Narrative Activity Completion Report 1

Narrative Activity Completion Report[1]

Activity facts
Name of Platform / Growth and Employment
South Partner Institution / Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA)
Activity name / Scientific Writing Course - Modules I and II
Main responsible resource person(s) for activity from South partner institution[2] / Daniel Mushi
Main responsible resource person(s) for activity from Danish university[3] / Christian Pilegaard Hansen
Workplace of Danish resource person(s) / University of Copenhagen
Start and end of implementation (dd/mm/yy) / Start: Module I: 14/11/12; Module II: 15/01/13
End: Module I: 16/11/12; Module II: 17/01/13
Activity description
Brief description of planned activity[4] / Purpose / This activity relates to LFA specific objective 1 on strengthening of relevant PhD educational programmes.
The aim of the “Scientific Writing Course” (SWC) was to enhance the capability of participants to write good scientific papers. The SWC emphasized quality of writing and dissemination with a view to improving readability, maximising the contribution of the research done and improving the opportunities for publishing. The SWCfurthermore addressed quantity of scientific production by initially focussing on the issue of increasing productivity through peer-guidance, best-practices in organisation of work, co-operation, choice of partners/co-authors and group-dynamics in scientific writing.
Content / Key issues covered during the course included: Initial journal selection, work efficiency for productivity and impact; team work in scientific writing, outlining format and content; building a scientific paper block-by-block (IMRaD); submission and peer review and publishing process; ethics incl. plagiarism. An important component related to the individual writing assignments between course modules emphasizing concrete work on own research material.
Contribution to research capacity building / The present SWC will contribute to the expected outputs described in the LFA of the BSU GEP Inception Report: (1.1) “PhD courses developed”; (1.2) PhD students have passed courses and (1.3) Faculty capacitated to run developed PhD courses”
Indicators / The training course has been held according to plan.
Other relevant details/comments / The course as a whole was evaluated by participants with an overall very high score (see attached evaluation summary). The results of the evaluation reflect a great need for similar courses and an appreciation of its availability.
Number of participants / Target / The target groups included senior faculty members, early and mid-career researchers, and PhD students.
Result / 20 participants (PhD students and faculty staffs) signed up for the course and participated in the first module. 14 participants followed the course through and completed all course requirements/assignments, and were awarded certificates of attendance.
Describe/explain deviations from planned activity (timing, number of participants, content of activity, venue, etc.) / Collaboration:
Daniel Mushi, SUA and Christian Pilegaard Hansen, UCPH jointly facilitated the course. The collaboration worked very well.
Timing: The course was deliberately divided in two parts to allow time for participants to work on own manuscripts in between course modules. This worked quite well, but for future more communication with participants between modules should be considered to encourage a continued work on manuscripts.
Participants: The course witnessed a drop-out of participants. This indicates the challenge of splitting the course into two modules as you cannot be sure to retain all the participants all along.
Content: Implementation according to plan with a division of responsibilities between the two facilitators.
Venue: It worked well in terms of having the necessary set-up for a flexible seating arrangement (for group work).
Main lessons learned (list 3-5 issues) /

From the expressed course expectations by participants and the analysis of the course evaluation the course meets a great need for capacity strengthening in the area of scientific writing and for contributing to better quality and quantity of scientific publications.
Participants learnt better because the course was participatory and hands-on. The course built to a high extent on individual and group exercises, group discussions and only to a limited extent on presentation. This worked very well. Students were to work on own draft manuscripts.
A challenge with regard to the draft manuscripts is the varying stages of the manuscripts of the participants. Those who are early in the PhD and do not have analysed data worked on a manuscript based on their MSc thesis. Many of these lacked a clearly defined research problem, making it somewhat difficult for the students to achieve all the learning outcomes of the course.

Suggestions for follow up activities /

It could be consideredto repeat the course in BSU Phase II then with the SUA facilitator serving as the lead facilitator. If continued, SUA should consider to attach additional facilitators (in particular young, promising staff) who could contribute in ensuring that the teaching facilities and institutional memory is carried forward.
The institutionalization of the course in the SUA system, including its future funding, also remains an issue (as for all other BSU courses).

Activity Completion Report submitted by:

Name / Contact details[5] / Signature
DANIEL MUSHI / /
Christian Pilegaard Hansen / /

Date of Signature:

4 December 2013

Where relevant please enclose:

a)List of participants/attendance register

b)Program/course outline

Annexes:

Annex 1: Course announcement

Annex 2: Detailed Course outline

Annex 3: Course evaluation by participants

Annex 4: List of participants in the first and second Modules

Annex 1

Course Announcement:

