Poster Presentation

Integrating and Editing Information
Electronically in Science andEngineering Research Papers

Katherine Nelson Tanizawa
Waseda University
Writing for technical purposes is a crucial yet challenging skill for science and engineering
students to master. Being able to express oneself with precision and accuracy is of utmost
importance in such exact sciences. By learning and understanding techniques for editing,revising, and integrating information, students can confidently refine their research papers
to meet the highest standards of publication. Frequently, during editing and revising ofresearch papers, advice and comments given to students remain unread or perhaps readand ignored. Furthermore, although teachers add, change, or line out in the drafts using
track changes, students often fail to integrate corrections or improvements. Moreover,incorrect amalgamation of the suggestions is common. Possible reasons for these oversights
may be the result of students’ limitations with the English language, or perhaps a lack ofthorough understanding of how to use the track changes function. Clearly, a comprehensive
explanation early in the writing process involving how to edit documents using MicrosoftWord based on feedback in the track changes remarks might prove very beneficial and timeefficient.

Today’s students are using electronic means more and more to complete academic
research papers for school assignments. Computers, word processing software,and the Internet are ubiquitous tools. They afford many benefits for not only
students but also educators in efficiency of time and rapidity of feedback.
Furthermore, instructors can use such tools to measure and monitor students’progress by referring to previous versions of their work edited using the trackchanges function of Microsoft Word.
However, limitations in the student’s ability to edit electronically using
track changes disrupt efficiency and hinder progress. Specifically, when allowed
198

Integrating and Editing Information Electronically, OnCUE Journal, 9(2), pages 198-209

multiple draft revisions, some students fail to utilize the opportunity to makein-text or layout adjustments. Others may only partially integrate advice andsuggestions. I examined student performance in my technical writing courses
when they were allowed multiple draft revisions and use of the track changes
editing function. In particular, I noticed discrepancies between students whocapitalised on the opportunity for multiple submissions and feedback andthose who did not. In addition, I noticed tendencies of students to ignore orincorrectly integrate comments and suggestions, which can be essential for
producing refined research papers.
The nature of this study is to examine the behaviours of a small group ofscience and engineering students and their integration of editing suggestions
into subsequent drafts using track changes. By understanding the degree towhich track changes’ comments and suggestions are, or are not, noticed andincorporated, I hope to raise awareness among writing instructors so thatperhaps students can learn proper usage of this useful tool. Specifically, I hopestudents become aware of how to read comments and accept changes inserted byinstructors using the track changes mode. This study is limited in scope, but by
examining a convenient editing tool and its effectiveness when used by students,
I hope to assist educators in helping to improve overall technical writing skills ofstudents.

Methods
Participants
Waseda University science and engineering students (36 undergraduate students,28 graduate students) participated by virtue of having taken my technical writing
courses and having signed a consent form allowing use of their work. They werefluent Japanese speakers taking Technical Writing (undergraduate students) or
Advanced Technical Reading and Writing (graduate students). None of theparticipants were individually selected nor compensated for allowing their work
to be evaluated for the study. All participants were allowed, yet not required,to submit two drafts for comments and advice prior to submission of the final
research paper.
199

Tanizawa

Materials and Procedure
Students were given a one-term assignment to design and carry out a short research
project in their respective fields. Some examples of these include the following:a study on two-dimensional solid structure of poly (3-hexylthiophene) blend
films by Raman spectroscopy; MPEG video watermarking for streaming using
faster fingerprinting; and sampling system of soil on Mars utilizing mechanicalvibration.
The task was to write up the findings in a research paper of 1600-2000
words, including an abstract of 75-150 words, using a single-column format
following guidelines of their textbook (Anthony, 2013), which stipulates using
the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) style. Referenceswere not included in total word length, and no firm word-length limits existed;
however, papers under 1,100 words risked the possibility of unfavourable
evaluations.
Submissions were as Microsoft Word (.doc, .docx) files to allow my review
and in-text comments, suggestions, and corrections. They were told to provide
three submissions: two optional complete drafts on which comments and advice
were given, and one final version. Each draft received comments, corrections, orsuggestions written with track changes. However, if a subsequent submission
revealed that all or a majority of the advice had been ignored and improvements
were missing, I noted no additional errors and returned the draft with comments
instructing the student to review and incorporate prior suggestions.
Throughout the writing process, students received support and instruction
regarding language and layout of research papers. This included in-class help
and textbook exercises, as well as electronic (E-mail, track changes) feedback toensure excellence and accuracy in their work. To instill proper organisation oftext and data even further, students received a four-page worksheet (Appendix)
midway through the term at the layout-discussion stage of the writing process.
The worksheet was based on guidelines in their textbook (Anthony, 2013) tocomplete in class with a partner. The purpose of the supplement was to simplify
the complex English layout guidelines into an easily usable form that could bequickly referenced. The handout contained labels with layout details pertinent200

Integrating and Editing Information Electronically, OnCUE Journal, 9(2), pages 198-209

to technical research papers such as indentations, line spacing, and font styles.

