Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Basics of Paper Writing and Publishing in TEL (JTEL 2015 Workshop)

1,437 views

Published on

Workshop delivered at the 11th Joint European Summer School on Technology Enhanced Learning (JTEL 2015), July 6-10, 2015, in Ischia, Italy

Published in: Education

Basics of Paper Writing and Publishing in TEL (JTEL 2015 Workshop)

  1. 1. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 (Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 1 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Basics of Paper Writing and Publishing in TEL Michael Derntl, Ḿíłốṩ Ǩŕåṽçïḱ, Ralf Klamma RWTH Aachen University Advanced Community Information Systems (ACIS) jtel-paperwriting@dbis.rwth-aachen.de 11th Joint European Summer School on Technology Enhanced Learning (JTEL 2015) July 6-10 Ischia, Italy
  2. 2. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 (Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 2 Managing 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. Jarke 3 Scientific 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 existing findings, implications, …) – Correct language All it takes is structure and practice!
  4. 4. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 (Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 4 Paper Structure Hourglass Model [Swal93] Introduction Body Conclusion general specific specific general Section Theme
  5. 5. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 (Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 5 Paper Structure “King Model” [Dern14] Title Abstract Introduction Body Conclusion References
  6. 6. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 (Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 6 Paper Structure: Title  Very important part – why?  Rules of thumb: – Fewest possible words that adequately describe the paper content – Avoid waste words – Nouns over verbs Title Abstract Introduction Body Conclusion References
  7. 7. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 (Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 7 Paper Structure: Title  Types of title – Descriptive: Investigating the role of academic conferences on shaping the research agenda – Declarative: Academic conferences shape the short-term research agenda – Interrogative: Do academic conferences shape the research agenda? – Compound, e.g. separated by ? or :  Impact of title type: – Interrogative: more downloads, fewer cites – Compound with colon: longer; fewer downloads and cites – Long titles: fewer downloads Title Abstract Introduction Body Conclusion References [JaNi11]
  8. 8. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 (Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 8 Paper Structure: Title  Title checklist – includes main topic – unambiguous – specific – attractive – short – accurate – adequate – no abbreviations – consider audience Title Abstract Introduction Body Conclusion References
  9. 9. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 (Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 9 Paper Structure: Title Title checklist  includes main topic  unambiguous  specific  attractive  short  accurate  adequate  no abbreviations  consider audience Examples titles: 1. Report of the results of an IMS Learning Design expert workshop 2. Educational Technology and Culture: The Influence of Ethnic and Professional Culture on Learners' Technology Acceptance 3. A New Framework for Dynamic Adaptations and Actions 4. CAMera for PLE 5. Go To Statement Considered Harmful 6. Users in the Driver's Seat: A New Approach to Classifying Teaching Methods in a University Repository 7. Considering formal assessment in learning analytics within a PLE 8. HT06, tagging paper, taxonomy, Flickr, academic article, to read
  10. 10. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 (Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 10 Paper Structure: Abstract  Task: – Read the four abstracts on the handout – Identify strong and weak points – Identify criteria for good abstracts – Rank the four abstracts on the provided ranking sheets Title Abstract Introduction Body Conclusion References
  11. 11. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 (Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 11 Paper Structure: Abstract Types – Informative: what content is in the paper – Indicative / descriptive: how is the content presented Checklist, ~1 sentence each – Motivation – Problem definition – Solution – Results – Implications No go – Exact title phrase – Copy & paste from text – Figures or tables – Sources (depends) Title Abstract Introduction Body Conclusion References
  12. 12. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 (Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 12 Paper Structure: Abstract Low detail No references General example Overview High detail All references Specific examples Reproducibility Abstract Full text A 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. Jarke 13 ABSTRACT RANKING
  14. 14. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 (Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 14 The Kelluwen project implements middle and high-school educational activities where the use of Web 2.0 tools is incorporated to improve collaboration construction, sharing and publishing of the learning outcomes. The Worklog tool, a microblogging space within the Kelluwen platform has an active role in the educational activities. Using probabilistic topic models, correlation analysis and principal component analysis (PCA), we analyzed micropost of 85 class groups participating in the Kelluwen project and found interesting relations of the types of messages posted and other factors such as the teacher participation in the microblog, the rural or urban nature of the schools and other aspects of the educational experience. Motivation Problem Solution Results Implications informative 4th Place: Abstract B J. Born, E. Scheihing, J. Guerra, L. Cárcamo (2014). Proc. EC-TEL 2014, pp. 15-28 © Springer Verlag
