Biology Scholars Program: Transitions 2014-2015

Marcy Peteroy-Kelly, Pace University: Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education

Jodie Krontiris-Litowitz, Youngstown State University: Advances in Physiology Education

Elisa Stone, University of California, Berkeley: CBE – Life Sciences Education

Agenda – How is the residency organized?

1. Critical friend/facilitator teams 2. Activities, consultations for feedback,

writing time3. Concurrent sessions for networking

What do you want to accomplish during this institute?

Overview and Goals

Session 1: Identify Writing Goals and Work Plan for the Institute

1:45 pm What Is, What Works, How and Why Does It Work, What’s Possible?

Brief Introduction

Activity: Participants write about and discuss: What is your research question? What is your rationale for asking the question? Does this question address a significant problem?

2:15 pm Draft Manuscript Review

Activity: Discuss draft manuscript with critical friend and facilitator (Assignment #4).

3:15 pm Break3:30 pm Individual Planning/Writing Time

Based upon feedback from previous discussion, outline plan for next steps and identify needs.

4:30 pm Discussion of Plans and Needs

Activity: Share plans and needs with facilitator5:00 pm Break

In general, we ask the following questions when we review a manuscript:

1. Is your study novel?2. Is everything aligned?3. Were the correct statistical tests used to

analyze the data?4. Are the conclusions supported by the

data?

What is, What Works, How and Why Does it Work, and What’s Possible?

Answer the following questions on your own (Time: approx. 5 minutes)1. What is your research question?2. What is your rationale for asking that question?3. Does the question address a significant problem?

Share your answers with another scholar (not your critical friend, Time: approx. 5 minutes each).

Share your answers with your critical friend (Time: approx. 5 minutes each).

Activity:

Draft Manuscript Review Guidelines

Critiquing science experiments The 50/5 paradigm Guidelines for reviewing manuscripts

1. ‘The Sandwich’: +/-/+2. Clarification questions vs Probing questions

‘Please explain…’ vs ‘I wonder if…/I noticed that…’3. Process check: ‘How are you thinking about your paper now?’

For the next hour (2:15-3:15), meet with your critical friend and facilitator to discuss your manuscripts. The following rooms have been designated for your teams to use for work during the Institute:

1. Marcy’s team: Blue Room2. Jodie’s team: Room 2333. Elisa’s team: Room 104 Your first break will begin at 3:15 in the Blue Room.

Draft Manuscript Review

Use this time to outline your plans for your next steps in drafting your manuscript and identifying your needs based upon the conversations you had with your critical friend and facilitator.

Time: 3:30-4:30

Be prepared to discuss your plans and needs with your teams at 4:30.

You will have a break at 5:00.

Individual Writing Time

Session 2: At 5:15, we will join the Research Residency Facilitators and Scholars for introductions and discussions about your SoTL work. The goal of the evening sessions are to begin to establish networking relationships.

Homework: Each critical friend team will receive a manuscript written by their facilitator. Please read and critically review the manuscript and be prepared to summarize the manuscript and your review with your fellow scholars tomorrow.

Breakfast will be served at 8:00 tomorrow morning in the Blue Room.

Session 2: Network with Facilitators and Scholars AND Homework!!!!

Thursday, July 24, 2014

Session 3 Objective: Identify Tools Required to Analyze your Data

8:00 am

Breakfast

8:30 am

Quantitative and Qualitative Data Analysis – What’s the Difference?

Christine Pribbenow, Wisconsin Center for Education ResearchSteve Nold, University of Wisconsin-StoutConcurrent with Research Residency

10:30 am

Break

10:45 am

Writing/Reflection Time

Reflect on your data and the statistical tools you used to analyze your data in the context of the Data Analysis talk and refine any troublesome sections. Christine Pribbenow will be available for consultation.

12:30 pm

Lunch

Concurrent with Research Residency

Reflect on your data and the statistical tools you used to analyze your data in the context of the Data Analysis talk and refine any troublesome sections. Christine Pribbenow will be available for

consultation.