Results and Discussion
Integration
An example from one final paper submission illustrates the failure to properly
synthesize information learned from the course (Figure 1). Surprisingly, despite
explanations in English both in class and via track changes of how to utilize
capitalization in titles and represent the affiliations, errors of these types appearedin much of the students’ work.
Alignment
The in-class exercises and worksheet seemed to be inadequate for ensuring thatlayout conventions be incorporated correctly into the students’ papers.
Despite having access to myriad resources, students submitted papers withalignments varying from section to section. For example, one contained a leftaligned abstract while the remaining sections were flush left-right. This could
be the result of the student writing the sections at different times, resulting ininconsistent type settings.
Another area with many inconsistencies was the reference section.
Predominantly, errors appeared in the reference header’s capitalization, thenumbering of the section, or the misalignment of text margins. Text withincitations was unevenly aligned, or set to a distance other than the 7.5-mm
indentation stipulated (Figure 3). Less common, though evident, were errors
regarding the order of information contained in the individual references withstudents sometimes failing to follow IEEE citation standards.

Figure 1. Author’s affiliation shown using incorrect capitalization in three words: Science,Bioscience, Waseda. (The name and E-mail address have been changed to respect the student’sprivacy.).

201

Tanizawa

Figure 2. Sample from research paper showing lack of adhering to IEEE citation standards fororder of information (Anthony, 2013).

Submissions and Grades
Grades were based on two main categories: Layout (55%) and Language (45%).
Language was further subdivided into two more categories: micro (27%),
covering flow/style/grammar and spelling; and macro (18%), covering audience/purpose/organization. A close examination of term-end submissions and gradesshows that research paper final scores were improved on average by as much as
31% for undergraduates and 35% for graduate students who took full advantage
of all three submissions, including two feedback opportunities. In general, 44.8%of the graduate students took advantage of submitting three versions (Figure3). Of those students, 100% integrated track changes feedback into subsequentversions (Figure 4), whereas that was not the case for undergraduate students.
Although 30.6% of undergraduates submitted the allowed three versions (Figure4), approximately 10% (seven papers) were near-duplicates with virtually norevisions incorporated. So, the total of fully amalgamated papers was just 13.9%
for undergraduates (Figure 4).
It is clear that receiving and incorporating editing advice and adhering tostipulated guidelines is advantageous to some degree. Term paper final grades
were markedly higher for students who utilised both feedback opportunities
leading to more polished final products (Figure 5, Figure 6).

Conclusion

In conclusion, proper research paper layout remains a challenge for this limited
sample comprised of non-native English speaking students in Japan. Reasons
why the students did not make the changes are unknown. Especially puzzlingis why undergraduates with three revisions did not fix their mistakes. Perhaps
conducting an anonymous survey would reveal whether the students were too202

Integrating and Editing Information Electronically, OnCUE Journal, 9(2), pages 198-209

Figure 3. Percent of graduate and undergraduate students and the number of research paper
versions submitted.

Figure 4. Percent of graduate and undergraduate students and the number of research paper
versions submitted which had been revised.

lazy to make the recommended changes, or too busy with their class schedules orclub activities. The students may even have thought that what they had written
was “good enough” because perhaps their science teachers never ask for morethan one draft of anything. Future efforts to find innovative means of reinforcing
203

Tanizawa

Figure 5. Graduate students’ final research paper grades delineated by each paper submitted.

Figure 6. Undergraduate students’ final research paper grades delineated by each paper submitted..

and ensuring adherence to technical writing protocol will likely improve student
researchers’ opportunities for publication. Additionally, it might also result inhigher course grades.
The results of this study are limited due to the sample size, and further
204

Integrating and Editing Information Electronically, OnCUE Journal, 9(2), pages 198-209

research is required to clarify and resolve discrepancies in students’ use oftrack changes. However, in the near term, one strategy that instructors could
implement is confirming students’ knowledge of using the track changes mode
early in the writing process. Instructors could pinpoint areas of editorial weakness
by requiring regular short assignments submitted electronically. After returningthese with editorial comments and suggestions inserted via track changes, theinstructor could then allow students to submit revisions. This would allow
instructors’ confirmation of students’ editorial knowledge prior to having themsubmit a longer manuscript.
Clearly, the integration of instructor feedback and suggestions into successivedrafts will reap benefits resulting in higher overall quality of students’ work anda greater likelihood for research paper publication. Furthermore, if writing
efficiency can be improved, perhaps even more content can be covered in class, ormore in-depth study of other areas can occur. In other words, it is likely that thecourse’s progression would become more efficient, resulting in opportunities tomore fully maximise learning.

References

Anthony, L., (2013). Appendix B: Guide to authors. Writing up research inscience and engineering - Foundations (pp. 127-130). Tokyo, Japan: Waseda
University.

Author Bio

Katherine Nelson Tanizawa (now Katherine Nelson Crawford) received her BA
in human biology in 1985 and her MA in education in 1987, both from Stanford
University. She is an adjunct faculty member in the Center for English Language
Education (CELESE) at Waseda University. Her research interests include
pragmatics, discourse analysis and forensic linguistics. kathycrawford@alumni.
stanford.edu
Received: December 7, 2014
Accepted: November 29, 2016
205

Tanizawa

AppendixResearch paper layout worksheets to assist document setup
by science and engineering students (Anthony, 2013)206

Integrating and Editing Information Electronically, OnCUE Journal, 9(2), pages 198-209

207

Tanizawa

208

Integrating and Editing Information Electronically, OnCUE Journal, 9(2), pages 198-209

209