Jarke1LearningLayersThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.Basics of Paper Writing andPublishing in TELMichael Derntl, Milos Kravcik, Ralf KlammaRWTH Aachen UniversityAdvanced Community Information Systems (ACIS){derntl,kravcik,klamma}@dbis.rwth-aachen.de9th Joint European Summer School onTechnology Enhanced Learning (JTEL 2013)May 27-31, 2013Limassol, Cyprus
  2. 2. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems)Prof. Dr. M. Jarke2LearningLayersManaging Expectations What we will tackle today– Paper structure– Organizing a piece of text– Commence mini conference for the week What we will tackle on Friday– Discuss the mini conference reviews– Elaborate a publication strategy in TEL– Identify landmarks in your thesis field– Mistakes to avoid
  3. 3. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems)Prof. Dr. M. Jarke3LearningLayersScientific Texts –Intentions vs Expectations Intentions (authors)– Communicate with peers– Protect intellectual property– Gain reputation– Get promoted– Progress science– Remember– Understand– Gain perspective[BCWi95] [Stoc00] [Ocon05] [PEBK02] Expectations (readers)– Standard form (sections,paragraphs, sentences)– Audience “coverage”– Quality (relevance,significance, soundness)– Discussion (limitations,embedding in existingfindings, implications, …)– Correct languageAll it takes is structure and practice!
  4. 4. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems)Prof. Dr. M. Jarke4LearningLayersPaper StructureHourglass Model [Swal93]IntroductionBodyConclusiongeneralspecificspecificgeneralSection Theme
  5. 5. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems)Prof. Dr. M. Jarke5LearningLayersPaper Structure“King Model” [Dern11]TitleAbstractIntroductionBodyConclusionReferences
  6. 6. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems)Prof. Dr. M. Jarke6LearningLayersPaper Structure:Title Very important part – why? Rules of thumb:– Fewest possible words thatadequately describe the papercontent– Avoid waste words– Nouns over verbsTitleAbstractIntroductionBodyConclusionReferences
  7. 7. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems)Prof. Dr. M. Jarke7LearningLayersPaper Structure:Title Types of title– Descriptive: Investigating the role ofacademic conferences on shaping theresearch agenda– Declarative: Academic conferencesshape the short-term research agenda– Interrogative: Do academic conferencesshape the research agenda?– Compound, e.g. separated by ? or : Impact of title type:– Interrogative: more downloads, fewercites– Compound with colon: longer; fewerdownloads and cites– Long titles: fewer downloadsTitleAbstractIntroductionBodyConclusionReferences[JaNi11]
  8. 8. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems)Prof. Dr. M. Jarke8LearningLayersPaper Structure:Title Title checklist– includes main topic– unambiguous– specific– attractive– short– accurate– adequate– no abbreviations– consider audienceTitleAbstractIntroductionBodyConclusionReferences
  9. 9. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems)Prof. Dr. M. Jarke9LearningLayersPaper Structure:TitleTitle checklist includes main topic unambiguous specific attractive short accurate adequate no abbreviations consider audienceExamples titles:1. Report of the results of an IMS Learning Designexpert workshop2. Educational Technology and Culture: The Influenceof Ethnic and Professional Culture on LearnersTechnology Acceptance3. A New Framework for Dynamic Adaptations andActions4. CAMera for PLE5. Go To Statement Considered Harmful6. Users in the Drivers Seat: A New Approach toClassifying Teaching Methods in a UniversityRepository7. Considering formal assessment in learning analyticswithin a PLE8. HT06, tagging paper, taxonomy, Flickr, academicarticle, to read
  10. 10. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems)Prof. Dr. M. Jarke10LearningLayersPaper Structure:Abstract Task:– Read the four abstracts on thehandout*– Identify strong and weak points– Identify criteria for goodabstracts– Rank the four abstracts on theranking sheetTitleAbstractIntroductionBodyConclusionReferencesThe abstracts are also available at*
  11. 11. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems)Prof. Dr. M. Jarke11LearningLayersPaper Structure:AbstractTypes– Informative: what content is in the paper– Indicative / descriptive: how is the content presentedChecklist, ~1 sentence each– Motivation– Problem definition– Solution– Results– ImplicationsNo go– Exact title phrase– Copy & paste from text– Figures or tables– Sources (depends)TitleAbstractIntroductionBodyConclusionReferences
  12. 12. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems)Prof. Dr. M. Jarke12LearningLayersPaper Structure:AbstractLow detailNo referencesGeneral exampleOverviewHigh detailAll referencesSpecific examplesReproducibilityAbstract Full textA good abstract [ElseXX]: Is specific and precise Can stand alone Uses little technical jargon Uses no or few abbreviations