Time: 10:45-12:30

Lunch will begin at 12:30.

Writing/Reflection Time

Session 4: Appreciate the Journey of the Manuscript Preparation Process

1:30 pm Publish and Flourish

Kari Wester, ASM

2:00 pm Jigsaw with Journal Readings 1

Scholars team up in groups of three to discuss each manuscript.

2:30 pm Review and Discuss Reviewer’s Comments

Critical partners receive reviewer’s comments for each manuscript for review and discussion.

Facilitators will not be present for this discussion.

3:00 pm Facilitator Journey

Scholars reconvene with their critical partners and the facilitator that authored the manuscript they reviewed to complete the journey to publication story with the facilitators.

3:30 pm Jigsaw with Journal Readings 2

Scholars team up in original jigsaw groups to discuss facilitator journeys.

3:45 pm Consultations with Facilitators

Publish & FlourishOriginal Presentation by Dr. Tara Gray

Writing is difficult Regardless of what you write Lifetime project

Even good writers receive criticism This paper is…

“Very poorly done.” “Very badly prepared.” “Plagued by myriad problems.” “So badly written that few persons will have the patience

to try to make sense of it.” Steps counter the difficulty

Tailor steps to suit your needs

A Twelve Step Program (p. 1)

Daily Writing, Record Keeping, and Accountability: The Effect on Productivity (Boice 1989:609)

Managing Time

First group (attended workshops but chose to

continue writing occasionally, in big blocks of time)

Second group (attended workshops and agreed to

write daily, and record it)

Third group (attended workshops and agreed to write

daily, record it, and be held accountable for writing daily)

Pages written or revised per year

17

64

157

Why doesn’t every scholar keep records? Too rudimentary What to include How to keep record

Use a spreadsheet, sticky notes, or a formal log (p. 3)

Share your records weekly with a Sponsor or Buddy Sponsor: non-reciprocal Buddy: reciprocal Choose someone who believes in daily writing and will hold

your feet to the fire!

Who will you choose? Colleague, fellow Transitions Scholar, facilitator, Teaching &

Writing center on campus

When should you report? Daily for 30 days Weekly thereafter

Organize around key sentences

Key sentences are like topic sentences Announce topic simply, with little detail, without

trying to prove the point Tell what the rest of the paragraph is about

Key sentences differ from topic sentences in that they need not be the first sentence

Revising

Let’s Practice (p.5-6)

Example 1. Try thinking of paragraphs as having two parts: the issue and the discussion. The issue is a “short introductory section of the paragraph, or overture if you will,” which includes a transition and announces the topic. The discussion is the longer portion of the paragraph. The discussion “explains, elaborates, supports, qualifies, argues for what the writer stated in the issue. The issue promises; the discussion delivers. . . . If you write a passage that does not seem to hang together, seems uncentered or out of focus, you may have made a promise but didn’t deliver, or you may have delivered on promises you didn’t make (Williams and Colomb, 1990:92).

Example 1. Try thinking of paragraphs as having two parts: the issue and the discussion. The issue is a “short introductory section of the paragraph, or overture if you will,” which includes a transition and announces the topic. The discussion is the longer portion of the paragraph. The discussion “explains, elaborates, supports, qualifies, argues for what the writer stated in the issue. The issue promises; the discussion delivers. . . . If you write a passage that does not seem to hang together, seems uncentered or out of focus, you may have made a promise but didn’t deliver, or you may have delivered on promises you didn’t make (Williams and Colomb, 1990:92).

Example 2. “We learn rules for actions better when those rules are structured, whether we learn by practicing them, by watching a teacher demonstrate them, or by listening to a teacher explain them. But do we learn better from a demonstration or an explanation? We are likely to learn more when we watch a demonstration if our language skills are so weak that we cannot understand words easily, or if the teacher cannot verbalize the rules. We are also likely to learn more from watching a demonstration when we must quickly coordinate intricate actions such as learning to ride a bicycle, but the explanation for them is too cumbersome. Finally, we are likely to learn more from a demonstration if the action is difficult or unfamiliar and the teacher lectures about it at length. On the other hand, we will learn an action better from an explanation if we can deftly translate explanations into actions and then store the information” (Williams and Colomb 1990:87).

