Basics of Paper Writing and Publishing in TEL (JTEL 2014 Workshop)

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, Milos Kravcik, Ralf Klamma

RWTH Aachen UniversityAdvanced Community Information Systems (ACIS)

{derntl,kravcik,klamma}@dbis.rwth-aachen.de

10th Joint European Summer School on

Technology Enhanced Learning (JTEL 2014)

April 28 – May 2, 2014

Malta

http://dbis.rwth-aachen.de/cms/research/MiCIS


http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/





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







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!







Prof. Dr. M. Jarke

4

Paper Structure

Hourglass Model [Swal93]

Introduction

Body

Conclusiongeneral

specific

specific

general

Section Theme







Prof. Dr. M. Jarke

5

Paper Structure

“King Model” [Dern14]

Title

Abstract

Introduction

Body

Conclusion

References







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







Prof. Dr. M. Jarke

7

Paper Structure:

Title

Types of title– Descriptive: Investigating the role of

academic 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, fewer

cites

– Compound with colon: longer; fewerdownloads and cites

– Long titles: fewer downloads

Title

Abstract

Introduction

Body

Conclusion

References[JaNi11]







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







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







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

ranking sheet

Title

Abstract

Introduction

Body

Conclusion

References







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







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







Prof. Dr. M. Jarke

13

ABSTRACT RANKING







Prof. Dr. M. Jarke

14

This paper presents rhythm reading, one of the elementary ear training

exercises, as a pedagogical software application of PWGL. We use

different kinds of stochastic and mathematical models to generate a

rhythmic database. The database is divided into several categories,

including, binary or ternary, euclidian, afro-cuban, corpus-based, and

contemporary. Our musical constraints systems is used to define a rule

set, which, in turn, can be used to automatically generate graded rhythm

reading exercises. The user is then presented with a musical score, and

he or she can perform a reading with any percussive instrument or voice

and a microphone connected to a computer. Our novel signal processing

system is utilized to analyze the reading. Finally, visual feedback and

statistics are displayed directly as a part of the exercise. In this paper we

present our rhythm reading application, and discuss the details of its

implementation.

This paper presents rhythm reading, one of the elementary ear training

exercises, as a pedagogical software application of PWGL. We use

different kinds of stochastic and mathematical models to generate a

rhythmic database. The database is divided into several categories,

including, binary or ternary, euclidian, afro-cuban, corpus-based, and

contemporary. Our musical constraints systems is used to define a rule

set, which, in turn, can be used to automatically generate graded rhythm

reading exercises. The user is then presented with a musical score, and

he or she can perform a reading with any percussive instrument or voice

and a microphone connected to a computer. Our novel signal processing

system is utilized to analyze the reading. Finally, visual feedback and

statistics are displayed directly as a part of the exercise. In this paper we

present our rhythm reading application, and discuss the details of its

implementation.

Motivation Problem Solution Results Implicationsmixed

4th Place: Abstract A

M. Kuuskankare, V. Norilo (2013). Proc. EC-TEL 2013 (pp. 165-177) © Springer Verlag







Prof. Dr. M. Jarke

15

3rd Place: Abstract C

Motivation Problem Solution Results Implications

Y. Jiang, Z. Wu, Z. Zhan, L. Xu (2010) Proc. ICWL 2010 Workshops (pp. 195-206) © Springer Verlag

This paper proposes a strategy to personalized the Internet

searching, which would help to filter, extract and integrate

the massive information from the web based on the specific

user requirements in the hopes that it can relieve them from

the tedious process of manually selecting and retrieving the

relevant information as well as the confusion caused by the

inconsistencies of the information. The strategy proposed in

this paper has been applied to the searching of the laptop

product information and the result shows a much less

human effort involved and a much more accurate price

range.

part of the solution descriptive informative







Prof. Dr. M. Jarke

16

2nd Place: Abstract D


C. Alario-Hoyos et al. (2013) Proc. EC-TEL 2013, pp. 5-18 [best full paper] © Springer Verlag

informative informative mixed descriptive

MOOCs have been a disruptive educational trend in the last months. Some MOOCs just replicate traditional teaching pedagogies, adding multimedia elements like video lectures. Others go beyond, trying to engage the massive number of participants by promoting discussions and relying on their contributions to the course. MOOC platforms usually provide some built-in social tools for this purpose, although instructors or participants may suggest others to foster discussions and crowdsourcing. This paper analyses the impact of two built-in (Q&A and forum) and three external social tools (Facebook, Twitter and MentorMob) in a MOOC on educational technologies. Most of the participants agreed on the importance of social tools to be in touch with their partners and share information related to the course, the forum being the one preferred. Furthermore, the lessons learned from the enactment of this MOOC employing social tools are summarized so that others may benefit from them.







