REEN WORKSHOP From conception to completion

Estimated read time: 1:20

Summary

The REEN Workshop, organized by the Research in Engineering Education Network, focuses on guiding participants from the inception of a conference paper idea to its completion. The workshop addresses various challenges and provides insights into effectively transitioning from technical to educational research. Participants are introduced to the nuances of research questions, consensus, and transferability within educational research, emphasizing the importance of literature, methodology, and storytelling in crafting a robust paper. The session encourages reflection, community engagement, and iterative development in scholarly work.

Highlights

Scott Daniel welcomed everyone to the workshop designed to improve conference paper writing. 👋
The session emphasized the difference between technical and educational research approaches. 🔍
Discussions highlighted the need for asking 'how' and 'why' in educational research. ❓
Participants were encouraged to engage with existing literature to refine their study direction. 📖
The importance of connecting all parts of the paper to tell a coherent story was stressed. 📜
The workshop fostered community interaction and reflection, vital for research development. 🤝

Key Takeaways

Transitioning from technical to educational research involves asking the right questions, focusing on 'how' and 'why' instead of yes/no. 🤔
Consensus in educational research is diverse; understanding this helps in choosing the right methodologies and theories. 🧠
Transferability is crucial in educational studies—your findings should have wider applicability beyond your classroom. 🌍
Literature reviews are a conversation—engage deeply to identify research gaps and align with existing work. 📚
Always align your paper elements: research question > methodology > findings > conclusion. This tells a cohesive story. ✍️

Overview

The workshop kicked off with a warm welcome from Scott Daniel, who introduced the session and its goals, emphasizing the importance of effectively writing a conference paper from start to finish. The organizers set the stage with interactive polls to understand the attendees' backgrounds and research interests, creating a community-driven atmosphere where inputs and reflections were encouraged.

Participants were taken through the critical differences between technical and educational research, focusing on the nature of research questions, consensus in methodologies, and the challenges of ensuring transferability in teaching contexts. The presenters highlighted how educational research demands more than mere outcome measurement; it involves deep dives into the 'how' and 'why' of educational interventions, requiring a shift from positivist viewpoints.

The practical aspects of building a paper were dissected, emphasizing the importance of clear research questions, methodical literature reviews, and reflective conclusions drawn from evidence-backed data. The session wrapped up with an engaging Q&A, reinforcing the iterative nature of educational research and the significant role of community and workshops like these in enhancing one's research journey.

Chapters

00:00 - 02:30: Introduction and Welcome The chapter begins with a brief introduction and welcome message. Participants are notified about something they might be uncomfortable with and are assured that they should have received a notification about it. The speaker pauses briefly to allow more people to join and asks Helen to monitor the waiting room for any newcomers.
02:30 - 05:00: Workshop Overview and Attendance The chapter titled 'Workshop Overview and Attendance' begins with a welcome message, suggesting the initiation of a workshop session. The speaker, Scott Daniel, introduces himself as a board member and indicates that he is joined by other members who will be introduced later. Scott emphasizes the time constraints of the session, which is scheduled to last for an hour and a half, and notes that there are many interesting topics to be discussed. The introduction sets the stage for a structured and information-packed workshop session.
05:00 - 07:30: Session Details and Menti Engagement Title: Session Details and Menti Engagement Summary: The chapter discusses the process of writing a conference paper, from its conceptualization to completion. The session uses the 'mtim meter' as a tool to facilitate engagement and gather feedback. Participants are instructed to log into the platform using a provided link, where they can interact and see the meter in action. The chapter likely focuses on both the technical aspects of paper writing and how tools like the mtim meter can enhance understanding and involvement.
07:30 - 15:00: Understanding and Positioning in the Model The chapter begins with the host initiating the session while acknowledging the presence of approximately 50 participants, with an expectation of another 50 joining soon. The host, along with Scott, is attending to administrative tasks in the background, ensuring the smooth execution of the event. This sets the stage for the forthcoming discussions related to understanding and positioning within the model, but the detailed discourse has not been included in the provided transcript.
15:00 - 25:00: Differences Between Technical and Educational Research Introduces a meeting related to the distinctions between technical and educational research.
25:00 - 35:00: Reviewer Feedback and Common Issues The chapter titled 'Reviewer Feedback and Common Issues' provides guidance on how to join a session using Menti. Attendees are instructed to either scan a QR code displayed on the screen with their phone or visit mentee.com and enter the provided code (7582). The code is also shared in the chat for convenience. This setup is aimed at facilitating interactive sessions where participants can provide feedback or partake in discussions effectively.
35:00 - 45:00: Elements of a Good Practice-Based Paper The chapter discusses the elements essential to writing a good practice-based paper. It emphasizes the importance of clarity, avoiding typos, and ensuring accurate communication. The speaker notes that there are several participants engaged and highlights the use of technology, such as QR codes and chat links, to facilitate participation and interaction. This approach underscores the value of digital tools in modern research and presentation practices. The chapter highlights preliminary interactions to gauge audience location and readiness, signifying the importance of audience engagement in such papers.
45:00 - 55:00: Abstract Review and Discussion The chapter starts with a note of attendees dialing in, with a specific mention of Hester in the chat. It is mentioned that about half of the registered attendees are present, while the rest are not. There is an emphasis on the value of attending the meeting for the content that will be covered. Everyone is welcomed warmly, and instructions on how to dial in are provided, ensuring attendees can connect to the meeting seamlessly.
55:00 - 60:00: Takeaways and Closing Remarks The chapter 'Takeaways and Closing Remarks' emphasizes the diversity of the participants, highlighting the global representation with people dialing in from various continents and countries, including Sydney. There is a sense of community and inclusivity, acknowledging the multiple languages among the group.