Scientific Writing Course

November 14th to 16th 2012

January 15th to 17th, 2013

Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro

Objective: / The course aims to enhance the capability of participants to write good scientific papers. This concerns the quality of writing and disseminating in order to improve readability, maximise the contribution of the research done and improve the opportunities for publishing. It also concerns the quantity of scientific production by initially addressing the question of increasing productivity through peer-guidance, best-practice in organisation of work, co-operation, choice of partners/co-authors and group-dynamics in scientific writing.
Participants: / PhD students and faculty academic staff members. There is a limit of 20 participants.
Course responsible: / A.Z. Mattee, Sokoine University of Agriculture
L.Kurwijila, Sokoine University of Agriculture
D.E. Mushi, Sokoine University of Agriculture
Christian Pilegaard Hansen, Associate Professor, University of Copenhagen
The course is organized under the framework of the “Building Stronger Universities” initiative between Sokoine University of Agriculture and Universities Denmark.
Course requirements: / The course is open to PhD students and academic staff of SUA. Each participant must hold and bring to the course:
-a draft paper to work on during the course – could be in any process stage prior to submission
-commitment from a supervisor (for PhD-students) or colleague (faculty members) to read and participate in at least the activities between the two course modules
Materials: / The below materials will be made available to the participants, in addition to slides presented during the course:
1) Day, R.A. and Gastel, B. 2006. “How to write and publish a scientific paper”. 6th edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
2) “Online guide to scientific publication” by Commonwealth Forestry Association.
3) “Scientific writing and publishing results” by the Tropical Biology Association
Additional references for more detailed studies will be provided during the course, but will not be used as a basis for the course.
The participants bring writing paper, pens, preferably a laptop.

Annex 2

Outline of Scientific Writing Course - SUA

Daniel Mushi, SUA & Christian Pilegaard Hansen, University of Copenhagen

Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs)

At the end of the course, i.e. after completion of Module I and Module II, the participant will be able to:

•Describe the scientific writing process and its key stages;

•Reflect on what constitutes a research problem to be addressed in a scientific paper;

•Organize and compose a scientific paper in accordance with the IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion) model;

•Analyze and review scientific papers in terms of key message, consistency and justification;

•Reflect on the benefits of working in teams in scientific writing and describe the rules of co-authorship;

•Reflect on the ethics in scientific writing

MODULE I

DAY 1 (morning)

Unit 1: Course introduction

This unit will engage the students in learning activities linked to the achievement of the following ILOs:

A / Describe the scientific writing process and its key stages / X
B / Reflect on what constitutes a research problem to be addressed in a scientific paper / X
C / Organize and compose a scientific paper in accordance with the IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion) model / X
D / Analyze and review scientific papers in terms of key message, consistency and justification
E / Reflect on the benefits of working in teams in scientific writing and describe the rules of co-authorship
F / Reflect on the ethics in scientific writing
Sub-unit / C/O / Sub-unit content / Learning activity / Teaching aids / Learning resources and references (person to provide) / Facilitator/actors
1.1 / •Welcome / N/A / Mushi
1.2 / •Introduction of teachers / N/A / Mushi
1.3 / •Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs) of course / •Presentation / Ppt / Mushi
1.4 / Participants’ round of self-introduction and expectations / •Self-reflection (2-5 minutes)
•Share with audience
•Record on flipchart / Flipchart / Mushi
1.5 / •Course outline –overview / •Presentation / Ppt / Christian
1.6 / •Introduction to study materials / •Presentation / Ppt / Christian
1.7 / •Scientific writing - why? / •Presentation: Something on the importance of scientific publication in the scientific world; scientific literature in a modern society; historical development of scientific literature / Ppt / Day & Gastel Chapter 1, 2 & 4 / Christian
1.8 / •Key message of paper / •Exercise: Students write down the three key points of the paper + summarize the paper in one sentence (10 minutes). Students describe their work to 2-3 fellow students in one minute.
•Sum-up in plenum. Was it difficult? If so, why? / Flipchart / IFR Guide to Scientific Writing / Christian

MODULE I

DAY 1 (afternoon)

Unit 2: Stating the problem that the paper addresses and its objective

This unit will engage the students in learning activities linked to the achievement of the following ILOs:

A / Describe the scientific writing process and its key stages
B / Reflect on what constitutes a research problem to be addressed in a scientific paper / X
C / Organize and compose a scientific paper in accordance with the IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion) model / X
D / Analyze and review scientific papers in terms of key message, consistency and justification / X
E / Reflect on the benefits of working in teams in scientific writing and describe the rules of co-authorship
F / Reflect on the ethics in scientific writing
Sub-unit / C/O / Sub-unit content / Learning activity / Teaching aids / Learning resources and references (person to provide) / Facilitator/actors
2.1 / •Problem statement, objective and relevance in a scientific paper / •Presentation: Situation, problem statement, objective, research question(s) and relevance; issues that are normally dealt with in the INTRODUCTION of a paper / Ppt / IFR Guide to Scientific Writing; Day & Gastel Chapter 10 / Christian
2.2 / •Analyze papers for problem statement, objective and relevance / •Exercise where students work in groups to analyze three selected scientific papers for situation, problem, objective and relevance
•Sum-up in plenum / Articles
Flip -chart / Christian
2.3 / •Instruction on home-work (= draft introduction section of paper) / •Each participant has to reflect on situation, problem, objective and relevance of own paper ( 1 page) / Ppt / Christian
2.4 / •Sum-up of Day 1 / •Brief sum-up / Ppt / Christian

Comment: If time permits, participants can start working on their homework, i.e. writing a draft introduction.
MODULE I