  13. 13. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems)Prof. Dr. M. Jarke13LearningLayers4th Place: Abstract CMotivation Problem Solution Results ImplicationsY. Jiang, Z. Wu, Z. Zhan, L. Xu (2010) Proc. ICWL 2010 Workshops, pp. 195-206. © Springer VerlagThis paper proposes a strategy to personalized the Internetsearching, which would help to filter, extract and integratethe massive information from the web based on the specificuser requirements in the hopes that it can relieve them fromthe tedious process of manually selecting and retrieving therelevant information as well as the confusion caused by theinconsistencies of the information. The strategy proposed inthis paper has been applied to the searching of the laptopproduct information and the result shows a much lesshuman effort involved and a much more accurate pricerange.part of the solution indicative informative
  14. 14. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems)Prof. Dr. M. Jarke14LearningLayers Motivation Problem Solution Results ImplicationsOver the past years, a wide range of Technology-enhanced Learning (TeL)systems have been developed, which have significantly influenced the field offoreign languages teaching and learning. This is widely known as Technology-enhanced Language Learning (TELL). On the other hand, the widespreadownership of mobile devices and the potential benefits that they can provide tothe learning process has attracted the attention of both researchers andpractitioners in the field of TELL. This has led to the development of a newapproach for TELL, which is commonly referred to as Mobile Assisted LanguageLearning (MALL). Nevertheless, although during the last years a number of MALLsystems have been developed, most of them do not concern with open access tolanguage learning resources and practices. As a result, neither re-use oflanguage learning resources not sharing of best technology-facilitated languageteaching practices among the communities of educational practitioners andeducational organizations is directly facilitated. In this paper, we propose theMobile2Learn Framework, which aims at providing tools and services thatfacilitate open access to mobile-assisted language digital learning resources andcourses, and we present a case study from its implementation.informative informative indicative3rd Place: Abstract DD.G. Sampson, P. Zervas (2012) Proc. IEEE ICALT 2012, pp. 441-445. © IEEE
  15. 15. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems)Prof. Dr. M. Jarke15LearningLayers2nd Place: Abstract AMotivation Problem Solution Results ImplicationsQ. Bonnard, H. Verma, F. Kaplan, P. Dillenbourg (2012) Proc. EC-TEL 2012, pp. 37-50 [best full paper]. © Springer VerlagPaper interfaces offer tremendous possibilities for geometry educationin primary schools. Existing computer interfaces designed to learngeometry do not consider the integration of conventional school tools,which form the part of the curriculum. Moreover, most of computertools are designed specifically for individual learning, some proposegroup activities, but most disregard classroom-level learning, thusimpeding their adoption. We present an augmented reality basedtabletop system with interface elements made of paper that addressesthese issues. It integrates conventional geometry tools seamlessly intothe activity and it enables group and classroom-level learning. In orderto evaluate our system, we conducted an exploratory user study basedon three learning activities: classifying quadrilaterals, discovering theprotractor and describing angles. We observed how paper interfacescan be easily adopted into the traditional classroom practices.informative informative informative
  16. 16. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems)Prof. Dr. M. Jarke16LearningLayers Motivation Problem Solution Results ImplicationsA. Ogan, S. Finkelstein, E. Walker, R. Carlson, J.Cassell (2012). Proc. ITS 2012, pp. 11-21. © Springer VerlagFor 20 years, researchers have envisioned artificially intelligent learningcompanions that evolve with their students as they grow and learn. However,while communication theory suggests that positivity decreases over time inrelationships, most tutoring systems designed to build rapport with a studentremain adamantly polite, and may therefore inadvertently distance the learnerfrom the agent over time. We present an analysis of high school friendsinteracting in a peer tutoring environment as a step towards designing agents thatsustain long-term pedagogical relationships with learners. We find that tutees andtutors use different language behaviors: tutees express more playfulness andface-threat, while tutors attend more to the task. This face-threat by the tutee isassociated with increased learning gains for their tutor. Additionally, a smallsample of partners who were strangers learned less than friends, and in thesedyads increased face-threat was negatively correlated with learning. Our findingssupport the idea that learning companions should gradually move towards playfulface-threat as they build relationships with their students.informative informative indicative1st place: Abstract Binformative informative
