[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.J.(2006).Publication bias: The Achilles heel of systematic reviews? British1111Journal of Educational Studies, 54(1), 89 102.2Torgerson, C.J., Porthouse, J.& Brooks, G.(2003).A systematic review and meta-3analysis of randomised controlled trials evaluating interventions in adult literacy and4numeracy.Journal of Research in Reading, 26(2), 234 55.5Vernon, M.D.(1946).Learning from graphical material.British Journal of Psychology,636, 145 59.789FURTHER READING10111Fink, A.(2005).Conducting research literature reviews: From Internet to paper.Thousand2Oaks, CA: Sage.31Hart, C.(1998).Doing a literature review.Buckingham: Open University Press.4Kamler, B.& Thompson, P.(2006).Helping doctoral students write: Pedagogies for supervision.5 Abingdon: Routledge.Petticrew, M.& Roberts, H.(2006).Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical6guide.Oxford: Blackwell.789201111234567893011112345678940111123441111111234567891011123145678920111123456789301111234567894011112344111Chapter 3.41111Conference papers2345678910111231 The conference paper has been described as  the essential launching pad for4 nearly all scholarly careers (Gould, 1995, p.37).According to Drott (1995),5 nearly half of the conference papers published in the sciences and the social6 sciences in the 1960s went on to become published papers  usually withintwo years or so.Similar results were reported in the field of medicine (see7Weller, 2002).However, others have reported smaller proportions than this.8Drott (1995), for example, found that only thirteen per cent of conference9papers in information science were developed into publications, and Stolk20111et al.(2002) report that only thirty per cent of conference papers in medical1contexts found themselves in print.More recently, conference papers can be2found as preprints in some databases, and Schwartz and Kennicutt (2004)3report that such papers were cited twice as frequently as those not posted.4There is also some evidence, but not a lot, that presenting papers in5seminars and conferences can lead to shorter refereeing times and greater6success in the refereeing process.Hartley (2005), for instance, found shorter7refereeing times for papers previously given as conference papers in the8American Journal of Psychology and in the Journal of Educational Psychology, but9not in the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior.Brown (2005)30111found that two-thirds of the papers published in three major accountancy1journals had been previously delivered in conferences or workshops.He2concluded that:341 delivering workshop presentations and conference papers increased the5probability of getting an initial favourable review ( revise and resubmit6rather than  reject ); and72 once such papers were published, they were more influential than were8papers that had not been previously presented at conferences.9401111READING VERSUS SPEAKING23 It is important to note that the conference paper is designed to be spoken44111 and listened to; it is not a written paper.There may be a written version for96 Other genres1111 the conference delegates who want one, and for other enquirers, but in the2 conference itself the focus is on speaking and displaying information.In this3connection, Gould (1995, p.39) remarks that humanists inevitably read their4papers from a manuscript, whereas scientists speak extemporaneously from5written notes.He also says that scientists nearly always show slides, whereas6humanists rely on text alone.These views may be exaggerations, and possibly7now out of date, but they are important.Direct speech is clearer than spoken8written prose.Thus, it is better to give a conference talk from a set of notes,9perhaps prompted by visual aids, than literally to read the paper.101112POWERPOINT314Most conference papers these days are accompanied by computer-based5slides, and the most common of these use PowerPoint software.Such displays6have met with considerable criticism (see Adams, 2006), but it is not all7gloom and doom.There is some evidence from students that they like lectures8accompanied by PowerPoint presentations (Susskind, 2005) and that slides9presented by PowerPoint are preferred to the same materials presented on20111flip charts and overhead projectors in certain circumstances (e.g.see Austin-1Wells et al., 2003).One feature that appeals to an audience is the ability2to build up more complex pictures  by adding in more detail on each slide3in a series.Students also appreciate the clarity and legibility of PowerPoint4presentations, but they dislike poor typographic layouts and odd colour5combinations.6Students are not happy either if the lecturer simply reads out the Power-7Point slides.One rule of thumb that forces speakers to talk about their slides8and not simply to regurgitate them is called the 7 x 7 rule: that is, use no9more than seven words per line, and seven lines per slide: (some say 5 x 5).30111Another way of putting this is to say,  Write no more on a slide than you1would on a postcard ! But suggestions like these bring us back to the2criticisms.3The most common criticism of PowerPoint presentations is that the4presenters preparing such displays get preoccupied with their format and5that, by necessity, they present simplistic arguments.Myers (2000), in an6insightful chapter, contrasts giving a conventional lecture (without visual7aids) with learning to give the same one with PowerPoint slides.Myers8points to a dozen changes overall, leading him to conclude:940111The overall effect is that what was before a carefully connected sequence,1with some digressions for stories, and references to texts on a handout,23 was now a series of spaces, marked by rather flashy transitions.44111 (Myers, 2000, p.184)Conference papers 971111 He continues:  But these lists of formal changes don t quite get at the shift2 in effect [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]