REEN WORKSHOP From conception to completion Transcription

00:00 - 00:30 you're uncomfortable with that so you should have all received a notification about that um and um we'll just give it another minute as as people are coming in um Helen can you keep an eye on the waiting room y
00:30 - 01:00 pH all right we can take turns clicking to see who goes first we can be fastest um okay well welcome everyone um we might we might get started just because it's um we only have an hour and a half and uh there's a lot of interesting things to talk about um so w welcome to this Workshop my name is Scott Daniel I'm I'm one of the members of the'r board and um joined by some others which I'll introduce shortly um the session
01:00 - 01:30 today is from concept to completion writing your conference paper um and we're going to be using um uh mtim meter and so just while we're getting underway I'll put this message in the in the chat and you should be able to um log into should be able to click on this link and then be able to see the the MIM meter there
01:30 - 02:00 um let me just get us um just get us going just give me one second um while Scott's just doing um admin yes I'm doing some admin in the background we're we have 50 people joined and we're we're expecting another probably 50 to
02:00 - 02:30 70 so that's why we're just going a little bit slowly at the beginning okay so um we might let's let's get going and uh for those of you who have just joined this meeting is being recorded so um feel free to turn off your video um and or if you're uncomfortable with being recorded we we will share the um recording later so what welcome to the
02:30 - 03:00 session um what we've suggesting is that if you um can go to mentee and join using either the QR code on the screen if you want to scan that with your phone or um uh or if you go to mentee.com and enter that code I'll put the code in the chat um 7582 h
03:00 - 03:30 4520 try not to make any pipos and um I can see there's eight people there uh if you if you're on the same screen if you're on the same device you can just click that link that's in the chat right now um I can see 11 people are there so just um we'll keep that QR code will come up on the screen from time to time and uh please please join because we're interested in um first of all just checking in to see where people are
03:30 - 04:00 dialing in from um and and for Hester who's just commented in the chat it's great to have you here we have about half of the attendees who've registered are are coming to Reese but half aren't so I think there's still value in attending to um think you know to to with the content that we'll cover and yes Teresa said everyone is most welcome so just you should have a screen that comes up like this so you can click you're dialing in
04:00 - 04:30 from and hit submit and then when you look back on the shared screen you can see where friend's coming in from so it's wonderful to have so many different um continents and countries represented I'm dialing in from Sydney and uh wonderful to see people from all over the world um okay great great to have everyone here and I'm sure that we've got some multiple languages in our in our group
04:30 - 05:00 so so we can um we've got some Spanish some Romanian I think um some English uh wonderful to have you oh and there's some Aussie slang coming in there as well excellent
05:00 - 05:30 oh it's really very nice to see the different languages um I don't actually recognize what all the languages are but Salam um and we just wanted to like uh get a sense of um what your interest is in this Workshop so it's focused on from from concept to completion um but take a moment to um tell us where you're at um uh is that
05:30 - 06:00 opening yeah it's open Scott okay thank you just takes people a little bit longer to type yeah no I was just getting mixed messages on my screen um yes so just take a moment to think about what what you're hoping to get out of today's session
06:00 - 06:30 I've got a message saying that voting is closed please wait or ask the presenter to open voting so I don't know whether that's just me I think you might so that's what I was getting confused about before you might just have to um refresh
06:30 - 07:00 your screen uh where where you're responding is that working in can you turn off the countdown Scott there's a there's a countdown running thank you so if we look at um so I think we've got some interesting uh learning more about strategies ah
07:00 - 07:30 interdisciplinary so that's very interesting um advice on getting an idea from from an idea to a paper to learn about conference papers oh my first Journal paper that's very exciting um learning something new I hope that will come did any of the other facilitators want to comment um on any of the
07:30 - 08:00 so some great some great ideas there and I hope um we've only got an hour and a half and I hope to get to as many of those as we can I see some great um comments I think that we're gonna be addressing some of these the the higher level difference between a theoretical and conceptual framework is not going to happen in this Workshop um this is this is focused at people writing their first first paper
08:00 - 08:30 or their first conference proceedings but hopefully um being part of this conversation will still be helpful yeah we we'll we'll do the best that we can and we're also hoping to have some further workshops later this year so we might we'll do what we can in the time that we have and then we'll um also be humble about what we can what we can get through um so thank thanks for giving us a snapshot
08:30 - 09:00 of of who's in the room and um I want to introduce the the'r workshop team so each each of them are are on the screen and uh it's really great to have have them all here and in particular I wanted to introduce Teresa and Helen who are both dialing in from South Africa and um they'll be um taking over from the the next section so I might hand over to to the two of you
09:00 - 09:30 thank you Scott um and welcome everyone it's really lovely to see everybody here um there's been a lot of planning behind the scenes on this and it's really great to see it all come together um I'm going to be leading the first section so I'll jump straight in and then Helen I'm sure we chat to you in a bit um when she takes over so um Teresa as Scott said and I'm from South Africa I'm on the ring board which is how I'm involved in this and we really decided to run a workshop that
09:30 - 10:00 enables people to think about their research papers specifically for our conference which is coming up but really for any conference paper or Journal paper as Scott has said and for many people that are new to engineering education research or what people call subtle scholarship of teaching and learning um it is quite a journey actually to get from uh often technical discipline specific research which Helen will chat about in a bit to thinking
10:00 - 10:30 about how we can apply Theory as many of you have mentioned and literature and developing a research study in a discipline that you're a little bit more unfamiliar with so this slide shows you a really useful um model that describes scholarship of teaching and learning by trigwell and we'll share the um Resources with you afterwards um although the link to the article is at the bottom there and it really talks about three dimensions which are the in
10:30 - 11:00 informed reflection and communication so when people start out on this journey they're generally using informal theories of teaching and learning um they kind of have informal perhaps even unfocused reflection on their practice in the classroom um and they may be engaging with some published literature on General teaching and learning and then as you start to think about your teaching practice you'll find you start to have informal discussions with colleagues you know in the coffee room or um you know just in meetings that you
11:00 - 11:30 might have around trying to reflect on what's really happening in the classrooms and maybe start attending some workshops or training and as you progress um down kind of to a more more scholarly approach to teaching and learning um then you can start to engage more with published literature specifically in engineering teaching and learning I mean that could be quite useful because people in engineering education research tend to uh
11:30 - 12:00 have been on the same Journey that perhaps you've been on so um that can be quite useful and then you can start to reflect in action so when you're actually in your classroom you're starting to reflect on what's Happening start asking yourself questions around what's happening and I think that's how many of us end up submitting our first conference paper is based on the reflection that that happened in a classroom or we did something in a classroom and intervention and we want to reflect on did work um and that can be quite a challenging ing jump which
12:00 - 12:30 Helen will talk about in a bit and then you can start to present at local national conferences and I think that's where when many many of us begin and then start to get really into scholarship of teaching and learning which is you know really being informed by the the literature doing formal reflection in classroom which you can translate to research in practice and start to uh publish in International Conference proceedings and journals so this is quite a useful model um and what we're going to ask you to do on the next
12:30 - 13:00 slide um is we're going to first ask you to tell us do you have any questions about this model um and then on the next slide we're going to actually ask you to think about where you fit but for now if you can maybe just pop in your if you have any questions you're on a you're gonna have to scroll down to get to the question box so you're going to see a big white the the picture at the top and a white column and if you