  17. 17. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems)Prof. Dr. M. Jarke17LearningLayersPaper Structure:Introduction “Pick up” the reader (andreviewer!)– Some generally known statements– Motivating example– Tighten thematic focus– Mention key literature– General background info tosupport understanding– (Indicate the structure) Three phases [Swal93]– (Where?) Establish territory– (What?) Establish a niche– (How?) Occupy nicheTitleAbstractIntroductionBodyConclusionReferences
  18. 18. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems)Prof. Dr. M. Jarke18LearningLayersPaper Structure:Introduction – ExampleExample 1: Computers & Education 59 (2): 182-195Establish territory / common-sense statement:Peer review is an instructional method aiming to helpstudents elaborate on domain-specific knowledge, whilesimultaneously developing methodological review skills.Establish niche / tighten thematic focus:We use the term „assigned-pair protocol“ here to refer tothe class of peer review methods that involve static author-reviewer dyads.Occupy niche / arrive at core paper topic:Our focus was to (a) … and (b) …Outline paper structure
  19. 19. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems)Prof. Dr. M. Jarke19LearningLayersPaper Structure:Introduction – ExampleExample 2: Transactionson Learning Technologies5 (1): 38-51Establish territory / common-sense statement:The concept of Adaptive Hypermedia Systems (AHS)has existed for years now [19], and it has amplyproved its utility particularly in education …Establish niche / tighten thematic focus:In fact, authors have to define a domain model …Indeed, authors have to specify an adaptation model…Indicate existing solutions, point to shortcomings:Multiple solutions have been proposed …These works fail to answer the third challenge …Occupy niche, indicate leap forwardThis paper addresses these three challenges …We perceive an adaptation strategy as a combination ofelementary parts …Outline paper structureThis paper is organized as follows…
  20. 20. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems)Prof. Dr. M. Jarke20LearningLayersPaper Structure:Body Reports actual researchdone to answer researchquestion/problem Typically several(sub)sections Structure, organization, andcontent depend heavily onthe type of paperTitleAbstractIntroductionBodyConclusionReferences
  21. 21. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems)Prof. Dr. M. Jarke21LearningLayersPaper Structure:Body Empirical paper– Methodology, data, material, participants,results, (discussion)– Goal: reproducibility Case study paper– Report application of existing methods, tools,theories– Goal: abstraction from case Survey paper– Reviewing and synthesize existing work– Typically little original contributions– Goal: Completeness, soundness, … Theory paper– Principles, concepts or models in the field– Goals: Originality, soundness, Relevance Others: methodology papers, review papers,…TitleAbstractIntroductionBodyConclusionReferences[CHI98]
  22. 22. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems)Prof. Dr. M. Jarke22LearningLayersPaper Structure:Conclusion Discussion / Conclusion– Counterpart to introduction– Generalize results– Sometimes separate (particularlyempirical papers)– Recap of background and aims– Summary and discussion /implications of key findings– Compare results to published work– Discussion of limitations,shortcomings, significance– Identification of follow-up researchTitleAbstractIntroductionBodyConclusionReferences
  23. 23. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems)Prof. Dr. M. Jarke23LearningLayersPaper Structure:References Key rules for reference list– List all cited references– Do not list non-cited references– Cite all used references– Do not cite references you havenot read– Make sure the most relevantreferences are in the list– Adhere to publisher’s styleguideTitleAbstractIntroductionBodyConclusionReferences
  24. 24. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems)Prof. Dr. M. Jarke24LearningLayersPaper Structure:Additional bits Authors + affiliations– Who is on the author list?– In what order? Acknowledgments– Funding source(s), Study participants, Helpers, … Keywords– Free-text and/or from taxonomy Classification– ACM classification Appendix– Detailed tables, source codes, proofs, …– Author bios– …
  25. 25. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems)Prof. Dr. M. Jarke25LearningLayersTask Choose one of your recent submissions (where youwrote the abstract!)– If not available take your summer school submission, yourcurrent state of the thesis, or any other piece of researchyou’re involved in Rework your submission into a one-paragraph abstract ofmax. 300 words Carefully choose a title Submit by tomorrow (Tuesday) night at Review your assigned abstracts by Thursday noon Check out the received reviews until the Friday sessionTask description also available at
  26. 26. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems)Prof. Dr. M. Jarke26LearningLayersSee you on Friday!T H A N K S
