HEA Fellowships: Cutting down your wordcount

Colleagues preparing their HEA fellowships often complain that the 3000 word maximum (for Fellowship) is not enough words to say what they want to with the depth and detail required. While academics face this challenge when writing journal articles or books I’m going to concentrate here on the writing aspects of the HEA Fellowship. At Brighton we have an absolute limit for our fellowship application.

This is only a guide and though it may seem that each example only saves a few words, these savings mount up considerably over 3000 words. I am not an expert on pithy writing, but some colleagues may find this helpful.

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

John Canning, September 2017

  1. Use adjectives, adverbs and modifiers sparingly. They do not add as much to your writing as you may think.
Instead of...

Try...

“The students were very satisfied with the course” (8 words). “The students were satisfied with the course” (7 words).
“The students were really successful on the professional exam.” (9 words) “The students were successful on the professional exam.” (8 words)
“The students put their samples in a cold freezer.” (9 words) “The students put their samples in a freezer.” (8 words)
  1. Remove words that have do not add really add anything to meaning. Some examples include:
Instead of...

Try..

Appropriate”
e.g. “Students are assessed using the appropriate rubric” (7 words)

Students are assessed using the rubric. (6 words)

“students analyse their data with the appropriate software. (8 words)

“students analyse their data with [software/name/ type] (5 words)

Going forward”

“We are exploring studentfolio going forward”. (6 words)

“We are exploring studentfolio” (4 words)

As a matter of fact”

As a matter of fact the number of students on the module has increased by 20% since 2014.” (18 words)

“The number of students on the module has increased by 20% since 2014.”(13 words).

Different”

“The students examine three different species of toad.”(8 words)

“The students examine three species of toad.”(7 words)

  1. Short, pithy statements usually have more impact than longer statements.
Instead of...

Try

“In 2015 I began to get my students to use Blackboard”. (11 words)

In 2015 I started using Blackboard [with my students]. (5-8 words)

I do this in order to try to make my students understand the software”. (16 words)

“I do this so my students understand the software” (8 words)

 

  1. Unnecessary words also creep in when using hedging language. It can tempting to use this language where we don’t want to sound overconfident.
Instead of...

Try...

“In this module I attempt to teach my students how to use SPSS”. (13 words)

“In this module I teach students to use SPSS” (8 words).

“In this seminar I try to get the students to think critically about Jane Austen’s use of language”. (18 words)

“In this seminar students explore Jane Austen’s use of language”. (11 words)

or if the context is clear

“In this seminar students explore Austen’s use of language” (9 words).

On the request of my Head of Department I became the Level 4 tutor in 2016.” (16 words) “I became the Level 4 tutor in 2016.” (8 words).

5. Although application of scholarship is important in Fellowship applications beware of using every possible reference after making a point.

“Assessment and feedback are key problem areas identified by the National Student Survey (NSS) (see Race 2015, Ramsden 2002, Carless 2015, Yorke et al 2015, Higher Education Academy 2013).”

6. Beware the pleonasm (using more than words than necessary to describe one thing).

Instead of…

Try...

“The students dissect a tuna fish” (6 words)

“The students dissect [a] tuna”. (4-5 words).

“During fieldwork the students go scuba diving underwater”. (7 words).

“During fieldwork the students go scuba diving ”. (6 words).

(Presumably they don’t go scuba diving anywhere other than underwater).

“The students work together in groups.”

The students work in groups.

7. Multiple words which can be replaced by one word.

Instead of…

Try...

“There were not a sufficient number of students to run the course.” (12 words) “There were not enough students to run the course.” (9 words)
“Students are able to choose literature or language” (8 words) “Students can choose literature or language” (6 words)

8. Unnecessary clarifications

While it is correct to assume the assessor is not familiar with your discipline, there is no need to clarify terms which are widely understood.

Instead of...

Try...

“ZZ404, ‘Introduction to amphibians’ (frogs, toads, newts, salamanders etc.), is...” (10 words)

“ZZ404, ‘Introduction to amphibians’ is...” (6 words)

“TV soaps (programmes such as EastEnders, Coronation Street, Neighbours) … “ (9 words)

“TV soaps… “(2 words)

9. Unnecessary background

Instead of...

Try...

“I first started teaching at the then Brighton Polytechnic in 1985 when degrees were validated by the UK Council for National Academic Awards (CNAA). This was prior to the 1992 Further and Higher Education Act when the polytechnics became universities and were able to award their own degrees.” (48 words)

“I started teaching at the University of Brighton (then Brighton Polytechnic ) in 1985.” (14 words)

Though I wouldn’t image assessors would get hung up over:

“I started teaching at the University of Brighton in 1985.” (10 words)

 

10. Unnecessary and usually unhelpful filler:

Listing courses taught:

Instead of...