  15. 15. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 (Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 15 3rd Place: Abstract D Motivation Problem Solution Results Implications R. Klemke, S. Ternier, M. Kalz, B. Schmitz, M. Specht (2014) Proc. EC-TEL 2014, pp. 207-220 © Springer Verlag informative mixed Serious gaming approaches so far focus mainly on skill development, motivational aspects or providing immersive learning situations. Little work has been reported to foster awareness and decision competencies in complex decision situations involving incomplete information and multiple stakeholders. We address this issue exploring the technical requirements and possibilities to design games for such situations in three case studies: a hostage taking situation, a multi- stakeholder logistics case, and a health-care related emergency case. To implement the games, we use a multi-user enabled mobile game development platform (ARLearn). We describe the underlying real world situations and educational challenges and analyse how these are reflected in the ARLearn games realized. Based on these cases we propose a way to increase the immersiveness of mobile learning games. informative
  16. 16. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 (Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 16 2nd Place: Abstract A Motivation Problem Solution Results Implications V. Bejdová, M. Homola, Z. Kubincová (2014) Proc. ICWL 2014, pp. 1-10 © Springer Verlag In the course of several years, we employed blogging assignments in an obligatory web design course. The assignment was able to attract interest of few students only, while the majority did not participate, or only very sparsely. It did not help much to make the assignment part of the course evaluation. The course received mixed reviews from the students. The students who were not really interested in the subject, or considered it too much work, complained. In last two years we tried to address this problem by introduction of a tight blogging schedule, and peer-reviews. As we report in this paper, this step radically improved the participation rate, and also learning outcomes were higher, however the student’s opinion of these activities was not amended. informative informativeinformative informative
  17. 17. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 (Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 17 Motivation Problem Solution Results Implications A. Pardo, N. Mirrahi, S. Dawson, Y. & A. Zhao, D. Gašević (2015). Proc. LAK 2015, pp. 255-259 © ACM The higher education sector has seen a shift in teaching approaches over the past decade with an increase in the use of video for delivering lecture content as part of a flipped classroom or blended learning model. Advances in video technologies have provided opportunities for students to now annotate videos as a strategy to support their achievement of the intended learning outcomes. However, there are few studies exploring the relationship between video annotations, student approaches to learning, and academic performance. This study seeks to narrow this gap by investigating the impact of students' use of video annotation software coupled with their approaches to learning and academic performance in the context of a flipped learning environment. Preliminary findings reveal a significant positive relationship between annotating videos and exam results. However, negative effects of surface approaches to learning, cognitive strategy use and test anxiety on midterm grades were also noted. This indicates a need to better promote and scaffold higher order cognitive strategies and deeper learning with the use of video annotation software. informative informative informative 1st place: Abstract C informative informative
  18. 18. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 (Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 18 Paper Structure: Introduction  “Pick up” the reader (and reviewer!) – Some generally known statements – Motivating example – Tighten thematic focus – Mention key literature – General background info to support understanding – (Indicate the structure)  Three phases [Swal93] – (Where?) Establish territory – (What?) Establish a niche – (How?) Occupy niche Title Abstract Introduction Body Conclusion References
  19. 19. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 (Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 19 Paper Structure: Introduction – Example Example 1: Computers & Education 59 (2): 182-195 Establish territory / common-sense statement: Peer review is an instructional method aiming to help students elaborate on domain-specific knowledge, while simultaneously developing methodological review skills. Establish niche / tighten thematic focus: We use the term „assigned-pair protocol“ here to refer to the 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
  20. 20. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 (Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 20 Paper Structure: Introduction – Example Example 2: Transactions on Learning Technologies 5 (1): 38-51 Establish territory / common-sense statement: The concept of Adaptive Hypermedia Systems (AHS) has existed for years now [19], and it has amply proved 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 forward This paper addresses these three challenges … We perceive an adaptation strategy as a combination of elementary parts … Outline paper structure This paper is organized as follows…