  27. 27. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems)Prof. Dr. M. Jarke27LearningLayersMini Conference – Results Best overall score:1. Ivan Srba: Encouragement of Collaborative LearningBased on Dynamic Groups [3.6]2. Markus Manhart: An Integrated Risk ManagementFramework: Measuring the Success of OrganizationalKnowledge Protection [3.4]3. Nikola Milikic: Semantic Web and Linked Learning toSupport Workplace Learning [3.0]
  28. 28. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems)Prof. Dr. M. Jarke28LearningLayersMini Conference – Best AbstractMotivation Problem Solution Results ImplicationsI. Srba (2013). JTEL Paper Writing Workshop 2013 © I. SrbaIn the current time of globalization, collaboration among people in virtual environments isbecoming important precondition of success. Especially, university learning provides idealopportunity for development of social and communication skills which are necessary foreffective collaboration. However, students can encounter various difficulties to collaboratetogether while solving assigned tasks. These difficulties are obvious mainly in groups inwhich the members’ characteristics do not complement each other. Therefore, wepropose a method for creating different types of study groups with aim to support effectivecollaboration during learning. We concentrate on the small groups which solve short-termwell-defined problems. The method based on the Group Technology approach is able toapply many types of students’ characteristics as inputs, e.g. interests, knowledge, butalso their collaborative characteristics. Students in the created groups are able tocommunicate and collaborate with the help of several collaborative tools in a collaborativeplatform called PopCorm which allows us to automatically observe dynamic aspects ofthe created groups. The results of these observations provide a feedback to the methodfor creating groups. In the long term experiment groups created by our method achievedsignificantly better results in the comparison with the reference method (k-meansclustering). The achieved results confirm that the group formation has significant influenceon following collaboration and it is possible to support students’ collaboration bycombining their complementary characteristics.informative informative informative informative informative
  29. 29. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems)Prof. Dr. M. Jarke29LearningLayersMini Conference – Top Scores Other top scores:– Title: Markus Manhart, Ivan Srba, Maka Eradze [4.00]– Structure: Ivan Srba [4.75]– Readability: Nikola Milikic [5.00]
  30. 30. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems)Prof. Dr. M. Jarke30LearningLayersPublication Strategy for TEL –Publication Outlets Depends on the primary scientific discipline of your thesis Journals– High reputation; completed studies; significant original contribution;lengthy process; no interaction with key people; detailed reviews– Typical types: long, short, survey Conferences– Reputation depends on discipline; original contributions; oftensmaller delta or WIP acceptable; interaction with key people; reviewquality depends on conference– Typical types: long, short, poster, demo Workshops– Focused topic; work in progress, ideas, positions etc. acceptable;interaction with key people; Reputation not the key point; reviewquality depends– Typical types: short, long, positions
  31. 31. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems)Prof. Dr. M. Jarke31LearningLayersPublication Strategy for TEL –Situation TEL is interdisciplinary Many different publication venues Venues have different subject focus Different venue types (journals, conferences,workshops, exhibits, etc.) Different paper types (long, short, demo, poster, …) Different stages / significance of available results
  32. 32. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems)Prof. Dr. M. Jarke32LearningLayersPublication Strategy for TEL –Exercise Questions– Which factors do/should determine your decision where topublish a piece of (your) TEL research?– During your PhD process, what is your publicationstrategy? Task:– Explore the above questions in a small group [10 mins]– Pitch your results
  33. 33. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems)Prof. Dr. M. Jarke33LearningLayersPublication Strategy for TEL –Exercise Results– There are rankings and lists (S)SCI– There are rulez– Factors: topic of J/C; new field: C; publisher, review;acceptance rate; open/closed access– Message – medium – audience; external factors ($$)– Submission date / location– Special issue
  34. 34. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems)Prof. Dr. M. Jarke34LearningLayersPublication Strategy for TEL –Venue (Pre-)Selection Pre-selection– Go to scientific indexes and look for similar work  wherewas it published?– Identify the key people in your field  where do theypublish?– Subscribe to CFP mailing lists and portals  what’s up? Selection depends on– Formal criteria in your institution?– Significance / originality of the contribution?– Affordable risk of rejection?– Need to engage with community?
