Integrating and Editing Informationfor Science and Engineering Research Papers
Using Electronics and Classroom Techniques!

Katherine Nelson Tanizawa
Center for English Language Education in Science and Engineering (CELESE)
Waseda University, Japankatherine@aoni.waseda.jp!
© 2014 Katherine Nelson Tanizawa

Waseda University 早稲田大学❖Writing for technical purposes is a crucial skill for science and engineering students tomaster. Researchers’ methodology and results are not only recorded as data, but are also
explained and interpreted. Therefore, being able to express oneself with precision andaccuracy is of utmost importance for those in such exact sciences. By learning andunderstanding techniques for editing, revising, and integrating information, students canconfidently refine their research papers to meet the highest standards needed for publication.
Some of the common shortcomings of editing and revising which have been encountered
while instructing university students in Japan, from integration of no corrections andimprovements to incorrect amalgamation of suggestions, will be described. Possible reasonsfor these oversights will be explored and tenable solutions for implementation to assist thestudents will be offered, allowing immediate and direct application of what is learned when
polishing technical papers for publication.

Taro SHIBUYALife science and Medical bioscience
WASEDA University, Japant.shibu.tokyo@gmail.com!
!

Figure 2. Author’s affiliation shown using incorrect capitalization in three words: Science, Bioscience, Waseda.
❖I. INTRODUCTION❖❖

Another area rife with inconsistencies was the reference section, less commonly with respect
to the order of information contained in the individual listings than with respect to theheader’s capitalization, the numbering of the section, or the misalignment of the text margins,
where text within the citation was either unevenly aligned, as in Figure 3, or set to a distanceother than the 7.5mm indented margin of the text’s paragraphs. However, as shown in Figure
3, this listing itself also fails to follow IEEE citation standards for order of information [1].
5.
[1]Technical reading and writing are skills that require the ability to analyze, define, explain,and interpret data and ideas. In addition to understanding what one reads, being able toexpress oneself with precision in fields requiring exactness such as science and engineering
is of utmost importance. In order to accomplish this, not only is a thorough understanding of
vocabulary and grammar necessary and conducive to clarity, but also consistent adherence
to conventional layout is required to gain acceptance for publication.
In this presentation, we will explore students’ performance when given opportunities forassistance and three examples of editing shortcomings that were evident in research papers,
which were designed and written over the course of one semester in my technical reading
and writing classes at Waseda University. In particular, we will look at in-class layout
instruction, students’ capitalizing on the opportunity for multiple draft submissions, andcomments and suggestions that were ignored or incorrectly integrated, which can beessential to producing refined research papers. By exposing and examining students’performance in terms of editorial weaknesses, I hope instructors of technical writing canaddress these issues, and facilitate understanding and better integration of corrections by thestudents, resulting in higher overall quality of submitted research papers and assignments.

An example from one final submission illustrates the failure to properly synthesize
information learned from the course, as shown in Figure 2. (The name and e-mail address
have been changed to respect the student’s privacy.) Surprisingly, despite explicit
explanation both in class and via track changes of how to utilize capitalization in titles, andincluding the affiliation, this type of error appeared in several students’ work.

[2]

Reference
Researchers create short-term memories in vitroDr. Ben Stowbridge 2012/10
AvailableHTTPhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120910143407.htm2014/05/19
Mechanism of making long-term memory Masatoshi Yoshida 2010/09/09
AvailableHTTPhttp://pooneil.sakura.ne.jp/archives/permalink/001296.php!
!

Figure 3. References section showing multiple layout errors.
❖❖A closer look at term-end papers and resulting grades is presented in Figures 4-7. In general,
44.83% of the graduate students submitted 3 versions (Figure 4), of which 100% had integrated
tracking change feedback into subsequent versions (Figure 5), whereas that was not the case forundergraduates. Although three papers were submitted by 30.56% of the undergraduates as seenin Figure 4, some of them were duplicates with virtually no revisions incorporated whatsoever,bringing the adjusted total of fully amalgamated papers to just 13.89% for undergraduates, as
shown in Figure 5.
The advantage of receiving and incorporating editing advice and adhering to stipulated guidelines
is reflected in Figures 6 and 7, which clearly show that term paper final grades were higher for
students who took full advantage of two feedback sessions leading to more polished final
products.

II. METHODOLOGY❖Number of students (%)

Students were given ample support and instruction regarding language and layout of research
papers, including classroom and textbook exercises and electronic feedback, to ensure
excellence and accuracy in their work. To instil proper organisation of text and data evenfurther, a 4-page worksheet based on Appendix B: Guide to Authors of the student’s text [1]was distributed and completed in pairs during class. The purpose of the supplement was tosimplify the complex layout guidelines into an easily readable form which could be quickly
referenced. The handouts were labeled with layout details pertinent to technical research
papers, such as indentations, line spacing, and font style.

❖Several papers were submitted with varying alignments from section to section. For example,
some contained a left-aligned abstract while the remaining sections were flush left-right. This
could be the result of sections being written at different times, resulting in inconsistent typesettings.

60

37.5

4525

12.5

Undergraduate Students

30

15012

30

123

Number of papers submitted

Number of papers

Figure 4. Percentage of students submitting drafts, including
unrevised duplicates.

Figure 5. Percentage of students submitting papers, adjusted for drafts
with revisions incorporated.

Final draft only
Two revisions plus final

One revision plus final

100100757550250

Final draft only
Two revisions plus final

One revision plus final

50250
Student’s final research paper

Student’s final research paper

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

III. RESULTS and DISCUSSION
Figure 1 depicts the supplemental layout worksheets completed in class which, coupled with
textbook exercises and discussion throughout the term regarding the research papers, seemed
to prove inadequate to ensure conventions be incorporated correctly into students’ papers.

Graduate Students

500

Furthermore, multiple electronic drafts of the research papers were allowed and encouraged
to afford students sufficient feedback and opportunity to refine their work. A total of threesubmissions were possible: two optional drafts on which comments and advice were given,and one final paper, with submissions via Waseda University’s electronic system called
Course N@vi. Within each draft received, comments, corrections and suggestions werewritten with track changes activated. However, if a subsequent submission revealed that all ora majority of the advice had been ignored and improvements not made, the draft was returned
with comments instructing the student to review and incorporate prior suggestions, and no
additional errors were noted.

❖Undergraduate Students

0Grade of final paper (%)❖Graduate Students

Number of students (%)❖❖

Grade of final draft (%)

ABSTRACT

Figure 7. Undergraduate students’ final research paper grades delineatedby each paper submitted.

IV. CONCLUSIONS❖In conclusion, proper research paper layout remains a challenge for technical writers.
Future efforts must be made to find innovative means of reinforcing and ensuring
adherence to correct protocol in order to improve researchers’ opportunities for publication,
not to mention increasing their course grades. This may include having instructors confirm
students’ knowledge of using electronic track changes and pinpoint areas of editorial
weakness. Clearly, great benefits can be reaped by instructor feedback and suggestions
being integrated into successive drafts, resulting in higher overall quality. Furthermore, if
writing efficiency can be improved, perhaps even more valuable content can be covered inclass, or more in-depth study of other areas can occur. In other words, it is likely that thecourse progression would become more efficient, resulting in an opportunity to more fully
maximize learning.

REFERENCES❖Figure 1. Research paper layout details in worksheet style from Anthony’s “Appendix B: Guide to Authors” [1].

RESEARCH POSTER PRESENTATION DESIGN © 2012www.PosterPresentations.com[1] L. Anthony, “Appendix B: Guide to Authors,” in Writing Up Research in Science andEngineering — Foundations. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University, 2013, pp. 127-130.