  21. 21. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 (Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 21 Paper Structure: Body  Reports actual research done to answer research question/problem  Typically several (sub)sections  Structure, organization, and content depend heavily on the type of paper Title Abstract Introduction Body Conclusion References
  22. 22. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 (Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 22 Paper 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, … Title Abstract Introduction Body Conclusion References [CHI98]
  23. 23. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 (Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 23 Paper Structure: Conclusion  Discussion / Conclusion – Counterpart to introduction – Generalize results – Sometimes separate (particularly empirical papers) – Recap of background and aims – Summary and discussion / implications of key findings – Answer your research questions – Compare results to published work – Discussion of limitations, shortcomings, significance – Identification of follow-up research Title Abstract Introduction Body Conclusion References
  24. 24. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 (Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 24 Paper 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 have not read – Make sure the most relevant references are in the list – Adhere to publisher’s style guide Title Abstract Introduction Body Conclusion References
  25. 25. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 (Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 25 Paper 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 – …
  26. 26. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 (Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 26 Task: Mini Conference  Choose one of your recent submissions (where you wrote the abstract!) – If not available take your summer school submission, your current state of the thesis, or any other piece of research you’re involved in  Rework your submission into a one-paragraph abstract of max. 300 words (strict!)  Carefully choose a title  Submit by Wednesday via Easychair http://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=jtelpw2015 – There will be an excursion Wednesday afternoon, so please plan for submitting your abstract by Wednesday noon  Review your assigned abstracts on Thursday  Read the reviews on your abstract on Friday for the 2nd session of our workshop (at 9:45 am) Task description also available at http://is.gd/jtel2015pw
  27. 27. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 (Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 27 Mini Conference – Results Best Overall Scores Range: -3 = strong reject … 3 = strong accept 1. Matthias Heintz. Online Tool Usage Supports Solution- based Requirements Engineering for E-Learning Applications [2.3] 2. István Koren. Scalable Design of a Wearable-Enhanced Learning Case [2.3] 3. Steven White. The practical focus of MOOC media discourse in HE magazines and institutions [2.3]
  28. 28. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 (Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 28 In a traditional e-learning development project setup, the initial user-based requirements engineering process and the technical implementation process run one after the other, but time pressure and specific project arrangements increasingly lead to settings where those two processes are launched at about the same time. This paper presents the requirements engineering work conducted in the Go-Lab project, which aims to improve science education through inclusion of online labs and faced the challenges caused by the described parallel instead of sequential setup of the initial project phases. They were tackled by developing a Participatory Design approach to gather solution-based requirements, which is supported by PDot, an online tool to gather user requirements and feedback. In this paper, we present preliminary Usability and User Experience evaluation results of PDot, showing that the current prototype is already well perceived by the two main target groups, students and teachers, but still has some improvement potential, for example regarding the visual design of the tool. Our results show that the proposed approach and the PDot tool could be applied by other research projects, developing e-learning applications for teachers and students, to overcome the challenges caused by the same or a similar project setup. Mini Conference – Best Abstract Motivation Problem Solution Results Implications M. Heintz (2015). JTEL Paper Writing Workshop 2015 © 2015 Matthias Heintz
  29. 29. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 (Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 29 Mini Conference – Other Top Scores  Best Structure Steven White. The practical focus of MOOC media discourse in HE magazines and institutions [4.67 / 5]  Best Title Carmen Wolf. Improvement of university students’ self-reflection with a self-coaching app [4.33 / 5] István Koren. Scalable Design of a Wearable-Enhanced Learning Case [4.33 / 5]  Best Readability Steven White. The practical focus of MOOC media discourse in HE magazines and institutions [4.67 / 5] Matthias Heintz. Online Tool Usage Supports Solution-based Requirements Engineering for E-Learning Applications [4.67 / 5]
  30. 30. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 (Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 30 PUBLICATION STRATEGY IN TEL
  31. 31. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 (Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 31 Publication Outlets – Journals  High reputation  Completed studies  Significant original contribution  Lengthy publication process  No interaction with key people  Detailed reviews  Typical types: long, short, survey
  32. 32. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 (Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 32 Publication Outlets – Conference  Reputation depends on discipline  Original contributions  Often smaller delta or WIP acceptable  Interaction with key people  Review quality depends on conference  Typical types: long, short, poster, demo
  33. 33. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 (Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 33 Publication Outlets – Workshop et al.  Workshops – Focused topic, emerging community – Work in progress, ideas, positions etc. acceptable – Interaction with key people – Reputation not the key point – Review quality depends – Typical types: short, long, positions, demos  Doctoral Consortia and others  Edited books
  34. 34. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 (Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 34 Current 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
  35. 35. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 (Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 35 Exercise  Questions – Which factors do/should determine your decision where to publish a piece of (your) TEL research? – During your PhD process, what is your publication strategy?  Task: – Explore the above questions in a small group [10 mins] – Pitch your results
  36. 36. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 (Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 36 Exercise  Results – Main focus of paper should decide which conference to choose; choose disciplinary conf – Check cfp for topics – Think ahead in career, what are you doing after your PhD? – Scope of study is important – Reach for the stars, land amongst the clouds. Go for the best. Paper trajectories – Publisher
  37. 37. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 (Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 37 Venue (Pre-)Selection  Pre-selection – Go to scientific indexes and look for similar work  where was it published? – Identify the key people in your field  where do they publish? – Subscribe to CFP mailing lists and portals  what’s up? – Follow research blogs, e.g. http://beamtenherrschaft.blogspot.com   Selection depends on – Formal criteria in your institution? – Significance / originality of the contribution? – Affordable risk of rejection? – Need to engage with community?
  38. 38. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 (Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 38 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 open access  Formal requirements: length, deadline, funding, etc.  Tools: – AERCS Venue Comparison for DBLP: http://is.gd/seriescomp – Publish or Perish: http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm – Academic Search: http://academic.research.microsoft.com – Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.com
  39. 39. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 (Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 39 Some Prominent TEL Venues See http://www.slideshare.net/mikederntl/the-european-technology-enhanced-learning-lanscape Artificial Intelligence Web / Hypermedia HCI
  40. 40. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 (Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 40 Some Prominent TEL Venues (2) Conferences  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) … There are also several institutional lists of “acceptable” journals, e.g. at Open University of the Netherlands: http://celstec.org/content/advanced-learning-technologies-journal-list Make sure you know the preferred journals of your department!
  41. 41. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 (Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 41 The 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 / communities in your thesis field, then your PhD is in trouble.  Task – Group around similar PhD subjects (max 5 per group) – Discuss and shortlist the above items [8 mins] – Pitch your results
  42. 42. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 (Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 42 Some Mistakes to Absolutely Avoid Brainstorm!
  43. 43. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 (Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 43 Some Mistakes to Absolutely Avoid  Results – Being untargeted – Not citing important grounding work – Plagiarize – Bitching on facebook – Falsify – Faking results – Reveal all limitations & future work; ignore limitations – Send to the same place, ignoring previous reviews – Piss off people
  44. 44. Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 (Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 44 References [BCWi95] Booth, W.C., Colomb, G.G., Williams, J.M.: The Craft of Research. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago (1995) [CHI98] CHI'98 Conference Webpage: Types of papers. http://www.acm.org/sigchi/chi98/call/papers.html#types (1998) [Dern14] Derntl, M.: Basics of research paper writing and publishing. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 6(2), 105-123, http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJTEL.2014.066856 (2014) [ElseXX] How to write a world-class methodology paper. http://www.paperpub.com.cn/admin/upload/file/200893103922625.pdf [JaNi11] Jamali, H., Nikzad, M: Article title type and its relation with the number of downloads and citation. Scientometrics (2011) 88:653–661 [Ocon05] O'Connor, M.: Writing Successfully in Science. Chapman & Hall, London (1995) [PEBK02] Peat, J., Elliott, E., Baur, L., Keena, V.: Scientfic Writing - Easy when you know how. BMJ Books, London (2002) [Stoc00] Stock, W.G.: Was ist eine Publikation? Zum Problem der Einheitenbildung in der Wissenschaftsforschung. 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)

×