13:00 - 13:30 scroll down then you can get to the question box yeah thanks Helen so we'll just give you a few minutes to comments on at model so we're seeing theories coming up how theories is often something um
13:30 - 14:00 that you may even seen your reviewer feedback which we'll chat about a bit later as well but theories kind of how theories in form what we do is a very core component of transitioning into the scholarship of teaching and learning space and I think Ken's going to pick up on that right now of these slides Okay cool so I'm thinking people are probably still absorbing um what the model is B and also probably
14:00 - 14:30 getting used to M me a bit um yeah and I think this is a this is a really great question here how to write formal reflection that translates into action research practice that's exactly why we're here today is to that reflection that's happening in the classroom and those questions that you're asking how do you turn that into some kind of research article and then I also see there's a good question around how do we validate our own reflection in student reflection and yes it's a different research space
14:30 - 15:00 um and Helen's going to talk a bit now about also consensus in research and what that means specifically for many of us being disciplined specific researchers in The Sciences um which are really positivist and kind of used to laboratory work and one right answer and for those who don't know positivist is an education word or it's a social science's word that means um believing that there's a right answer br brly the education social science people can
15:00 - 15:30 correct me yeah okay good I think Scott I think we can carry on I think this is a some good engagements um so what we're going to ask you now is understanding this model or having a little bit of an overview of the model if you can maybe just take your Cur and mty and place it on where you feel you fit at the moment remembering that the top of the diagram is kind of just
15:30 - 16:00 getting into the space and towards the bottom of the diagram is now where you really feel like an Engaged scholarship of about teaching learning practitioner moving even into that engineering education research space perhaps and and just to be clear there's no right place to be in this space some people choose to remain focused in the in the top half of that of that space
16:00 - 16:30 being reflective teachers talking about their teaching but they're not interested in doing research some people really want to be doing the research and so that's there isn't a right place to be yeah absolutely Helen you're very right so I see it's quite quite a nice spread and I also think it's it's interesting how most people put their dots in the reflection kind because I think that's where it all starts right is in US reflecting in us being um um
16:30 - 17:00 observing the challenges that we have in the classroom and wanting to fix them kind of being those problem solvers um that many of us are train to be and and this and this exercise itself is a reflective exercise to think about you know where we are and how we think about our teaching so it's reflecting on reflection yeah okay okay so I might move to the next I think it's over to you now Helen if I'm correct
17:00 - 17:30 yeah okay um so this is in the first part of the talk we're going to be we've done some introduction but but the first kind of main component is we're going to think about what the differences are between technical research and educational research we're going to think in particular about what kind of research
17:30 - 18:00 questions we ask we're going to talk about high or low consensus and I'll explain what those mean in a little bit we're going to talk about transferability of results and these are three key differences between technical research and educational research and once I learned about these differences it really helped me to unlock what I was doing wrong when I was trying to apply my technical research skills to educational research and what I needed to change in the way I thought about research so if we can go to the next
18:00 - 18:30 slide please so if you can just let us know where you've been in the past between the technical and education research and where you'd like to be in the future and some people I'm aware are not education researchers but social science researchers
18:30 - 19:00 um so then we're just going to interpret education broadly as including the social sciences so I think what we're seeing here is
19:00 - 19:30 um people have done a mix from from only technical research to only education research in the past but most are are mixed and most would like to be more focused on education research in the future and that's why you're here so that's helpful to for us to understand and I think that was our expectation of this audience but um that's let's let's go on and think about what the differences are
19:30 - 20:00 so the first difference in between Technical and educational research is the kind of research questions we ask so in um in technical research we have been trained to ask how much questions or yes no questions we often have a null hypothesis and we must prove that the
20:00 - 20:30 hypothesis is or is not correct so and um quite often the first question that a a technical technically trained researcher wants to ask about their teaching and I certainly was like this is how can I prove that the way I teach in my classroom is the best way to teach um or how can I measure the way I'm teaching in my classroom and measure
20:30 - 21:00 the changes that we're making so I want to know how much change does it make if I do this or does it work or does it not and the fact is that those questions are really impossible to ask or impossible to answer in the educational space because we're not now dealing with nice well- behaved materials or electrons we're dealing with humans and humans are learning animals and so it's not possible quantify those things so the kinds of
21:00 - 21:30 questions that we're asking in the education space are why does this intervention work or in what ways does it work or for who does it work how does project-based learning help students or hinder students so we're trying to understand the mechanisms we're trying to be curious about the deeper understanding and those how and why questions s allow us
21:30 - 22:00 to allow us to capture the Nuance the variation of our of our um students or of ourselves our participants in our study so some of them will do better in an environment and some of them will do worse and by by asking how and why and who we're capturing that a little bit better okay next slide
22:00 - 22:30 please so this slide is about um consensus and so that's why there's that um lovely picture at the top of people arguing so a technical field in in our training and Teresa used the word positivist before and a high consensus field is really where we can be positivist I think though I'm happy for any of the more
22:30 - 23:00 experienced educational people to correct me um but but when we were doing our undergraduate studies and Engineering we're in a high consensus field so everyone agrees about the core theoretical framework we're using kof's law to analyze the flow of electrons in a circuit we're using Newton's laws of motion and unless I'm traveling at the speed of light Newton's Laws of Motion are pretty good at or near to the speed of light and so I don't
23:00 - 23:30 say I'm using Newton's law of gravitation I just say the gravitational constant is and so as as scientists and Engineers we we tend to be a little bit blind to the theories we're using because we just assume that everyone else is using the same theories whereas when we come into educational research um we're in a low consensus field there are a huge diversity of
23:30 - 24:00 theories and so we must be explicit upfront about the theoretical Frameworks that we're relying on I can take the same set of data and analyze it if I put on my gender glasses and analyze it using one of the gender theor such as critical feminism I will find a set of results out of that data which we will argue about if I take off my gender glasses and put on my Project based learning glasses
24:00 - 24:30 I will find a different set of information out of that data so and those that that's a very loose understanding of theory but it helps to think about the lenses the glasses that we're looking through because everyone the data is not there is not an objective answer there is a trustworthy answer which I can get to but it relies on the theory that I've built it on and I I had a first
24:30 - 25:00 supervision meeting yesterday with a new engineering education student and she said so no one will so is there a right or a wrong Theory to use what theory can I use so that no one will argue with you and we're like no no no no no you don't understand everyone will always argue with you about the theory that you use that's the point but so th that thinking about theory is something that that isn't fixed really helps you to understand what
25:00 - 25:30 you're reading in the literature and helps you to think about how to frame it okay next slide please and finally we're talking about transferability so in scientific research if I measure the gravitational constant in my laboratory and I report all the relative contextual details like what the altitude is and um what the temperature