Try

I teach on the following modules:

ZZ 401 Clinical basketmaking 1

ZZ 406 Clinical basketmaking 2

ZZ 514 Forensic baskets

ZZ 516 Computational basketmaking

ZZ 621 Advanced clinical basketmaking

ZZ 723 Sussex Trug making (34 words)

I teach undergraduate and postgraduate modules on clinical, forensic, local and computational basketmaking. (13 words)

11. that

The word ‘that’ is often unnecessary in a sentence.

Instead of...

Try...

“When I started teaching this module I found that the content was out of date”. (15 words)

“When I started teaching this module I found the content was out of date” (14 words)

12, Names

a) Using people’s full titles can be nice, but they can be dispensed of here:

Instead of...

Try...

I co-teach this module with Professor Bill Badger and Dr Freddy Fox. (12 words).

I co-teach this module with Bill Badger and Freddy Fox. (10 words).

b) First/ given names are not required when using references.

Instead of...

Try...

“ As John Biggs and Catherine Tang (2011) note, … “ (11 words)

“ As Biggs and Tang (2011) note, … “ (9 words).

Further reading

Fowler, H. W. 1908. The King’s English, 2nd Edition.” Accessed September 7, 2017. http://www.bartleby.com/116/

Strunk W., E. B. White, and Roger Angell. The Elements of Style, Fourth Edition. Edited by Test Editor. 4th edition. Boston: Pearson, 1999.

IoE writing Centre http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ioe-writing-centre/develop-academic-voice/reducing-word-count

Plainlanguage.gov http://www.plainlanguage.gov/howto/guidelines/FederalPLGuidelines/writeOmitUnnecc.cfm

  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • StumbleUpon

Language café

The Language Cafe was an project funded by the EU from 2006-2008 which some of my colleagues at LLAS were involved in. The website no longer exists but is is available at the web archive . I've uploaded some of the resources here.

  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • StumbleUpon

Cloud services: Data security questions for researchers

Services like Dropbox and Google Drive can be very useful for researchers conducting research across institutions to share their files and work on projects together. They are easy to use, are low cost, or even free  but some of the security aspects are overlooked. Some people keep their whole lives on one or another of these services.

I've written before about the practical pitfalls of using the free services for collaborative projects (2GB+2GB does not equal 4GB but 2GB). Sharing your dropbox with others is more like moving extra people into your house rather than building an extension.

Researchers working for universities and other institutions make strong commitments to participants about the security of their data, but we rarely stop to think about the security of the data we use. Electronic data security is much more complex than the days of locking up the data in a secure filing cabinet.  There are obvious advantages of electronic data shortage, mostly notably that the data is unlikely to be wiped out by an catastrophic event such as a fire.

A few months ago I ran a session with a few colleagues on data security. I'm not a data security expert, but I know that security is important and  the consequences of a breach can be serious. In my session I asked my colleagues to look on the internet and find out the answers to each of these questions about a cloud storage service or any other service which relies on large amount of your data.

All you have to do for this activity is allocate each person or group a service: For example one group could look at Dropbox, another at Google Drive etc. and then answer the questions about each one.  As well as cloud services we also looked at services such as the questionnaire service surveymonkey and Wordle, a service which produces pretty word frequency pictures.

These are my questions if you wish to use them yourself (no special expertise required).

 

Why might you choose this program/service?
Where (geographical location) is your data actually saved?
How/ how often is the data backed up?
Under what legal jurisdiction is your data held?
What are the risks of using this program/ service to maintain data?
What steps can be taken to mitigate these risks?
What are the risks of using this program/ service to participants in our research?
Are there different risks for a free service compared to a paid service from the same provider?
How easy was it to find the answers to these questions?

Any other comments or questions?

 

Websites you can look at include:

Clouds (basic free + paid services ) Dropbox, OneDrive, GoogleDrive iCloud. These are the better known ones, but there are also lots of smaller providers.

Research service: Surveymonkey, BOS online survey tool. 

Project/ file sharing Sharepoint, Basecamp

Home solutions Owncloud,  WD cloud

Other stuff: Wordle

No solution is going to be perfect on all counts, but knowledge about the various services is surely an ethicalnecessity as much as it is a practical problem.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • StumbleUpon

Installing classifier- A file sorter for Linux

Linux Format LXF244 contains a short review of Classifier, a useful piece of software for sorting files into their different types. The program can be installed through the Python pip repository via the Terminal (CTRL+ALT+T): The instructions in the magazine are simply:
sudo pip install classifier


However, there are a couple of pre-requisites required in order to make this work 'out of the box' (I'm using Mint 18).