Example 2. “We learn rules for actions better when those rules are structured, whether we learn by practicing them, by watching a teacher demonstrate them, or by listening to a teacher explain them. But do we learn better from a demonstration or an explanation? We are likely to learn more when we watch a demonstration if our language skills are so weak that we cannot understand words easily, or if the teacher cannot verbalize the rules. We are also likely to learn more from watching a demonstration when we must quickly coordinate intricate actions such as learning to ride a bicycle, but the explanation for them is too cumbersome. Finally, we are likely to learn more from a demonstration if the action is difficult or unfamiliar and the teacher lectures about it at length. On the other hand, we will learn an action better from an explanation if we can deftly translate explanations into actions and then store the information” (Williams and Colomb 1990:87).

Every section of your paper should have a key sentence (Intro, Methods, Results, Discussion)

Use key sentences as an outline for review Use your word processor to hide all text

except headings and key sentences (p. 7-8) Then view or print your outline

Read your list. Ask yourself how the key sentences could better communicate the purpose (thesis) to the audience

Read your list AGAIN. Ask yourself how the key sentences could be better organized (more logical/coherent)

Other uses Start your writing sessions daily Write abstracts Grade stacks of papers Work with thesis or dissertation students

Share early drafts with non-experts and later drafts with experts

Learn how to listen Respond to each specific comment

Get Help

TAA is a non-profit, interdisciplinary professional organization that: Advocates for academic authors and

excellence in teaching materials Offers one-year gift memberships to

workshop participants Provides traveling workshops Provides monthly e-mail column by

Dr. Tara Gray

Text and Academic Authors

Make sure to read your prose out loud

Select appropriate journals: Read your bibliography to find target journals Read up on journal’s scope and intended audience Pick a section you’d like to submit to and read

previously published papers Ask experts and Experts Contact journal editors directly!

See p. 9 for how to query

Polish & Let Go

Kick it out the door and make ’em say “No.”

Three things interfere with submitting: Pride Perfectionism Fear of rejection

In education journals 15% of first-time submissions are accepted

with revisions 75% of R & Rs are accepted with revisions

(Henson 1999:134)

So, celebrate every R&R!

Goal: Facilitators share one of their journeys in publishing a SoTL manuscript from start to finish.

Session 1 (2-2:30): Jigsaw with Journal Readings: Get into groups of three (each group should include one member from each critical friend team). Each paper should be summarized to the group, in turn.

Session 2 (2:30-3): Reviewers’ Comments: Critical friend teams receives the journal reviewers’ comments for the paper they reviewed. Read the comments and discuss. The facilitators will not be present for this discussion.

Session 3 (3-3:30): Facilitator’s Journey: Each critical friend team will be rejoined by their facilitator so that the facilitator can complete the story of their journey to publishing the paper.

Session 4 (3:30-3:45): Jigsaw with Journal Readings 2: Discuss anything you learned from the facilitator’s journeys with your original “Jigsaw” group to close out the session.

Activity: Journal Journeys

Work with facilitators of your choosing to discuss sections of your paper that you are having difficulty with.

The facilitators present will include:1. Marcy Peteroy-Kelly, Pace University: Journal of Microbiology and

Biology Education2. Jodie Krontiris-Litowitz, Youngstown State University: Advances in

Physiology Education3. Elisa Stone, University of California, Berkeley: CBE – Life Sciences

Education4. Stephen Nold, University of Wisconsin-Stout

Time: 3:45-4:30

Consultations with Facilitators

Evening Activities

4:30 pm Individual Writing Time

Based upon feedback from consultations develop more polished version of most troublesome section(s).

5:30 pm Dinner

Goal: Networking time – Who could I continue these conversations with AFTER the residency? Who faces the same issues? Who has a similar research question or teaches similar classes?