25:30 - 26:00 was on the day I measured it I don't know if that matters then that result is transferable to anywhere else with the same context you don't I don't even have to measure the gravitational Conant I can just use reported values in the literature but if I apply a teaching method in my class there is no similar context even the same module the following year is not the same context because I'm different the students are different perhaps we have Co and we're
26:00 - 26:30 teaching online perhaps now we're back from covid and we're teaching High Flex um the students have grown up with different smartphones so the the context does not remain the same even if I control everything it is impossible to get the same context and so we can't transfer knowledge in the same way we can scientifically but we must ask questions that
26:30 - 27:00 allow that allow the the research we're doing to have value outside of our own classroom it's valuable in my classroom to me and perhaps to my co- teer but for it to be valuable in the literature it must have some transferability it must ask some broader questions than just did this work in my context okay so that was quite a lot of theory um
27:00 - 27:30 but if this is a good time to ask questions in the chat and we're also asking you just to um compare just to just to identify where you think these fields fit in terms of consensus and the number of interpretations so go ahead and vote e
27:30 - 28:00 so these are all the
28:00 - 28:30 different different votes we've had and there's a question about results um in education research versus engineering research and this is this does require you to read I'm going to perhaps ask if Theresa also wants to chime in on this but it's going to depend on the theory and the methods that you've used so if you've done a quanti ative study then your
28:30 - 29:00 results might look like statistical tables if you've done a qualitative study then your results might look like um student narratives or quotes that you've interpreted um but but that's at a very basic level I don't know if Teresa if you would like to chime in thanks I was going to maybe we're going to talk about a little bit later and maybe we can come back that question at the end because it does it depends on
29:00 - 29:30 it depends on that what you said at the end of the previous slide what is the research question which we're going to get to kind of why what are you trying to understand or how what is the thing that you're trying to get more information on and as a result you um your results will line up with that is based on what the purpose of the study is okay so the the point of this is is partly
29:30 - 30:00 just for us to understand that there's quite a lot of difference between the technical research we're used to doing and we were trained in if we are were trained as engineers and the educational research we're trying to learn how to do and that difference is going to have
30:00 - 30:30 shown up in the reviews that you have received on abstracts that you have submitted so quite a lot of people here have received feedback on their abstracts for Reese and just a reminder that the full papers are due September 6 so you have a little bit of time this that's why we scheduled this session now so you have a little bit of time to implement that the feedback um other people might not have
30:30 - 31:00 a paper that they've currently working on but maybe they've previously had experience I know the first paper I submitted to Reese in fact is a a version of that paper is the sample abstract we have for later and it had a lot of reviewer comments that I did not understand I did not know how to respond to them so any reviewer feedback that you've got
31:00 - 31:30 this is a great place to put that so I see there's a comment from a reviewer saying there's a disconnect between the claim and the evidence and we're definitely going to be talking about that how do you respond to reviewers who say the sample number is too small when you are doing a qualitative study I think that's uh that's a higher level question
31:30 - 32:00 um so Teresa is answering in the chat but so the cycle of action research is not enough should be more than three Cycles so we're getting questions about um methodology and remember we said this is a low consensus field so one of the things that is different is that people who work primarily in quantitative want
32:00 - 32:30 want larger sample sizes and aren't always familiar with appropriate sample sizes for qualitative studies so that's about that about the people are going to argue with you about your theories so you find a you find a paper to site to demonstrate that this is an appropriate number of um there's a disconnect between the themes and the research objectives so we're finding that there's there's
32:30 - 33:00 comments on methodology there's comments on a connection between the research question and the findings or conclusions there's um Scott if you can just zoom in on the comment down in the bottom left how to address when two different reviewers want to have their queries answered in the paper and perhaps they disagree with each other this these are these are are common so um Teresa has also answered about the
33:00 - 33:30 statistical statistical analysis which was asked in the chat maybe Helen if I could just also add because something we will talk about a little bit later is the limitations of your study and sometimes it's important to scope your study in such a way that the purpose is clear but the scope is clear and that as Helen said you're never going to solve the entire world's problems in your uh paper so sometimes
33:30 - 34:00 it's just around creating a boundary around what your study is actually trying to achieve and what it's not trying to achieve and what the limitations are so I think that also helps you to address some of the questions around sample size um you know the three cycles of the action research it depends what the purpose is um and what you're trying to especially when you when you're presenting a conference paper on work that's not complete yet so sometimes you're doing a big study and you may be presenting pieces of it as you go along so it's just around trying to create a boundary around the piece
34:00 - 34:30 you're doing now and making sure that that purpose is clear and that you then also describe what's coming next and what future work will do in that space great thanks Teresa uh if we can go to the next slide
34:30 - 35:00 Teresa okay oh this is no sorry this is me moment of uncertainty so I think I think we've seen quite a lot of this already in the previous slide but this is quite common review of feedback where did we get this feedback from Teresa and I went and looked at all the reviews we've done this year and we pulled out common themes and other reviewers will recognize it so the first one is the scope of the study is too broad and it
35:00 - 35:30 doesn't have a clear focus and so that's when you're trying to answer the big question how can I make students succeed you can't answer that question how can I identify Student Success and understand Student Success in this population on this date that's a question you can answer potentially so I when I I started I said I said to someone that the
35:30 - 36:00 problem was that all the questions I came up with either too big to answer or too small to be interesting and so it's about learning to ask the right size of question that you can answer and have interesting the study should engage with existing literature this is a big part of of what what happens is because you might be on your own in your research group on your own in your department doing this you feel like you're on your own in the whole world doing this the
36:00 - 36:30 study that you are doing on Student Success or on mentorship or on um Project based learning feels critically important to you and it feels like no one else is doing it but I guarantee you someone else is doing it and so you need to read that existing literature and part of reading that literature which Teresa will come to can give you the theory and the methods that are appropriate to use so it gives you information about how to answer that question as well but you must engage
36:30 - 37:00 with the existing literature to show that you're um that you understand what else has been done and outside of your department in the Big World other people are doing things next ah this is a this is a very common one so people write about a project and they have the outcomes of the project but the paper is not the same as the project so the project wants to
37:00 - 37:30 understand this or wants to develop a new course the paper does not want to develop a new course the paper is explaining what we learned when we developed a new course or what we want to improve the next time we do it so the outcomes of the paper and the outcomes of the project are different next what research question is the paper
37:30 - 38:00 asking and that goes back to the scope of the study the the clear focus is that research question which you should try and make narrow and answerable to the best of your ability insufficient details of how the data was collected and analyzed so quite often um you're quite excited because you're you've got a methodology you're going to use qualitative
38:00 - 38:30 analysis but you need to add information about you need to add much more information about methods who did you sample how many did you sample how did you choose them what was the method of analysis did you use um an existing lens did you use deductive or inductive coding for example so there's a whole lot of detail about participants about data an collection data analysis data
38:30 - 39:00 processing and interpretation of results that needs to be in your methods as well the limitations of the study are not acknowledged or discussed and this is this is where Teresa's answer to the idea of you only did one action cycle and you're supposed to do three action Cycles then you say this is a pilot study and in this study we've just done one action cycle but we understand that we need to go through and do the cycle a couple of more
39:00 - 39:30 times for it to be [Music] um for it to be valid for it to have wider gener wider transferability Scott's asking what are some examples of limitations you might acknowledge so perhaps think about that if you want to put them in the chat um and the conclusions are not supported by the day so that was one that came up so the conclusions you need to be
39:30 - 40:00 really clear that your conclusions aren't what you wished you could have got to but but what you actually found and it needs to line up with what is shown in your data okay oh and the story is not clear to the reader sorry um this coming in one by one is great but it's very unpredictable because Scott's driving the m and I'm responding to it um so your paper a good paper should tell a
40:00 - 40:30 story this is always true even in technical research it's the it's more true I feel in one of the things I like about education research is that my papers feel more like stories and it's easier to write a story um than the story that I write about um my finite element code but this they still needs to be a clear thread through so that story being clear is also about all the bits being connected and feeling like they belong in the same
40:30 - 41:00 paper Helen can I pick a okay we're now so we we've chatted about some kind of placing subtle and engineering education research in
41:00 - 41:30 context and we've spoken a little bit about review of feedback and now we're going to go into some details of the elements of a good um practice based paper um so if you could just go to the m and here we've just included a few sections that should be in a paper kind of some of the more the common sections of a paper and if you can just select the um the order in which these elements of a paper should be so first what is the
41:30 - 42:00 first section that you would expect to see in a paper versus what is the last section that you would expect to be in a paper are these the results now Scott on the screen yeah okay cool I see yeah they're starting to shift as different people submit don't take any peer pressure
42:00 - 42:30 respond with whatever you think is right I should have hidden the results until people actually I can hide them you let me know when you want to unhide them Teresa there's 22 people have responded so far
42:30 - 43:00 give another minut I'll make it 10 seconds just so we can move along oops so let's let's show the results um good so I see um generally people put
43:00 - 43:30 the conclusion at the end and the findings before that then the methods and then the literature review and the research question first so it is I mean i' I've had much debates around these kinds of things um in the past with people but typically it's not a bad thing to start is to start with kind of your research with with your uh literature to actually enable you to refine your research question so um some sometimes if you're if you're a very experienced researcher who's kind of got
43:30 - 44:00 their handle on the literature they're very well read and they can kind of pull authors and ideas from literature all the time it's perhaps easier for them to formulate your research question without Reading literature but for many of us who are starting out I think sometimes Reading literature is the best place to start to start thinking about um a research question um I know when I slaughtered my PhD U my first supervisor I was s into their office and I was super enthusiastic with all my wonderful
44:00 - 44:30 ideas and they told me you need to go away and do some reading and I was broken like absolutely disheartened by this experience like I didn't want to do reading I wanted to get stuck into the research but it was really good advice um I think we can learn a lot from from Reading literature as H's um kind of already mentioned and I think also it's it's important to read the literature but also in terms of how you tell the story in your paper to kind of set set a a broad scene and we'll actually look at this um kind of model later on but
44:30 - 45:00 setting a broad scene by saying these are some of the big issues in you know this area of engineering education and then this is the particular question that I'm focusing on so it gives it a um kind of a narrative flow to set to set the scene and then focus in on the particular um angle that you're looking at in the in the paper thanks SCA absolutely and Asen said you know maybe maybe this is a research question you have and you thought you're the only person in the world that has it but when you go and
45:00 - 45:30 read some literature you find that other people have a similar question which maybe reinforces the the the kind of reason or motivation for your study or perhaps you find that someone's answered the question but in a in a different context perhaps and then maybe your research question changes a little and you can say well this research question was answered and these were the results but in my context I'm not necessarily sure that that will be the answer in my context and maybe your research question changes a little bit so
45:30 - 46:00 um this is kind of the suggested process and we'll talk about uh the the funnel that Scott referred to right at the end but this is sort of the process that we would recommend um when you're setting out on doing a good practice based paper to start with that literature review which will inform your research question and the liter literature will also help to inform your methods and how people present findings so somebody asked a question how do you present findings in a paper like this a great place to find out how people present finding is to go and read some literature and
46:00 - 46:30 see here's a paper that does lots of quantitative statistical analysis how do people present it versus qualitative data um Helen can I can carry on you're happy then you can pick up just now Okay cool so um how is literature useful and I think we have spoken about some of these things before but it's nice that it's now summarized in the slide which you can maybe refer to a little bit later as well but my kind of my supervisor once told me that a literature review enables you to listen
46:30 - 47:00 to understand and then join the ongoing conversations that are taking place so it enables you to contextualize lots of people are talking in literature about many things so you kind of in your paper need to find a way into that conversation and sometimes you almost need to think about it as a conversation so picture yourself having coffee with someone and what are the kinds of questions they would ask what is the sort of response you would get and if you can buy find in the literature that's already happening it enables you
47:00 - 47:30 to create that story okay so as we've said it helps you to understand what's already been done and how this can inform your study so it may inform your study in terms of what's been done but it can help you with your method it can help you with your analysis it can help you with what theoretical lens I Kellen spoke to you can be using which is really useful so literature is not only about kind of that section that you write at the beginning that says what has been done on this in the past it can inform your
47:30 - 48:00 whole from the beginning to the end you can weave that literature throughout your study um where do you find literature which is maybe an important question when you're brand new to the field um so Scott's gonna he's got a link there to our' website actually which has I'll just quickly um share some of those links so um I think Diana may have just posted it as well so on on the'r website there is a um oh yeah so it's the same one that um Diana's just
48:00 - 48:30 posted in the chat um and it has links and information about a whole bunch of um different different journals so that's a really good resource um because I'm involved with the austral Asian Journal of engineering education while I've got the floor I'll just highlight that one but all of these are you know great great outlets and you might you know think about where your study fits um which which audience you want to speak to and which audience you want to engage
48:30 - 49:00 with but there's a great list there um there's also you know a huge um number of uh conferences that are really relevant as well so in in um in this link uh that and thanks for um rosley for and an for pointing out that ajou is a um q1 Journal there's also these really important uh really valuable uh resources for conference proceedings so this is the um the Reese uh proceedings
49:00 - 49:30 from from past years and some of those have been published in special issues and on this slide um you can see oh sorry it's not quite showing all of those there but I'll put that in the oh that's weird isn't it um I'll put that in the chat and um as as well as as well as um Reese there's a number of other conferences and you can you know ra raid I think the term that uh Helen used was
49:30 - 50:00 cyber stalk so we don't encourage stalking but there there are some great um uh um conference resources online and I've just put some of the acronyms there's there's a lot of ease because a lot of ease because of engineering and education um cool thanks uh thanks Teresa thanks Scott so and I mean literature can be daunting so this is kind of the purpose of this this Workshop but you know perhaps find a
50:00 - 50:30 friend um or small team where you can do kind of a journal Club where you can read an article and discuss it together um and we'll also share some resources afterwards some more kind of um important work on engineering education research which will kind of help you get into the field so this is more literature not necessarily related to your study but literature on how to get into the field of uh subtle and engineering education research which we will share with you which can be very helpful right so our literature now reads leads
50:30 - 51:00 into our research question um and many many reviewers actually look for a research question specifically sometimes authors kind of weave it into the purpose or the aim of the study but many reviewers will specifically look for it where it kind of states that my research question for the study is and for someone who's new to the field it's a very um it's kind of advisable to do that to think what is the research question I have and to actually put it in your in your piece of work um and
51:00 - 51:30 then ask yourself think about the evidence that you're going to be collecting what is evidence evidence is your data so are you going to do interviews are you going to analyze a survey are you're going to be reporting on your own personal reflection but what data are you going to be collecting and then ask yourself as a scientist because a lot of us are scientists just like we would do in a laboratory can that data answer this question right um and
51:30 - 52:00 although your research question should inform your method there is a bit of a loop there so maybe you want to think about the data you've decided to collect and think is it really going to enable me to answer that question or do I need to tweak that question a little bit um in terms of scope in terms of uh context um because this will really it's kind of the hearts of your entire study um and guides should guide your method and the conclusions that are drawn and also something to keep in mind if you if
52:00 - 52:30 you're asking a question that can be answered yes or no you're not really asking what Helen described as a what or why question so try and phrase your question in a way that you can't answer yes or no that you need to answer in kind of descriptive paragraphs because then you're more asking those what why questions and I think Helen's going to pick up from the next points but please do um if you do have any speaking of questions if you have any questions please post them in the chat and we can um you know address them
52:30 - 53:00 as we go so we're talking about methodology and methods and these again come from the research question that you proposed the methodology and methods I think I understand the difference I'm still also learning so I'm on this journey with you but methodology is the is the broad approach I think and the methods are the particulars of how you implement in your
53:00 - 53:30 context so the methodology I might be using is a quantitative methodology and the methods are I'm going to do Russ analysis do I have it the wrong way around anyway um so so I'm going to do an anova on my statistical data that's that's starts to be the methods I'm going to have this many participants I'm going to have so they're enable you to collect data that can act as evidence for the conclusions
53:30 - 54:00 so you have to have an appropriate methodology if I want to ask I say to my students all the time if I want to ask where people like chocolate chip cookies or peanut butter cookies better there had better be some cookies that people eat as part of my study right that that has to be connected um if we can go to the next and then the
54:00 - 54:30 method should be described in sufficient detail to ensure the scientific Integrity of the study and what we really mean by this is that first of all someone else can check your method and that's why reviewers will say you don't have enough participants you don't have a big enough sample size and in qu in quantitative that really matters because if you don't have a big enough sample size you can't draw conclusions um but it also Al means that someone else could replicate your study they could say oh I read this paper it
54:30 - 55:00 was fascinating I want to try that with my students and there should be enough detail that they can replicate your study in their context pretty well so it needs to be explained in enough detail that that someone else could go tread that same path so then come to the findings and the findings again must align with the research question so the research
55:00 - 55:30 question really is the anchor and just just a reminder we all know that you write the concl you write the introduction first and then you write it l so you write the research question first and then you do your study and then sometimes your research question needs to be refined because it turned out that your research question was too big and your study data doesn't answer that so so the research question isn't carved in stone when you start your study it's something that
55:30 - 56:00 evolves but it needs to um your findings need to align with the research question so that the person reading your paper can say they tried to ask this yes they've done the right method yes these are the findings these findings are appropriate for that research question um there's a there's a question about um Gathering
56:00 - 56:30 evidence rather than proof yeah we we can't prove any I would be very suspicious of anyone who prove something in um education research um we talk about evidence and we talk about trustworthiness rather than validity quite often um there's a question about systematic literature review and engineering education research in fact systematic literature review and scoping review are quite popular methods now in
56:30 - 57:00 Ed engineering education research and Scott's just put in a put in a paper for you to look at about um next bullet please and and again the findings they must a line with a research question but but they must also be based on the evidence that was collected so we can't
57:00 - 57:30 find things that we didn't report on and the last bullet and I see there's quite a lot of questions but then yeah go ahead Teresa so maybe we can just chat about how how do you measure trustworthiness and how do you know that the findings mean [Music]
57:30 - 58:00 um so when we're talking about trustworthiness we want to ensure we understand in education research that we are that it is much more subjective than technical research the the researcher plays a larger role but when we talk about trustworthiness we want to take steps to make sure that our biases aren't changing the results and
58:00 - 58:30 we can't remove our biases but one way to do this is to um have two different people so if you're doing a qualitative study have two different people code the data separately in a systematic literature review you need to decide on inclusion or exclusion have two different people separately decide and then discuss and that's called triangulation so that means you're you're not just um
58:30 - 59:00 doing doing it on your own by yourself but you're you're comparing with other people and you're allowing argument and that's one way of ensuring trustworthiness another way is to continue analyzing data until you find no new findings so there's we we can get to saturation where we see that even if we add more data it does doesn't change the findings and so that's a way of saying that this
59:00 - 59:30 is um Teresa did I answer and how do we know that the findings are genuine um I think this is this question comes out of partly we have to change our mindset so this is part of moving from technical to discipline to education research is that we have less control we cannot
59:30 - 60:00 control all the variables we cannot prove something absolutely so we need to think about trustworthiness we need to be aware that we have bias and we need to take steps to uh eliminate our bias where possible and to acknowledge our bias so a lot of papers now include a positionality statement so I say I am a white South African woman writing from a settler
60:00 - 60:30 colonial state um which means that I have a certain positionality or I might have a positionality as uh technical technically trained researcher venturing into qualitative research which means that I look at the results in a certain way so you can't eliminate um you can't prove things you can't eliminate bias but you can be
60:30 - 61:00 honest about it and that's what we mean when we say trustworthy Teresa I see there's also a long online discussion happening about um literature systematic literature reviews and literature reviews I don't know if we want to Quick good good resources posted but remember the systematic literature review is a source of data right so depending on the question you ask um you based on that question you may decide
61:00 - 61:30 that the best source of data is literature right and your question will then align with that and you defi Define your whole collection of data from literature um to align with that but as Diana mentioned a systematic literature review should not be con confused with a literature review so your literature review comes at the start enables you to Define your research question and then based on your research question you may then in your method choose your source of data is not focus groups it's well it
61:30 - 62:00 could be and um but one source of data will be the literature because there is something you want to know about the literature what is the literature talking about or what is what are the key themes from the literature and then you will do a systematic literature view but they're not really um the same thing and Scott Scott's been posting lots of resources in the chat just to reass these resources yeah we'll we'll share we'll distill some things from the from the chat to uh
62:00 - 62:30 make it easier to find um but uh the paper from I think it's Grant and Booth um that that talks about different types of reviews is actually a helpful one but I think I mean that that as as I commented that that can be a its own um its own study and its own right so uh there just was one question that I think um uh I wanted to pick up on that is from a little bit ago so I'm just scrolling back in the um thing about how
62:30 - 63:00 the the the how to actually go about writing the paper and now now I can't find it oh yeah here it is it's from it was at 5:58 PM so five minutes ago um and just asking about which way to write a paper about whether to write it sequentially or to write the findings followed with other sections um I was wondering if Teresa or Helen if you had any comments on that one I'll I can post it again um yeah I was also intrigued by that St
63:00 - 63:30 because I personally I don't think I've ever seen the paper that starts the finding so maybe somebody else needs to I think um I don't know if the question is about how the paper should be presented or how you should go about the process of writing it quite often you how structured so one way is to oh maybe I see your approach right okay I understand now so it's not about how it's written up it's about it's about
63:30 - 64:00 how you work through the process okay yeah car on so I mean in terms of the process you do it in whatever order and you do all things all over in terms of um your findings are going to your key findings are going to be in your abstract your key conclusions are going to be in your abstract but they you don't want to kind of sell you don't want to give away the the secret before
64:00 - 64:30 the end of the paper so um it can feel like you haven't done anything if your introduction includes all your findings if the first part of the section is the findings then the the reader might feel like that that was all that wasn't the work you did so um you you do some positioning of the paper um with with perhaps some findings or or the kind of things we're looking
64:30 - 65:00 for the themes that we identified you might you might put that in the introduction because it helps to pos position the paper but um it can be quite risky to put the findings first because then the reviewer can feel like you haven't actually in the end found anything I think Diana is making a good point think about contribution rather than findings so you put your contribution in the introduction and then the findings are evidence of that
65:00 - 65:30 contribution okay I think we can move on Helen just to add because I think it is a risk sometimes when people are doing reflective studies in classrooms is I think it it is a risk to just randomly clear some data in your class like just do a survey and then try and work I mean it it can work but it to try and then work backwards and think well what what would the research question have been that related to the survey I did or what
65:30 - 66:00 would the literature have been that informed the survey and I think that's often what happens in that very first practice paper people write is that they did something in class and now they're trying to write it up in a study and it is much much easier to do it the other way around to read the literature think about your research question and then plan your survey so it's as exciting as it is to just send that a survey it really is worth doing some work homework before you that it's usually it's usually rubbish I mean my experience of
66:00 - 66:30 my own papers the ones that I hadn't didn't have a research question for before I started collecting the data the data is unusable um so it's a it's an iterative process you go through each of these steps three or four times and at different times you are doing um different things once you've got a research question and you've WR and you've collected your data then then when you start trying to write
66:30 - 67:00 about it it can help to write the findings first because in fact you have to do data analysis and that leads you to your findings and then you might want to write but you have to as Teresa said you have to start with with a clear idea of the Gap in the literature and the and the research question before you collect data and an is pointing out that there are ethics issues as well so you need ethics approval to collect data from students and usually you can't get ethics approval without showing your
67:00 - 67:30 research question your research question might change but you need to have a plan just um one comment that that's a that that I'm thinking about as we're having this discussion is going back to that sole framework that um we discussed earlier about you know reflection and um being informed by the literature and reflecting like that for me and I and i' interested to see what other people think but you know doing research it hasn't been like a one-off study that
67:30 - 68:00 I've just kind of done and published and then left my hands go it's been I become curious about some aspect of my teaching or curious about some aspect of my you know students experience research that and then maybe learn some things from that or had some insights from that but then I might tweak the study or it might open up a new Direction so um for me it's yeah it's a very iterative evolving process that's kind of my own facilitated professional development half as a researcher and half as trying to understand my own teaching and the
68:00 - 68:30 you know educational ecosystem so it's not like one study will be perfect it might be ah this helped me understand this but also made me question this other thing and then that might be the seed for the next um uh Direction you take but um Helen I might hand back to you just to um finish talking through Teresa for the conclusions sorry okay thanks so I'm hoping this is going to wrap up a lot of what we've been
68:30 - 69:00 talking about so the conclusion should tie directly back to the research question so don't be tempted and here's a good kind of place where the trustworthiness can break apart is try and keep your study tight there may be many things many ideas you have try not to make those your conclusions the conclusions really should be what did I what did the research question aim to do what was the evidence so what did the data tell me and align your conclusions to what the data told you right if you have the problem is I always tell people
69:00 - 69:30 have a whiteboard in your office and all those crazy new ideas and thinking you you're thinking about put on the Whiteboard for your next study so put that maybe in a recommendations or further work this really made me curious about something else put that in recommendations but be very careful about um trying to use your study to prove something that you you believe is right that you never actually got data to show um so and then generally is it kind of
69:30 - 70:00 ties into that don't don't present new data don't bring up new things have a really good findings or discussion section that describes everything in detail and then keep your conclusions as kind of a key summary and it's also a good check then go back to your objectives or research question and say what you're writing in your conclusion should link directly to that and if it can't think about changing your question Okay so we've mentioned that it really should always be based on
70:00 - 70:30 evidence there's a point that Diana's made in the chat about using your ethical review board they when you're planning your study and you submit your ethics proposal to the review board they will ask the kind of questions that will help you get um that will help you design your study now I know that in different countries there may or may not be an ethical review board at your
70:30 - 71:00 University um and if there is not so I'm I I think that um I'm correct that a fair number of the Indian universities don't have ethics review for for Education studies or perhaps not for engineering education so it can also be helpful to I'm in engineering I speak to my colleague from education she she goes through her ethics board and helps me
71:00 - 71:30 understand so if you don't have an Ethics board some journals won't publish your paper without proof of ethical clearance so find find how you can find how you can access some ethical approval um okay I think we can go to the next slide
71:30 - 72:00 yeah so I think we've heard some good questions are there any other questions anyone would like to add you put in the chats or even raise your hand if you'd like I think we've had such great interaction during the discussion so we were a bit worried these slides weren't interactive enough but you have made them interactive so thank you for being awesome yeah but if you if a question pops into your head please um you know just pop it
72:00 - 72:30 in the chat just keep in coming right so this this this kind of last slide as promised um Scott alluded to it earlier is kind of gives a really nice picture of uh the structure of a research paper and actually this is true for technical research and educational research um is it sort of talks about this hourglass and as you start your study you start really broad a broad field a broad problem generally people
72:30 - 73:00 start trying to solve the entire world's problems um and uh the the trick with a study is to try and someone once described to me it as as a brick wall you have a brick wall in front of you with many bricks right and together collectively as researchers in this conversation you need to build the wall with all those bricks but for your study you need to pick one brick and that's actually generally advised for a HD student so that's even broader than a paper um so think about your little brick how are you going to add your
