Writing Resource

http://kosmicki.com/102/index.htm

A Step-by-Step Guide to Writing Academic Papers by Anne Whitaker

Table of Contents
Why Academic Writing ............................................................................ 2
The Writing Process ................................................................................ 4
Choosing and Narrowing a Topic ............................................................. 4
Thinking (Brainstorming)........................................................................ 6
Doing Research ....................................................................................... 6
Thesis Statement .................................................................................... 7
Planning – Basic Outline ......................................................................... 7
Planning – Taking Notes ......................................................................... 9
Planning – Detailed Outline ................................................................... 10
Writing the First Draft ........................................................................... 13
The Introduction ................................................................................... 13
Body Paragraphs ................................................................................... 14
The Conclusion ...................................................................................... 15
Connection between Ideas .................................................................... 16
Revising ................................................................................................ 17
Editing .................................................................................................. 18
Proofreading ......................................................................................... 19
Paper Checklist ..................................................................................... 20
Example Paper ...................................................................................... 21
Bibliography .......................................................................................... 28

Download from here http://www.vsm.sk/Curriculum/academicsupport/academicwritingguide.pdf

How to survive a thesis defence? by Joe Wolfe

The thesis defence or viva is like an oral examination in some ways. It is different in many ways, however. The chief difference is that the candidate usually knows more about the syllabus than do the examiners.

Consequently, some questions will be sincere questions: the asker asks because s/he doesn't know and expects that the candidate will be able to rectify this. Students often expect questions to be difficult and attacking, and answer them accordingly. Often the questions will be much simpler than you expect.

In a curious relativistic effect, time expands in the mind of the student. A few seconds pause to reflect before answering seems eminently reasonable to the panel, but to the defender it seems like minutes of mute failure. Take your time.

For the same reason, let them take their time. Let them finish, or even elaborate on, the question.

The phrase "That's a good question" is useful. It flatters the asker and may get him/her onside, or less offside; it gives you time to think; it implies that you have understood the question and assessed it already and that you have probably thought about it before. If absolutely necessary, it can be followed by a bit more stalling "Now the answer to that is not obvious/straightforward..." which has some of the same advantages.

Don't try to bluff your way out of a question. If someone has asked a simple question, and you answer with a torrent of jargon, or refer to some complicated equation, the other observers will probably conclude that you haven't answered a simple question with a simple answer. Now this may be both true and honourable: some simple questions cannot be answered simply. However, if you have to resort to complexity, you could begin by translating the question into your terms, defining them as you go, and, when you think you have answered, at least make an attempt to rephrase it in the language of the question.

If the nightmare ever did come true, and some questioner found a question that put something in the work in doubt... mind you this is thankfully very rare.... then what? Well the first thing would be to concede that the question imposes a serious limitation on the applicability of the work "You have identified a serious limitation in this technique, and the results have to be interpreted in the light of that observation". The questioner is then more likely to back off and even help answer it, whereas a straight denial may encourage him/her to pursue more ardently. Then go through the argument yourself in detail - showing listeners how serious it is while giving yourself time to find flaws in it or to limit the damage that will ensue. In the worst caese, one would then think of what can be saved. But all this is hypothetical because this won't happen.

What usually happens is that the examiners have read the work typically twice, and looked closely at some parts that interested them most. These are usually the good bits. The examiners have standards to uphold, but they are not out to fail you. (Administratively, it is a lot more complicated to fail you than to pass you!) In general, they feel good about the idea of a new, fresh researcher coming into their area. You are no immediate threat to them. They have to show that they have read it and they have to give you the opportunity to show that you understand it (you do, of course). And they usually have a genuine interest in the work. Some of them may feel it is necessary to maintain their image as senior scholars and founts of wisdom. Judicious use of the "Good question", "Yes, you're right of course", "Good idea.." and "Thanks for that" will allow that with a minimum of fuss and a maximum of time for champagne drinking.

If one of the examiners is real nasty, your thesis defence is probably not the best place and time in which to do anything about it, except perhaps for allowing him/her to demonstrate his/her nastiness clearly and thus to establish the support of the rest of the panel. If you want a major dispute, save it up for when you are on even ground, unless you are very, very sure of yourself and think that you have nothing to lose.

Be ready for a 'free kick'. It is relatively common that a panel will ask one (or more) questions that, whatever the actual wording may be, are essentially an invitation to you to tell them (briefly) what is important, new and good in your thesis. You ought not stumble at this stage, so you should rehearse this. You should be able to produce on demand (say) a one minute speech and a five minute speech, and be prepared to extend them if invited by further questions. Do not try to recite your abstract: written and spoken styles should be rather different. Rather, rehearse answers to the questions: "What is your thesis about, what are the major contributions and what have you done that merits a PhD?".

Your viva is important. It is worth rehearsing it. Write down some questions (including nasty ones) and give them to a couple of trusted friends or allies. Have them ask you these questions, in as realistic a setting as you can manage, then answer, pretending that they are your jury, not your friends. Your friends can take notes about your style: they may have helpful advice. More importantly, however, you get to practise your answers and to rehearse giving them.