Concurrent with Research Residency6:30 pm Individual Writing Time

Based upon feedback from consultations develop more polished version of most troublesome section(s).

8:30 pm Adjournment

Breakfast will be served at 8:00 am in the Blue Room.

Friday, July 25, 2014

Session Objective 5: Refine Writing Based Upon Institute Experience and Participate in Research Group Presentations 8:00 am Breakfast8:30 am Individual Writing Time

Based upon feedback from yesterday, develop more polished version of your manuscripts.

10:30 am

Developing Searchable Manuscript TitlesMarcy Peteroy-Kelly, Pace University

11:30 am

LunchConcurrent with Research Residency

Developing Searchable TitlesOriginal Presentation By: Dr. Beronda Montgomery, Michigan

State UniversityPresented By: Marcy Peteroy-Kelly

What makes a good title and a good abstract?

Key elements

Tips for writing

Overview

Title/abstract summarizes your workThey should be more than a general summary. They should convey the thesis of you work and give insight into the major findings.

Fine-tuned for your audience

First step in attracting a potential readerAllows the reader to judge whether it would serve his or her purposes to read the entire manuscript

Purpose of the Title/Abstract

Parts of your paper most people will seeFirst (and sometimes, only) parts of a paper that can be viewed by everyone unless paper is ‘open access’

Should be specific and conciseShould be specific enough to describe the contents of the paper, highlighting the novelty/relevance and the major findings

Should be distinctTry to make titles distinct enough from other similar works that readers can discern impact and novelty of your work from the start

Key elements should be included in bothUse keywords for indexing – facilitates the paper making it to your target audience

Best way to get people interestedPeople judge by the title whether to read the abstractThe reading of the abstract will influence whether the entire paper will be read

General Tips: Title and Abstract

Keep it short

Address main point or content of the study AND be specificTitle should be specific enough to describe the subject matter, contents of the paper, and perhaps to allow a reader to ascertain you hypothesis or given insight into major results/conclusions

Use specific, descriptive words that strongly support the content of your manuscript

Check for correct syntax (word order/sentence structure)

Tips for Writing a Title

Keep in mind 3 elements – emphasis, impact and keywords

Keep the title focused on the most important point(s) or finding(s) that you want readers to remember.

It is OK to give away the ‘end of the story’ as long as you do so in a way that makes the reader want to read to know the details.

Indicate what is novel or innovative about your work directly in the title

Be specific about relationshipsFor example, use “reduced” or “increases” instead of “influences” or “impacts”

Tips for Writing a Title Continued

Bacterial Responses to Stress

VERSUS

Oxidative Stress Response of Synechocystis sp PCC 6893 due to UV-B Exposure

Titles: Be Specific

Poor: Mouse Courtship Behavior

Progress: The Effects of Estrogen on the Nose-Twitch Courtship Behavior in Mice

Why? Key words identify a specific behavior; a modifying agent, and the experimental organism

Better: Estrogen Stimulates Intensity of the Nose-Twitch Courtship Behavior in Mice

Why? In addition to above, this title contains key result

http://www.biosciencewriters.com/Writing-Strong-Titles-for-Research-Manuscripts.aspx

Titles: Poor, Progress, Better

Brainstorm and write down as many titles as you can think of in a few minutes

Ask other to read and suggest titles

Compose and revise to arrive at a title that catches the eye AND conveys the thesis of your work in one formulation.

Generating Titles

Self-contained summary of work

Emphasizes key results and significance

Succinct, clear and accurateFollow defined word limit of guidelines to authors

Abstracts

Use active voice

Start drafting the abstract by choosing your best lines from the manuscript

Be logical in structuring your abstract

References usually excluded

Review and revise

Abstract Tips

Background Hypothesis Course studied/subjects of study Methods Results Conclusions

Parts of an Abstract

Approximately 1-2 sentences

Introduces general topic

Introduces importance of topic from the very beginning – it is your job to highlight the relevance

Background

2 sentences maximum

Describes the question being investigated or purpose of the investigation

State hypothesis succinctly and clearly

Hypothesis

Introduce course(s), program(s) that were studied

Describe research subjects

Course studied/Subjects of Study

Approximately 2 sentences

Introduce general methods used

Methods

Approximately 1-2 sentences

Summarize key results that are specific to study

What should the reader remember as the key finding(s) from your work? OR What do you want them to remember if it is the only part of the paper they read?