Prof. Dr. M. Jarke

17


Y. Mor & O. Mogilevsky (2013). Proc. EC-TEL 2013 (pp. 233-245) © Springer Verlag

Recently we are urged to transform education into an evidence based profession,

and promote scientific standards or practice. These calls are not new – they seem

to emerge every few years. We do not argue with their goal, but we contend that

the suitable frame of reference is the paradigm of design science, rather than the

common metaphor of medical research. This paper proposes Design Inquiry of

Learning as a projection of educational design science into a professional

domain, and offers the Learning Design Studio as a pedagogical manifestation of

this approach. The learning design studio is a collaborative, blended, project

based framework for training educators in effective and evidence-based use of

educational technology. We present its theoretical underpinnings, note its

fundamental principles and structures, and review three independent cases where

it has been trialed. The results show that this model is effective in developing

learners’ theoretical knowledge as well as their practical skills, and allows them to

link the two. However, it requires a considerable commitment of both learners and

tutors, and may not be applicable in more casual settings.

informative informative mostly informative

1st place: Abstract B

informative informative







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







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







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…







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







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]







Prof. Dr. M. Jarke

23

Paper 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

– 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







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







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

– …







Prof. Dr. M. Jarke

26

Task: Mini Conference

Choose one of your recent submissions (where youwrote 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

Carefully choose a title

Submit by tomorrow (Wednesday) night at http://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=jtelpw2014

Review your assigned abstracts by Thursday night

Check out the received reviews until the Friday session

Task description also available at http://is.gd/jtel2014conf





http://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=jtelpw2014



Prof. Dr. M. Jarke

27

Mini Conference – Results

Best Overall Scores

1. Antonio Balderas: A domain-specific language to

objectively assess generic competences [3.3 / 4]

2. Sandra Buron: A multitouch based learning environment

with a 3D paediatric patient. Does it work? [3.1 / 4]

3. Florian Heberle: Advancement of MOOCs with Learning

Pathways [2.8 / 4]







Prof. Dr. M. Jarke

28

Nowadays, the competences assessment is a topic of growing importance in

terms of learning experiences. Unfortunately, assessing certain competences is a

subjective task, being problematic for both the evaluators and the evaluated.

Moreover, when the learning process is computer-supported and the number of

students increases, traditional assessment procedures suffer from scalability

problems. In this paper we introduce a system that supports grading learning

competences according to students' performance in an online course. We

automatically extract different objective indicators about students' work in a

Learning Management System (LMS). Evaluators can use an assessment-

specific query language to express a number of required indicators. Such

indicators are automatically extracted from the activity logs generated by the

LMS. The system has been applied in different courses and the results are

promising. Using these indicators, students can be assessed in their performance

in several generic competences.

Mini Conference – Best Abstract


A. Balderas (2014). JTEL Paper Writing Workshop 2014 © A. Balderas

informative informative informative unspecific informative?







Prof. Dr. M. Jarke

29

Mini Conference – Other Top Scores

Best Title

Nabeela Altrabsheh: The Effect of Ngrams and Preprocessing in Analysing Students Feedback [4.33 / 5]

Best Structure

Antonio Balderas: A domain-specific language to objectively assess generic competences [4.67 / 5]

Best Readability

Florian Heberle: Advancement of MOOCs with Learning Pathways [5 / 5]







Prof. Dr. M. Jarke

30

Publication 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; often smaller

delta or WIP acceptable; interaction with key people; review qualitydepends 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; review qualitydepends

– Typical types: short, long, positions

Doctoral Consortia







Prof. Dr. M. Jarke

31


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







Prof. Dr. M. Jarke

32


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







Prof. Dr. M. Jarke

33


Exercise

Results

– Formal requirements (national, university-based) should befirst reference (e.g. you need to publish in indexed journals)

– There are indexes – check the impact factor

– Maximum exposure, use social network (e.g. linkedin), participate in competitions (e.g. thesis competitions, internatoinal)

– Interdisciplinary > macro: CS / TEL; micro: not all conferenceexpect the same stuff, depends on the journal/conf focus

– Funding: is there enough travel money for conference travels

– At the beginning need to find your community and keyconferences (connect with other researchers in the field) –criteria e.g. acceptance rate, reputation







Prof. Dr. M. Jarke

34


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?





http://beamtenherrschaft.blogspot.com/



Prof. Dr. M. Jarke

35


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





http://is.gd/seriescomp

http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm



Prof. Dr. M. Jarke

36


Some Prominent Venues

See http://www.slideshare.net/mikederntl/the-european-technology-enhanced-learning-lanscape

Artificial

Intelligence

Web /

Hypermedia

HCI





http://www.slideshare.net/mikederntl/the-european-technology-enhanced-learning-lanscape



Prof. Dr. M. Jarke

37


Some Prominent Venues

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!





http://celstec.org/content/advanced-learning-technologies-journal-list



Prof. Dr. M. Jarke

38

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 doomed.

Task

– Group around similar PhD subjects (max 5 per group)

– Discuss and shortlist the above items [8 mins]

– Pitch your results







Prof. Dr. M. Jarke

39

Some Mistakes to Absolutely Avoid

Brainstorm!







Prof. Dr. M. Jarke

40

Some Mistakes to Absolutely Avoid

Results– Not asking PhD advisor *before* submitting

– Keeping it as a secret

– Conten things:– Not respect the “rules” of the conference (scope, formatting)

– Inventing a new structure (form)

– Neglect research language (it’s not a conversation);

– (Self) plagiarism

– Use one paper for different conferences without customization

– Simple typos and grammar errors -> check the language

– 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

– Resubmit a rejected paper without – adapting to the new venue’s template

– considering comments in rejection letter







Prof. Dr. M. Jarke

41

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. Unpublishedmanuscript, http://is.gd/paperwriting (2011)

[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)





http://www.acm.org/sigchi/chi98/call/papers.html

http://is.gd/paperwriting

http://www.paperpub.com.cn/admin/upload/file/200893103922625.pdf

Basics of Paper Writing and Publishing in TEL (JTEL 2014 Workshop)

Science

Transcript of Basics of Paper Writing and Publishing in TEL (JTEL 2014 Workshop)