Graduate Writing Workshop on Improving Structure and

Organization.

Ron CooleyDept. of English

ron.cooley@usask.ca

2 Parts

A. General principles of organization for a thesis, dissertation or scientific report.

B. Case study in organization—the Literature Review.

General principles of organization for a thesis,

dissertation or scientific report.

2 kinds of Structure• Any academic or technical document will

employ a combination of both.– Prescribed/Conventional Structures – Devised Structures

2 related Overarching Principles

• Nesting – sections or chapters which are further divided and subdivided.– “what part of the whole am I working on

here?”• Functionality – you should be able to

articulate the function of each component.– “my job here is to . . .”

• The key functional unit is the paragraph.

• Every paragraph must perform a definite function

Paragraph functions

• Each paragraph needs a clear function related to the purpose of the entire document.

– Stating: Making an assertion.– Restating: Putting into different words an assertion already made for

purposes of clarification and/or or emphasis.– Supporting: Providing evidence for an assertion.– Concurring: Agreeing with another author's assertion.– Qualifying: Restricting the meaning of an assertion already made.– Conceding: Acknowledging a fact or perspective that calls into question

that author's own assertions.– Negating: Offering reasoning or evidence to demonstrate the falsehood

of an assertion.– Expanding: Stating at great length or more comprehensively an idea or

assertion already expressed.– Analyzing: Breaking an assertion down into its constituent parts in order

to clarify or evaluate it.

• http://depts.washington.edu/pswrite/parafunct.html

Paragraph functions

– Defining: Stating the meaning of a word or words previously or subsequently used.

– Describing: Naming one or more features of an object or concept, to help the reader imagine it precisely or understand it fully.

– Exemplifying: Giving an illustration of what is meant by a previous statement or giving a concrete instance that will help make the point credible.

– Comparing and contrasting: Examining objects alongside each other for the purpose of clarifying their features, evaluating them or noting differences and similarities.

– Narrating: Telling a story describing an event or series of events– Evaluating: Making judgement about something discussed previously– Synthesizing: Combining elements of previous paragraphs into a

coherent whole; often this includes presenting a new perspective on the subject.

– Summarizing: Restating the principal idea or the outline of an argument or point already introduced.

– Transitioning: Moving from one aspect of the argument to another by connecting the points for the reader.

• 2 kinds of Structure (Prescribed vs. Devised)

• 2 related Overarching Principles (Nesting and Functionality)

• 1 Message: Good Paragraphing = strong organization

Good Paragraphing: How to get it

• Linearity of Reading Process vs. non-linearity of writing process.– (linear writing leads to digression, repetition,

loss of focus)• Alternative to linear writing--Writing from

the inside out. – e.g. many science writers begin writing

methodology--purely descriptive. – Think “in this paragraph I am describing . . .”

and limit yourself to that.

• Many Introductions are written last,

• or heavily revised at the end of the writing process

• An Introduction says “this is what my thesis/article/dissertation is about”

• Until it’s written you don’t really know what it is about.

Prescribed Structures• Reports generally include these sections

in (approximately) this order:

– Abstract (sometimes part of the intro.)– Introduction– Literature Review (sometimes part of intro.)– Methodology– Results– Discussion– Conclusion

Jonathan Peter Farthing (U of S PhD, Kinesiology, 2005)

• Farthing’s Problem statement:• No study to date has examined cortical adaptation in

conjunction with cross-education of strength. Peripheral neural adaptations have been shown in both limbs in response to unilateral training (Carolan and Cafarelli, 1992; Hortobágyi et al., 1997; Hortobágyi et al., 1999; Shima et al., 2002), but these are not consistent across studies and exactly how the information is transferred to the untrained limb is unknown. As mentioned previously, before the neural mechanisms of cross-education of strength can be pursued, the influence of handedness and the direction of transfer must be determined in order to isolate the circumstance in which the effect is most pronounced. Two experiments are required to attempt to determine the neuro-physiological mechanisms behind cross-education of strength.

Review Farthing Thesis Table of Contents

Look for

• Prescribed elements. • Nested structures.