Results

Summarize the significance and impact of the findings

Be specific and place your results into a broader context

“The Big Finish”

Conclusions

Copy the text of your abstract into Wordle to create a word-cloud. … http://www.wordle.net/

“Wordle is a toy for generating “word clouds” from text that you provide. The clouds give greater prominence to words that appear more frequently in the source text.”

The more prominent words can be used as keywords to help you come up with a title.

Use the Abstract to Help you Determine a Title

My Title: A Discussion Group Program Enhances the Conceptual Reasoning Skills of Students Enrolled in a Large Lecture Format Introductory Biology Course.

Wordle Example:

Consider the relevance of the TITLE and abstract beyond immediate use.

The title represents you experience, breadth and knowledge – For example, when it is listed on your CV.

Good websites for help with titles and abstracts: http://

www.biosciencewriters.com/Writing-Strong-Titles-for-Research-Manuscripts.aspx

http://www.biomedcentral.com/authors/abstracts http://

www.asbmb.org/asbmbtoday/asbmbtoday_article.aspx?id=13477&page_id=1

Concluding Remarks

Group Presentations and Goal Setting

12:30 pm

Group PresentationsGoal: Sharing of work and soliciting feedback from writing sessions

2:30 pm Break2:45 pm Individual Writing Time

Based upon feedback from this morning and early afternoon, develop more polished of your manuscript.

4:45 pm Break5:00 pm Goal Setting

Activity: Define the short-term and long-term goals required for the completion and submission of your manuscript

5:30 pm Presentation of GoalsActivity: Share your short-term and long-term goals with the group for feedback

6:30 pm Dinner on your Own

Each scholar will share their progress with the entire group.

Scholars and facilitators will provide feedback to assist presenting scholar.

Time: 12:30-2:30

There will be a break at 2:30.

Group Presentations

Develop a more polished version of your manuscript based upon feedback you received during the Group Presentations Session.

Time: 2:45-4:45

There will be a break at 4:45.

Individual Writing Time

Define the short-term and long-term goals required for submission of your manuscript.

Time: 5:00-5:30

Be prepared to present your goals to the group between 5:30-6:30.

Dinner will be on your own at 6:30.

Breakfast will be served at 8:00 am in the Blue Room. Your photo will be taken during breakfast.

Goal Setting Activity

Saturday, July 26, 2014

Session Objective: Identify Writing Timeline

8:00 am Breakfast/Your Photo Will Be Taken 

9:00 am Plans for the Future

Activity: Draft a feasible timeline for completing and submitting your manuscript based upon the discussions from yesterday evening. Are there additional studies or resources to complete your

manuscript? To which venues will you submit? Who will act as your critical friend?

9:30 am Presentation of Timeline and Work Plans

Activity: What is your plan for completing your manuscript? What will you do in short term? Medium term? Long term? What do you need from the facilitators? From ASM? From others?

Draft a timeline for completing and submitting your manuscript. Consider the answers to the following questions as you draft your timeline:

1. Are there additional studies or resources required to complete your manuscript?

2. To which venue will you submit?3. Who will act as your off-site critical friend?

Time: 9:00-9:30

Be prepared to discuss your timeline with your critical friend and facilitator from 9:30-10:30. During the discussion, please work with your facilitator to determine check-in times during your year in residency.

Plans for the Future

Institute Debriefing

10:30 am

Institute Debriefing and ClosureLoretta Brancaccio-Taras, Kingsborough Community College, CUNYMarcy Peteroy-Kelly, Pace University-NYCKelly Gull, ASMChristine Pribbenow, Wisconsin Center for Education Research  Evaluations Collaborating through SoTL Marching orders and where to go from here 

11:30 am

Adjournment