  35. 35. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems)Prof. Dr. M. Jarke35LearningLayersPublication Strategy for TEL –Publication venue decision Check distribution / subscription of the venue Check indexing of the venue Check citations to the venue Check list of relevant topics of the venue Consider closed access vs open access vs delayed openaccess Formal requirements: length, deadline, funding, etc. Tools:– AERCS Venue Comparison for DBLP:– Publish or Perish:
  36. 36. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems)Prof. Dr. M. Jarke36LearningLayersPublication Strategy for TEL –Some Prominent VenuesSee /HypermediaHCI
  37. 37. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems)Prof. Dr. M. Jarke37LearningLayersPublication Strategy for TEL –Some Prominent VenuesConferences EC-TEL ICALT ICWL ITS, AIED ICCE CSCL LAK, EDM CATE T4E WMTE DIGITEL …Journals Educ. Tech. & Soc. (ETS) IEEE Trans. Learn. Tech. (TLT) Comput. & Educ. (C&E) Int. J. TEL (IJTEL) Res. Pract. TEL (RPTEL) Int. J. Emerg. Tech. Learn. (IJET) Int. J. Dist. Educ. Tech. (IJDET) Int. J. Know. Learn. (IJKL) Brit./Austr. J. Educ. Tech. (B/AJET) Int. J. Artifi. Intel. in Edu. (AIEDU) J. Comp. Ass. Learn. (JCAL) Int. J. CSCL (IJCSCL)…
  38. 38. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems)Prof. Dr. M. Jarke38LearningLayersThe Landmarks in Your Thesis Field Hypothesis: If you can’t name the three most important– Authors and their specific areas of interest,– Journals, Conferences,– Challenges,– Papers that lay or have laid the path,– Adjacent fields / communitiesin your thesis field, then your PhD is doomed. Task– Group around similar PhD subjects (max 5 per group)– Discuss and shortlist the above items [20 mins]– Pitch your results
  39. 39. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems)Prof. Dr. M. Jarke39LearningLayersSome Mistakes to Absolutely AvoidBrainstorm!
  40. 40. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems)Prof. Dr. M. Jarke40LearningLayersSome Mistakes to Absolutely Avoid Resubmit a rejected paper without– adapting to the new venue’s template– considering comments in rejection letter Forget or don’t care to cite related work, particularly– if the related work is by a potential reviewer– if it is considered a seminal piece in the field Simple typos and grammar errors
  41. 41. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems)Prof. Dr. M. Jarke41LearningLayersReferences[BCWi95] Booth, W.C., Colomb, G.G., Williams, J.M.: The Craft of Research. Univ. ofChicago Press, Chicago (1995)[CHI98] CHI98 Conference Webpage: Types of papers. (1998)[Dern11] Derntl, M.: Basics of research paper writing and publishing. Unpublishedmanuscript, (2011)[ElseXX] How to write a world-class methodology paper.[JaNi11] Jamali, H., Nikzad, M: Article title type and its relation with the number ofdownloads and citation. Scientometrics (2011) 88:653–661[Ocon05] OConnor, M.: Writing Successfully in Science. Chapman & Hall, London (1995)[PEBK02] Peat, J., Elliott, E., Baur, L., Keena, V.: Scientfic Writing - Easy when you knowhow. BMJ Books, London (2002)[Stoc00] Stock, W.G.: Was ist eine Publikation? Zum Problem der Einheitenbildung in derWissenschaftsforschung. In Fuchs-Kittowski, K., Laitko, H., Parthey, H., Umst•atter, W.,eds.: Wissenschaftsforschung Jahrbuch 1998. Verlag f•ur Wissenschaftsforschung, Berlin(2000) 239-282[Swal93] Swales, J.M.: Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings.Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge (1993)