Table of ContentsChapter 1 Introduction and Review of Literature 1

1.1 Introduction 11.2 Review of Literature 41.2.1 Cross-education 41.2.2 Cross-education of Strength and Interlateral Transfer of Skill 71.2.2.1 Models of Transfer, Lateralization, and Handedness 81.2.3 Cross-education and Imagery Training 121.2.4 Cross-education, Motor Imagery, and Semantic Memory 161.2.5 Mechanisms of Cross-education of Strength 191.2.5.1 Plasticity in the Brain 201.2.5.2 Bilateral Cortical Activation 241.2.5.3 Adaptations in Muscle Activation Patterns 261.2.5.4 Increased Excitability of the Contralateral Musculature 301.2.5.5 Corticospinal Tract Impulses 321.2.6 Origins of fMRI 331.2.7 Statement of the Problem 381.2.8 Hypotheses 391.2.8.1 Experiment 1 391.2.8.2 Experiment 2 39

• Why does the Literature Review conclude with these conventional/prescribed elements:– Statement of the Problem, and – Hypotheses?

“Gap analysis”– Main FUNCTION of the Literature Review is

to identify a gap in knowledge and propose a way of filling it.

Chapter 2: Experiment 1 2.1 Introduction 412.2 Methods 43

2.2.1 Subjects 432.2.2 Design 442.2.3 Muscle Thickness 452.2.4 Strength 452.2.5 Electromyography 462.2.6 Training Program 482.2.7 Statistics 49

2.3 Results 502.3.1 Strength and Muscle Thickness 502.3.2 Electromyography 52

2.4 Discussion 54

Chapter 3: Experiment 23.1 Introduction 613.2 Methods 66

3.2.1 Subjects 663.2.2 Design 673.2.3 Muscle Thickness 683.2.4 Strength 683.2.5 Electromyography 683.2.6 Strength Training Program 693.2.7 Imagery Training Program 693.2.8 MRI Experiment 703.2.9 Statistics 77

3.3 Results 773.3.1 Strength and Muscle Thickness 773.3.2 Electromyography 813.3.3 fMRI 83

3.4 Discussion 88

Chapter 3: Experiment 23.1 Introduction 613.2 Methods 66

3.2.1 Subjects 663.2.2 Design 673.2.3 Muscle Thickness 683.2.4 Strength 683.2.5 Electromyography 683.2.6 Strength Training Program 693.2.7 Imagery Training Program 693.2.8 MRI Experiment 703.2.9 Statistics 77

3.3 Results 773.3.1 Strength and Muscle Thickness 773.3.2 Electromyography 813.3.3 fMRI 83

3.4 Discussion 88

What Strategies has Farthing followed in Chapters 2 and 3 with his prescribed

and devised elements?

• Repeating prescribed elements (Introduction, Methods, Results Discussion) in each of 2 experimental chapters

• Repeating common devised elements in each of 2 experimental chapters (same sequence)

• Inserting distinctive devised elements in Chapter 3

Chapter 4: General Discussion4.1 Summary of Major Findings 1024.2 Cross-education of Strength and Interlateral Transfer

1024.2.1 The Direction of Transfer and Strength Asymmetry 1034.2.2 Cross-education of Strength and Transfer Theories 106

4.3 Cross-education of Strength and Imagery Training 1094.4 Mechanisms of Cross-education of Strength 113

4.4.1 Plasticity in the Brain 1134.4.2 Bilateral Cortical Activation 1174.4.3 Adaptations in Muscle Activation Patterns 1184.4.4 Increased Excitability of the Contralateral Musculature 1204.4.5 Corticospinal Tract Impulses 121

Chapter 5: Conclusions and Future Research

5.1 Conclusions 1235.2 Limitations 1245.3 Future Research 126• 5.3.1 Strength Asymmetry and Cross-

education of Strength 126• 5.3.2 Unilateral Immobilization 128• 5.3.3 Stroke Rehabilitation 129

Devised structures and schemes• Your own organizational ability kicks in when you move

from prescribed to devised structures

• Within a conventional subdivision (e.g. Literature Review) you must create your own internal subdivisions by categorizing the material (e.g. sequentially, methodologically, spatially).

