Discussion questions Seminar 1

The purpose of Seminar 1 is to discuss your drafts with another team and find ways of moving forward with your text. You will carry out the peer review in two stages:

Part 1: A discussion focused on the general structure and the logical development of the Introduction, Background and Method

Part 2: A close reading of two or three paragraphs with a focus on reader-friendly paragraph structure and scientific language.

 

Peer review part 1: overall structure and logic

In your teams:

1. Read through your own text and make notes. Are there particular parts or issues you would like to discuss today? Any questions you have for the other team or for your teacher?

 

2. Exchange texts and read each other’s. Make notes and plan your feedback. Which points do you want to bring up first? You may not have time to discuss everything.

 

3. Discuss one text at a time. Let the authors say something about their texts and where they are in the writing process. Share your feedback with each other and provide constructive criticism.

 

The Introduction

• Does the Introduction catch the reader’s attention? Does it include words and phrases that show that the topic is interesting, urgent, or critical?
• Is the Introduction of a suitable length? Check for detailed background information that could be moved to the Theory section.
• Is the problem described before the aim? Is there a clear link between the problem and aim? Look for phrases like In order to better understand… and Therefore, the aim of this study is to…
• Are there references in the Introduction that contribute to your understanding of the area and the problem? Are they in the right place?
• Are the research question(s) open and specific, and clearly worded?

For a list of useful phrases, go to Manchester Phrasebank – Introducing work Links to an external site..  

 

The Background/Theory section

• Is the content presented in a logical order?
• Are there reader-friendly subheadings?
• Is there information missing?
• Are there enough references to sources?

 

Method

• Is it clear in which order the steps have been carried out?
• Are there phrases like In order to… and For the purposes of this study, …?

 

Peer review part 2: a close reading of two or three paragraphs

Use the KTH Guide to Scientific Writing (mainly sections on Text flow and Scientific style) to guide your discussion:

• Are there passages which are particularly well-written? Why?
• Are there topic sentences or “announcing” sentences early in each paragraph?
• Are the ideas in the paragraph presented logically (general to specific, given to new)? Is there good flow in the text?
• Are there linking words and phrases?
• Is the punctuation correct? Are there incomplete sentences or semicolons in the wrong place?
• Is the text written in an appropriate scientific style? Are there “chatty” or vague sentences?