73:00 - 73:30 brick into this so the kind of the the narrow part of the of The Hourglass is kind of that brick so go from the conversation what are all the bricks happening in the space how does my brick relate to other bricks and then what is my brick and then you'll broaden out again so then then you've you've written all your ideas in your black book or on your whiteboard um you've picked the idea you're exploring for the study and now you can get into the detail of that um so what's the research problem I'm
73:30 - 74:00 addressing and how do I go into my method how is it different what is my contribution Etc so it's kind of a really useful way of thinking how paper is structured thanks guys all right so we're going to look at an abstract now um hopefully all of you have received the abstract that was shared um in the meeting invite and via email maybe if you I don't know if we
74:00 - 74:30 can share it now Scott if people don't have it but maybe just yeah let us know pop your email address we'll send it to you um and maybe just it's a really short abstract um so just take a few minutes we're going to give you five minutes now to kind of read through it um thinking about the things we've been speaking about and then we're going to ask some questions and chat about a little bit more Helen all right so we're just gonna give we're gonna minutes now
74:30 - 75:00 so please just post in the chat if you haven't got the abstract um but it should be in the calendar event and otherwise I also emailed it to everyone that had registered so um please post in the chat or you can post to me privately and I can quickly send it to you otherwise we'll discuss it in a few minutes e
75:00 - 75:30 I
75:30 - 76:00 e
76:00 - 76:30 e
76:30 - 77:00 e
77:00 - 77:30 e
77:30 - 78:00 e
78:00 - 78:30 e e
78:30 - 79:00 okay so um time is up and I just figured
79:00 - 79:30 out halfway through that five minutes
79:30 - 80:00 that I could share a Google doc link so apologies for not doing that earlier um I'll just go to the next slide and for those of you that just joined
80:00 - 80:30 um if you can go to that link and I'll open the um I've just opened the the voting so you can um just give a quick feedback about how you think that um how you would rate the abstract against the different components that that Teresa and Helen talked through earlier and for those of you if anyone's having trouble um seeing the abstract I'll just share
80:30 - 81:00 it on my screen just for the moment got the Voting is closed um that I don't seem to be able to submit I think if you if you refresh oh there we go okay e
81:00 - 81:30 um so I think it I it was closed before but
81:30 - 82:00 I've opened it so if it's still showing is closed just refresh your screen and it should let you um access it I can see a message in the chat about that so we've had 15 uh responses so perhaps I'll open it um so we can view how everyone is assessing it drum roll please
82:00 - 82:30 Helen did you wanna um or Teresa I this is this is sort of a lead into the next Workshop that's going to be offered I'm going to let Scott do a little um blur for that where we we talk about how to review papers but actually one of the best ways to learn how to write better education research papers is to
82:30 - 83:00 review papers because you can see the faults in someone else's paper more easily than you can see the faults in your own and so part of what we're doing when we're reviewing is we're also trying to give helpful feedback so if we can go to the next slide we're going to ask for your recommendations about how this paper could improved how this abstract could be
83:00 - 83:30 improved or perhaps if there are kind of reviewer comments like the problem is that the kind of reviewer comments you've received so it doesn't just have to be um suggestions for improvement
83:30 - 84:00 but but also if there if there are any comments that you have so definitely we need to position it in the literature it's it's there's no literature review um so it makes claims about claims about um students finding Dynamics courses challenging or Mastery of fundamental
84:00 - 84:30 Dynamics Concepts but there's no evidence for that um nothing about previous studies so perhaps by looking at the concept inventory literature we'd be able to understand the fundamental concepts the research problem has to be reframed um because it's sort of unanswerable at the moment certainly unanswerable with the evidence that's
84:30 - 85:00 being collected um the question is too broad the very generic conclusion um so in fact the conclusion does what conclusions quite often do which is um when you're when you're
85:00 - 85:30 starting which is it it makes a conclusion that isn't supported At All by the evidence so the teaching resources which we develop will improve student learning there's no evidence in the paper that that will happen there are no findings for that in this is a work in progress so it hasn't been done yet um but so I I don't know if there are other comments that I've missed there ah an has a great
85:30 - 86:00 comment this the fact that this is not a good abstract um doesn't mean that you shouldn't you shouldn't come to the conference it might mean that you really need to come to the conference and listen and engage and a conference is actually quite a lot easier than sitting on your own and Reading literature because you get to sit next to people at lunch and ask them the
86:00 - 86:30 questions so connect with other researchers find out how they do it and in fact one of the best conferences I ever went to was a conference where I did not have a paper but I learned so much in those three days about how to think about research um and there's a really great point that the results don't measure understanding which is what the purpose is so if the purpose is understanding then the result
86:30 - 87:00 then the findings must address understanding so that's about those connections okay thank you so much um I'm gonna hand back to Scott thanks thanks Helen so we will we will wrap up in a in a moment um but just and and I can see there's still some comments coming in the chat but we just wanted to kind of touch space this was only 90 minutes and so we have to be humble about what we can achieve in that time but we're interested in just what
87:00 - 87:30 um any takeways from today's session and I'll open the voting so you can actually type sorry about that um any takeaways uh anything you've learned from today we will share the um if not the chat will pick out some of the references that were cited um and and share that later on along with the slides yeah interesting point about
87:30 - 88:00 terminology it it is its own discipline and some terms I mean it's like in you know my first degree was in physics in physics we there's everyday language and then we use it in a specific way you know with specific Nuance in in in in a physics context and and um similarly here so structure of papers a couple comments on that and Community the value of community this is I mean this is why I'm in this is part of the reason I'm in engineering education is the value of the community and you know those of you that have got your cameras on I can see
88:00 - 88:30 smiling faces and familiar faces as well so that's a really important part of it um in terms of how you frame a paper telling a story so you know what that that um that hourglass uh model is really helpful for think for kind of like structuring the story um comment in the chat about uh abstracts being very short um yeah the iteration you know it's it's an ongoing Learning Journey there's no perfect solution for teaching practice
88:30 - 89:00 or you know how to be inclusive in engineering education we're all in this journey um yeah a few more comments about stories and and yeah that difference between technical I I know for me I came from a physics background so it's a mind shift to come into education research um just with the time I might um move us along um just briefly with the personal
89:00 - 89:30 experiences um actually we might come back to that one or if I can defer to one of the facilitators to answer that question in the chat from Hinrich um just to flag some things that are coming up so oops sorry sorry sorry let me do that again so there's the um full papers to do for those I think some of you but perhaps half of you are are attending the Reese conference in India in early January next year so the full papers for that are due September 6th so we're planning a um and and then those papers
89:30 - 90:00 will go out for review and it'll be you may well receive an invitation to review as being one of the you know members of this community um so keep an eye out for that I mean looking back at the feedback that we gave on that draft abstract a lot of it was saying do this better do this better do this better but it's also important to recognize the strengths so taking a strength based approach to reviewing to recognize this was done really well this is a really important study as well as what can be what can be done better um in the email I sent out
90:00 - 90:30 there was some um research training opportunity that's not um through Rene but we thought it was a timely uh opportunity to share and there's more information in the email that I sent or you can follow that link which I'll just uh quickly put in the chat um so that's the link in the chat is the one for the um uh to register for that Procol research training but yes thank thank you so much it's been a delight to spend this hour
90:30 - 91:00 and a half with you and best wishes in getting your papers together and we'll hopefully see you at um ree or some other conference in the near future or perhaps the uh reviewing Workshop in a few months so thank you thank you everyone and thanks to the um nice comments in the chat and we'll see you again soon thanks everyone by thank you