• Organization within your smallest units. Each internal sub section might consist of a single paragraph, or several paragraphs.

• If it consists of more than a few paragraphs, it may need further internal subdivision.

The Paragraph: key unit of organization

Each paragraph must address a single topic—Coherence

• each paragraph must perform a clear function• Topic Sentence—best test of coherence

– does it clearly announce the topic/function of the paragraph?

• Section headings help, but they can’t do the whole job.– does everything in that para. come under that topic?– does it establish a clear logical link to the previous.

paragraph?

Some sample (rough draft) paragraphs

The method of knowledge production embodied by community-university partnerships is termed by Gibbons et al. (1994) as ‘mode 2’ science. ‘Mode 2’ science is argued to be fundamentally different from traditional ‘mode 1’ science. ‘Mode 1’ is found within disciplinary science, where research designs are grounded in the traditional Newtonian model of the natural sciences. Guided by the linear scientific method of observation, hypothesis, prediction and experimentation, scientific findings of ‘mode 1’ science are subject to peer review for quality control. In a ‘mode 1’ paradigm, science is autonomous, bound only to the demands of furthering knowledge for the sake of knowledge, as defined by scientific expertise.

According to ‘mode 2’ science, the collaborative interaction of diverse actors across disciplines and sectors creates knowledge that is more diverse, trans-disciplinary, context-dependent, reflexive, and solution orientated. Conducting research and generating knowledge using a mode 2 model implies broader criteria of the social accountability and responsiveness of research results in addressing social needs.

Compare this paragraph from Farthing1.2.2.1 Models of Transfer, Lateralization, and Handedness

Historically, three models have been used to explain the findings of transfer studies: the access model (Taylor and Heilman, 1980), the proficiency model (Laszlo et al., 1970) and the cross-activation model (Parlow and Kinsbourne, 1989). The access model is based on findings that the right hand of right-handed subjects benefits more from contralateral hand learning. This theory suggests motor engrams (motor programs) are stored in the dominant left hemisphere regardless of the hand used, and therefore the right hand has preferential access to the information (Thut et al., 1996). The proficiency model operates on the premise that motor engrams are stored unilaterally in the opposite brain hemisphere (Thut et al., 1996). Theoretically, the more effective engram will be stored when acquisition is with the more proficient system (left hemisphere of right-handers) and is more beneficial for learning in the opposite side (through commissural fibres). However, studies showing prevalence of right to left transfer in split-brain patients (severed corpus callosum) (Criscimagna-Hemminger et al., 2003) seem to refute the proficiency model, although corpus callosum is not the only possibility for communication between opposite cortex. The cross-activation model hypothesizes the storage of dual engrams- one in each hemisphere. Therefore the acquisition of a task with the more proficient system would provide a better stored engram for the opposite side. This model would also assume a role of commissural fibres during task acquisition- but not during subsequent performance of the opposite side. Thus, both the proficiency model and the cross-activation model support the right to left direction of transfer.

Topic sentences form an outline• A more recent model applied to transfer studies is based on the

transferability of the type of information required for movement at the task level (cortex) and the manipulator level (muscles) (Imamizu and Shimojo, 1995).

• Predicting the direction of interlateral transfer may depend on the characteristics of the task and handedness.

• Lateralization of function between brain hemispheres could also explain why some tasks transfer preferentially in one direction or the other depending on the characteristics of the task.

• Whether strength transfer is similar to skill transfer in regards to the influence of task characteristics and handedness is yet to be determined.

• Prevalence for the right to left or the left to right direction of transfer for cross-education of strength may be more obvious when upper body muscle groups are trained (especially hands), since most skill transfer studies use manual tasks and show asymmetry with transfer direction (Parlow and Kinsbourne, 1989; Gordon et al., 1994; Imamizu and Shimojo, 1995; Stoddard and Vaid, 1996; Latash, 1999; Criscimagna-Hemminger et al., 2003).