I had already installed Python, but if you need to do this:

sudo apt-get install Python

Pip is installed with Python, but may need to be upgraded. NB the code suggested here did not work.

pip install --upgrade pip

Then you can install Classifier:

sudo pip install classifier

Help can be obtained via:

classifier --help

Or

classifier -h

This brings up the following text in the Terminal:
All commands start with classifier:

-h, --help show this help message and exit
-st SPECIFIC_TYPES [SPECIFIC_TYPES ...], --specific-types SPECIFIC_TYPES [SPECIFIC_TYPES ...]
Move all file extensions, given in the args list, in
the current directory into the Specific Folder
-sf SPECIFIC_FOLDER, --specific-folder SPECIFIC_FOLDER
Folder to move Specific File Type
-o OUTPUT, --output OUTPUT
Main directory to put organized folders
-d DIRECTORY, --directory DIRECTORY
The directory whose files to classify
-dt, --date Organize files by creation date

I have used the basic function to sort out my downloads folder which contains a enormous variety of files: In my case:

classifier -d Downloads

Apparently, there is no undo here so be careful.

This sorted my Downloads into various subfolders according to their type.

  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • StumbleUpon

New article: A 'radical response' to the Teaching Excellence Framework

My latest article 'The UK Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) as an illustration of Baudrillard’s hyperreality' has been published in Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education. Not all university staff feel able to write about the TEF in the way I have done here and one reader has fed back to me on the importance  of having a radical response to the TEF.

Canning, John (2017) The UK Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) as an illustration of Baudrillard’s hyperreality. - Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2017.1315054 

Abstract: This article examines the ‘Teaching Excellence Framework’ (TEF) for UK universities through the lens of Jean Baudrillard’s concept of hyperreality. I argue that the TEF is a hyperreal simulacrum, a sign which has no traceable genealogy to the practice of learning and teaching.

 

  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • StumbleUpon

Higher Education Pedagogic research as Cinderella: Thoughts on recent article by Cotton, Miller and Kneale (2017)

D. R. E. Cotton, W. Miller, and P. Kneale (2017) The Cinderella of academia: Is higher education pedagogic research undervalued in UK research assessment? Studies In Higher Education  http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1276549

I thought I’d share a few thoughts on Cotton et al’s recent paper on the status of pedagogic research. As an HE pedagogic researcher myself, it is tempting to nod my head profusely taking comfort in the knowledge that there are a few people out there who understand the situation.

The central trust of the paper concerns the 2014 Research Excellence Framework and the particular politics surrounding the inclusion and exclusion of HE research in the Education ‘Unit of Assessment’. Cotton et al also touch on the fact that many HE pedagogic researchers have teaching-only contracts or are non-academic staff and are therefore intelligible for the REF. I was a non-academic member of staff in my previous job, so my research, for good or ill, was not visible to the university’s processes. Even though there were advantages to being off the ‘REF radar’, being a ‘non-academic’ meant that my research was somehow invisible to the university.

My main point of interest in this article was the authors’ discussion of the relationship (or lack of relationship) between pedagogic research and Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL). I have long been concerned about Boyer’s (1990) separation of SoTL from the ‘Scholarship of Discovery’ (that is original research that advances knowledge):

To most academics, scholarship means reading papers and being informed, not undertaking primary research. So when pedagogic research and SoTL are conflated, it implicitly devalues the former. To make further progress in developing the profile of pedagogic research, and integrate it into research assessment, high quality pedagogic research should be viewed as something quite distinct from SoTL. Whilst it may contribute to teaching enhancement in HE (as may discipline-based research through the research–teaching nexus), until it is viewed inherently as a research endeavour, rather than as ‘scholarship’, submitting HE pedagogic research into the REF will continue to be open to challenge. (Cotton et al 2017)

I played a small role (Masika et al 2016) in the recent HEA-funded SoTL project cited by Cotton et al (Fanghanel et al 2016) carrying out interviews with people in educational development units about SoTL at the institutional level. My personal conclusion in carrying out the interviews was that rather than being contested, SoTL is a concept which few people have any views on. This distinction is important – it is not that people have different understandings of SoTL that is the issue, but that SoTL seems to have an almost mystical, deistic status. We believe SoTL exists, but do not agree what it is and behave as if its existence has no material consequences.

When SoTL and pedagogic research are conflated we end up in a situation where quality research into higher education teaching and learning is given parity of esteem with the practice of reading a book or article on teaching every now and again which is reported institutionally as ‘participating in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning’.