DAY 2 (morning)

Unit 3: Presentation and discussion of first draft introductory sections of the paper

This unit will engage the students in learning activities linked to the achievement of the following ILOs:

A / Describe the scientific writing process and its key stages
B / Reflect on what constitutes a research problem to be addressed in a scientific paper / X
C / Organize and compose a scientific paper in accordance with the IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion) model / X
D / Analyze and review scientific papers in terms of key message, consistency and justification / X
E / Reflect on the benefits of working in teams in scientific writing and describe the rules of co-authorship
F / Reflect on the ethics in scientific writing
Sub-unit / C/O / Sub-unit content / Learning activity / Teaching aids / Learning resources and references (person to provide) / Facilitator/actors
3.1 / •Recap from yesterday / •Brief re-cap of yesterday’s main messages and introduction to morning’s programme / Ppt / Christian
3.2 / •Feedback on introduction / •Group exercise (groups of 4). Students read the drafted introductions and give structured feedback (instructions to be given) on introductions of fellow students (max 30 minutes per student) / Each participant brings 5 copies of the draft introduction / Christian
3.3 / •Sum-up / •Recapitulation of main points / Ppt / Christian

If time permits, some participants could present their draft introduction in plenum; alternatively time could be allotted for students to work individually on the introductions based on the received feed-back

MODULE I

DAY 2 (afternoon)

Unit 4: Building the paper block by block

This unit will engage the students in learning activities linked to the achievement of the following ILOs:

If time permits, students can start working on their paper outlines

MODULE I

DAY 3 (morning)

Unit 5: Presentations and discussion of paper outlines

This unit will engage the students in learning activities linked to the achievement of the following ILOs:

A / Describe the scientific writing process and its key stages / X
B / Reflect on what constitutes a research problem to be addressed in a scientific paper
C / Organize and compose a scientific paper in accordance with the IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion) model / X
D / Analyze and review scientific papers in terms of key message, consistency and justification
E / Reflect on the benefits of working in teams in scientific writing and describe the rules of co-authorship
F / Reflect on the ethics in scientific writing
Sub-unit / C/O / Sub-unit content / Learning activity / Teaching aids / Learning resources and references (person to provide) / Facilitator/actors
5.1 / •Recap from yesterday / •Brief re-cap of yesterday’s main messages and introduction to morning’s programme / Ppt / Christian
5.2 / •Feedback on outlines / •Group exercise (groups of 4). Students read the drafted outlines and give structured feedback (instructions to be given) on outlines (max 30 minutes per participant) / Each participant brings 5 copies of the draft outline / Christian
5.3 / •Sum-up / •Recapitulation of main points / Ppt / Christian
5.4 / •Agreement on homework to be completed before Module II / •Describe the task to be completed (a draft manuscript)to be circulated one week before Module II; the role of supervisors / Ppt / Christian

If time permits, some of the stuff from the Unit 6 may be presented

MODULE I

DAY 3 (afternoon)

Unit 6: Various important aspects of scientific writing to consider before start writing

This unit will engage the students in learning activities linked to the achievement of the following ILOs:

A / Describe the scientific writing process and its key stages / X
B / Reflect on what constitutes a research problem to be addressed in a scientific paper
C / Organize and compose a scientific paper in accordance with the IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion) model / X
D / Analyze and review scientific papers in terms of key message, consistency and justification
E / Reflect on the benefits of working in teams in scientific writing and describe the rules of co-authorship / X
F / Reflect on the ethics in scientific writing / X
Sub-unit / C/O / Sub-unit content / Learning activity / Teaching aids / Learning resources and references (person to provide) / Facilitator/actors
6.1 / •Selecting an appropriate journal / •Presentation on:
oRelevance of topic to various journals
oImpact – what it is and how it may/may not serve as factor in deciding on journal
oOther criteria for selection: Access and review process, speed of publication
oUsing the specific instructions to authors given by the journal
oRef. Day and Gastel (2011) Chapter 6. / Ppt / Day & Gastel Chapter 6 / Mushi
6.2 / •Authorship / •Presentation/exercise on:
oWhat qualifies for authorship (Vancouver Protocol)
oHow to decide the order of authors? / Ppt / Day & Gastel Chapter 8 / Mushi
6.3 / •Referencing / •Presentation/exercise:
oHow to cite and reference (how, how much, how little)
oDifferent reference styles
oUse of Refmanager and other software / Ppt
Exercise (case) / Day & Gastel Chapter 15 / Mushi
6.4 / •Ethics in scientific writing / •Group discussion
•Watch video: “On being a scientist” (7 minutes) available on-line at followed by a discussion on the ethics involved in publishing. Discussion should include:
oAuthenticity and accuracy
oOriginality
oCredit
oEthical treatment of humans and animals
oDisclosure of conflicts of interest / Cases for group discussion / Christian
6.5 / •Closing of module I / All

MODULE II

DAY 1 (morning + first part of afternoon)

Unit 7: Feedback on draft manuscripts

This unit will engage the students in learning activities linked to the achievement of the following ILOs: