helen fallon, nui maynooth [email protected] anne murphy, tallaght hospital...
TRANSCRIPT
BackgroundBlended Learning ApproachFeedbackOutcomes
One Day Academic Writing Workshops
Blended Academic Writing Programme 2011◦ One Day Writing Seminar◦ Online Programme of writing tasks ◦ Two peer feedback days spread over nine months
ANLTC23 people attended
◦19 HE institutions◦ 2 Public libraries ◦2 Health Sciences Libraries
And a Writing Group for those
interested...
Posters invited for the seminar
2 stages Stage 1 (tasks 1-7) over 3 months Peer-feedback day
Stage 2 over 5 months Peer-feedback day
7 Tasks based on article The Academic Writing Toolkithttp://eprints.nuim.ie/1387/
E-mail guidance based on article in more informal language
Mentor & participant
Task 1 – Develop a working title and 3 three keywords for your article
Task 2 - What is the audience and purpose for your article? What journal/conference might you submit to?
Task 3 –Write a 80-200 word informative or structured abstract for your article
A working title and 3 keywords Task 1 – 7 days And a May date proposed for completed
first draftsAudience, Purpose, Publication Task 2 - 10 days “I'm enjoying the process and finding the
structured approach invaluable.” Abstract/Outlining Task 3 – 7 days
Usually my writing projects have involved jumping right in to the writing phase. I rarely gave time to sitting down and thinking about my keywords or title
The group was a useful forum for getting suggestions on possible outlets for articles. This included suggestions on possible conferences to present at, which is a useful precursor to publishing an article
I appreciated one suggestion at the beginning on possible journals for the article. This made it a realistic goal and definitely helped me focus on what I wanted to say. Before I would never have thought about who the final article was intended for
Task 4 - Outline and titleTask 5 - Draft 500 wordsTask 6 - Continue to 1,000
wordsTask 7 - Online Peer
Feedback
Draw up an outline for your article Task 4 – 7 daysDrafting 500 words
Task 5 – 7 days“ Found this part [writing the Methods section]
quite demanding and feel lots of info is missing, probably that's an entirely normal experience..”
Drafting to 1000 words Task 6 - 12 days
Before this, I would probably work on entire sections at a time and in chronological order. I never felt I could move on to the next section until the previous section was complete. Dipping in and out of sections in shorter bursts of time really helps me write more productively
[I realised] that my experience was what was key. The lit review, analysis, etc., could all be built around that
Something that stuck with me is that “bad” writing is ok at first to get the article on paper in some form initially
I realised that I had worthwhile experiences to bring to the table and that perfection and starting with an expectation of a very high standard was not needed – just start writing and then develop/edit as you go
It’s amazing how this early work can evolve over the following weeks. I found myself reading back over my work from the early tasks and making changes (to both the article and my structure. I found myself justifying any changes I made. It meant that I was considering my changes and why they were occurring. It felt like my article was evolving!
It didn't feel intimidating or like it was too onerous to complete
All your work/ideas are exposed and that can be a very daunting thing
“I'm unsure what level it's at - but this I hope to discover through the peer review process!”
Guidelines◦What do you like best about this piece? ◦What is your main suggestion for
improvement? (20 words or less) ◦Overview of how this might be achieved (1
paragraph) Received and provided feedback via email to 5
peers
I never realised the benefit of getting input on my work halfway through completion
After the peer feedback the focus of the article became clearer and I decided to change tack and target a professional journal and write about my own experience. I felt in more control of the article and less stressed
trust, openness and support between participants
demanding ... hear everyone's feedback without being defensive ... had to work at that
energising ... we experienced flow most valuable ... taking part in the dialogue ... to
reflect back ... the value of their work and experience ... to see the light in someone's eyes as they realised the worth of what they do.
I was surprised at my own psychological behaviour in terms of acting so aggressively and defensive initially towards the feedback I received. I felt my draft was being torn to shreds by the criticism, which is all part of the learning experience. Their views and feedback were very worthwhile, and provided more focus and elucidation on the sections which needed to be developed
IBTSWriting timeFlexible timetableAction learning sets
Participants reported high rate of conference presentations including three international conferences
One participant won AISHE poster competition
Journal articles including SCONUL Focus, An Leabharlann, Transfusion
Book review
Conference & seminar presentations
Published the journal review study
Invited to present at seminarsInvited to peer review for HILJAuthorship w/ clinical teams
Demystify writing process Learned about the mechanics of writing Incremental tasks made the process
more manageable Provided a supportive community of
practice – sharing of knowledge, information & insights from across different types of libraries
Allowed people choose their time for writing
People developed resilience through peer-feedback
Cost effective Normalise writing as part of what we
do – we all have valuable work experiences for posters/articles/presentations
Academicwritinglibrarian.blogspot.ie