References

Boyer, E. L. (1990), Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching

Cotton, D. R. E; W. Miller, and P. Kneale (2017) The Cinderella of academia: Is higher education pedagogic research undervalued in UK research assessment? Studies In Higher Education  http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1276549

Fanghanel, J., J. Pritchard, J. Potter, and G. Wisker. 2016. Defining and Supporting the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL): A Sector Wide Study. HEA Report. https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resource/defining-and-supporting-scholarship-teaching-and-learning-sotl-sector-wide-study.

Masika, Rachel, Wisker, Gina and Canning, John (2016) Defining and supporting the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL): A sector-wide study, SoTL Case Studies[. York: HEA https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resource/defining-and-supporting-scholarship-teaching-and-learning-sotl-sector-wide-study

  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • StumbleUpon

Beall’s list of predatory journals

Over the years Jeffery Beall from The University of Colorado as undertaken the painstaking task of identifying what he calls ‘predatory journals’ and predatory publishers. Predatory journals or publishers are those which charge authors large sums of money in order to publish in open access so-called academic journals. Predatory journals offer little (if any) peer review or and articles are often published ‘as is’ complete with spelling and grammar errors. The articles themselves are often very low quality, but it shouldn’t be taken as given that all research published in these journals is bad.

Over the weekend I spotted a tweet on my timeline pointing out that all the content had gone from Beall’s website. The weblink went to an anonymous ‘pro-openaccess’ site entirely devoted to attacking Beall’s work and speculating as to the reasons why.

I am very pro open-access, but with open access comes the risk that some individuals and organisation will attempt to exploit the author pays model. Researchers who lack mentoring support and/ or have not done their due diligence can be taken in the journals which seem very enthusiastic to publish their work. (I’m actually have concerns about the‘Gold’ open access model operated by many reputable journals, but that’s a topic for another blog post.)

Many academics, myself included, have referred people to his site when they have expressed concerns that an invitation to publish seems a little dubious. I also link to Beall’s list on the open access language teaching research website yazikopen. However, Beall has not been without his critics. As well as those who stand to gain financially from predatory publications, others have questioned his emerging status as the world ‘policeman’ on academic journal standards.

While I sympathise with the perspective that one person cannot and should not be the ultimate authority on these matters, I believe that Jeffrey Beall performs a very important public service to academia in publishing these lists. In a world where anyone with an internet connection can publish anything online there are going to be people who see this as an opportunity to exploit others. Not all open access journals are predatory and new journals should not automatically be viewed with suspicion.

Since Beall’s website is currently down I’ll finish by outlining some characteristics which may suggest that a journal is predatory. None of these factors alone will demonstrate beyond all doubt that a journal is predatory.

  1. The journal appears to be one of suite of journals that has yet to publish any content. Predatory publishers often ‘launch’ a number of journals at the same time.
  2. The journal promises fast peer review turn-around times. (I have yet to see evidence of peer review in my field which takes less than 3-6 months, let alone 3-6 days).
  3. The journal requires that authors pay a fee on publication (though many reputable journals do this, especially in the sciences). In some cases predatory journals don’t mention the fee until the article has been accepted.
  4. The quality of English (or other language) on the journal website is very poor, containing typos and spelling errors (which should not be the case for organisation in the publishing business).
  5. The published articles are generally of low academic quality. They may have been published with clear factual errors and/ or show no evidence of having been proofread. Papers with graphs, tables and diagrams may not have been set out well and are clearly word documents converted to .pdf.
  6. The same individuals seen to be on the editorial board for lots of different journals from the same publisher.
  7. You are listed as a member of the editorial board, even though no one asked you. Some predatory publishers mine the internet for ‘reputable’ editorial board member names.
  8. A newish journal is called the American/ British/ Canadian Journal of X, yet evidently has no connection to its supposed country of origin.

The key way to avoid becoming a victim is to do your own due diligence and ask for advice from a trusted colleague, mentor or supervisor.

  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • StumbleUpon

New article: Conceptualising student voice in UK higher education: four theoretical lenses.

Canning, J. (2017) Conceptualising student voice in UK higher education: four theoretical lenses. Teaching in Higher Education,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1273207

Abstract: The ‘student voice’ is highly profiled in UK higher education, yet highly under-theorised. Over the past 20 years UK universities have gone from a taxpayer-funded, free at the point of use model, to one supported through tuition fees via Government-backed loans. Subsequently, there is a growth of discourse about universities as businesses and students as paying customers/consumers whose opinions and demands must be considered. This article outlines four possible theoretical lenses (or frameworks) through which student voice can be analysed, enabling an exploration of the vested interests and power relations entailed. These lenses draw on (1) research on student voice and power in compulsory education; (2) regulatory capture from Economics; (3) the notion of students voice as part of an incomplete whole and (4) non-representational theory, developed in Human Geography by Nigel Thrift.

  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • StumbleUpon