• Forming a clear hypothesis about the direction of transfer and the influence of the dominant side of the body on cross-education of strength is difficult due to discrepancies in training protocol across the literature (i.e. training duration, task complexity, contraction type and intensity, muscle group, upper or lower body).

B. The Literature Review—Specific Challenges

• There is no widely prescribed structure for a Literature Review.

• Success depends on your ability to devise a structure

• A literature review is a piece of discursive prose, not a list describing or summarizing one piece of literature after another. It's usually a bad sign to see every paragraph beginning with the name of a researcher. Instead, organize the literature review into sections that present themes or identify trends, including relevant theory. You are not trying to list all the material published, but to synthesize and evaluate it according to the guiding concept of your thesis or research question

• from Writing in the Health Sciences: a comprehensive guide. Dena Taylor, Director, Health Sciences Writing Centre, and Margaret Procter, Coordinator, Writing Support, University of Toronto. <http://www.utoronto.ca/writing/litrev.html>

Functions of a Literature Review

• to demonstrate the author’s familiarity with the subject– especially in a thesis, proposal, or other graduate

work

• to reveal a gap in the scholarship that the author’s work will address or has addressed.– in both graduate work and published scholarship

Preliminary Steps

• Literature Search--assemble a bibliography and locate items (copies, downloads, ILL)

• Read and evaluate materials• Make Manageable Notes • Compile an annotated bibliography.

Analyze and evaluate the materialAsk yourself questions like these about each book or

article you include:• Has the author formulated a problem/issue?• Is it clearly defined? Is its significance (scope, severity,

relevance) clearly established?• Could the problem have been approached more

effectively from another perspective?• What is the author's research orientation (e.g.,

interpretive, critical science, combination)?• What is the author's theoretical framework (e.g.,

psychological, developmental, feminist)?• What is the relationship between the theoretical and

research perspectives?• Has the author evaluated the literature relevant to the

problem/issue? Does the author include literature taking positions she or he does not agree with?

Analyze and evaluate the material cont.• In a research study, how good are the basic components of the study

design (e.g., population, intervention, outcome)? How accurate and valid are the measurements? Is the analysis of the data accurate and relevant to the research question? Are the conclusions validly based upon the data and analysis?

• In material written for a popular readership, does the author use appeals to emotion, one-sided examples, or rhetorically-charged language and tone? Is there an objective basis to the reasoning, or is the author merely "proving" what he or she already believes?

• How does the author structure the argument? Can you "deconstruct" the flow of the argument to see whether or where it breaks down logically (e.g., in establishing cause-effect relationships)?

• In what ways does this book or article contribute to our understanding of the problem under study, and in what ways is it useful for practice? What are the strengths and limitations?

• How does this book or article relate to the specific thesis or question I am developing?

• from Writing in the Health Sciences: a comprehensive guide. Dena Taylor, Director, Health Sciences Writing Centre, and Margaret Procter, Coordinator, Writing Support, University of Toronto. <http://www.utoronto.ca/writing/litrev.html>

Organize your MaterialDevise an organizational scheme in which you want to present the

materials. – This could be chronological, methodological, theoretical, geographical,

or some combination (or it could be specific to your discipline or your research question)

• Group materials according to classifications of your scheme– Treat common aspects once in detail, more briefly thereafter.

• Select items for more detailed treatment– representative or pioneering studies – studies exemplifying deficiencies you plan to remedy (the

competition)– enabling studies for your own research (your allies)– Studies that help to identify a gap in existing knowledge

• Select items for briefer treatment (and heavy synthesis).– E.g. outdated/flawed/less influential studies

Try the File Card Method.

• One card for each article allows you to experiment with different organizational schemes.

• Also works with Power Point in “Slide Sorter” view.

Outlining

• Turn your organizational scheme into an outline that identifies topics for sections and individual paragraphs.

• Use a nested structure.

Writing

• Topic sentences link research question to topic of each paragraph and to overall organizational scheme.

• Body sentences expand and illustrate topic sentences and provide references.