Finally, a very important distinction. I wrote above: Take your time. This is not the same thing as 'Keep calm'. Most of us simply wouldn't be able to keep calm in this situation. Further, being excited or a bit nervous is actually helpful: with extra adrenaline, you can think more quickly. No, you don't want to be so nervous that you freeze up, but on the other hand, don't be scared because you are nervous: recognise that a bit of nervousness is a good thing. However, in spite of your nervousness, remember to take your time: don't rush.

Now read the first two bullet points again. Good luck!

What is a thesis defense? by Chris Riesbeck

What is a thesis defense?

A thesis defense has two parts: a thesis and a defense. The second mistake many students make is not knowing what their thesis is. The third mistake is not knowing how to defend it. (The first mistake is describe later.)

---

What is a thesis?

Your thesis is not your dissertation. Neither is it a one liner about what you are doing. Your thesis is "a position or proposition that a person (as a candidate for scholastic honors) advances and offers to maintain by argument." [Webster's 7th New Collegiate Dictionary]. "I looked at how people play chess" is not a thesis; " people adapt memories of old games to play new games" is. Similarly, "I wrote a program to play chess" is not a thesis; "playing chess requires a database of actual games" is. A thesis has to claim something.

There are many kinds of theses, especially in computer science, but most of them can be lumped into one of the following classes:

1. process X is a feasible way to do task Y
2. process X is a better way to do task Y than any previously known method
3. task Y requires process X
4. people use process X to do task Y
5. process X is a terrible way to do Y
6. people don't use process X

Feel free to substitute "process X" with "memory organization X" or what ever else might make one theory different from another. Make sure you clearly specify the class of tasks Y to which your thesis applies.

Besides being a proposition, a thesis has to have another property: it must say something new. "Understanding natural language requires context" is not a thesis (except maybe in a linguistics department); "process X is a feasible mechanism for adding context sensitivity to natural language understanders" is, as is "context is not required for visual understanding.

---

What is a defense?

A defense presents evidence for a thesis. What kind of evidence is apprpropriate depends on what kind of thesis is being defended.

Thesis: process X is a feasible way to do task Y

One defense for this kind of claim is an analysis of the complexity, or completeness, or whatever, of the theoretical algorithm. In computer science, the more common defense is based on empirical results from running an experiment. A good defense here means more than one example, and answers to questions such as the following. What are the capabilities and limits of your experiment? How often do the things that your experiment does come up in the real world? What's involved in extending it? If it's easy to extend, why haven't you? If your example is a piece of a larger system, how realistic are your assumptions about input and output?

Thesis: process X is a better way to do task Y than any previously known method

The same kind of defense applies here as in the previous case, but now serious comparisons with previous systems are required. Can your result do the same examples the previous results did, or can you make them do yours? Can you prove they couldn't do your examples? If you claim to be more efficient, what are you measuring?

Thesis: task Y requires process X

This is usually defended by a logical argument. It is usually very tough to do, even if the argument doesn't have to be formalized.

Thesis: people use process X to do task Y

Many students make the mistake of picking this kind of thesis to defend. It requires serious experimental evidence to defend, unless your real thesis is of the previous form, i.e., only process X is possible. Selected excerpts from protocols and surveys of your officemates are not psychological evidence, no matter how much they might have inspired your work.

Thesis: process X is a terrible way to do Y, or people don't use process X

This is a reasonable thesis if process X is a serious contender. The defense would be an analysis of the limits of process X, i.e., things it can't do, or things it does wrong, along with evidence that those things matter.

---

I have lots of theses in my dissertation. Which one should I pick for my defense?

Defending a real thesis is hard. If you think you have a lot of theses, you probably just have a bunch of undefended claims. One good thesis, or two so-so theses, with adequate description and defense, is more than enough to fill up a dissertation.

---

I have the opposite problem. I don't think I have any thesis by these standards.

Highly unlikely. If you're bright, educated, and have worked hard on a topic for more than a year, you must have learned something no one else knew before. The first mistake that students make is to think that a thesis has to be grander than the theory of relativity. A thesis should be new and interesting, but it doesn't have to change the foundations of all we believe and hold dear.

Don't try to come up with a thesis first, and then investigate it. Start by exploring some task domain. Take some initial ideas and push them hard for a year or so. Now, stop and think about what you've done and what you've learned. Among your accomplishments and experience, there will be several good candidate theses. Pick one. Test it out on your advisor and other faculty members. Test it out on other students. Is it a claim that you can describe clearly and briefly? Is it a claim that anyone cares about? Is it a claim that people don't find perfectly obvious, or if they do find it obvious, can you convince them that it could easily be false.

Once you've refined your claim into a good thesis, now you can determine what kind of defense is appropriate for it and what more you need to do. This is where the hard part comes, psychologically, because to create a defense for your thesis, you're going to have to attack it harder than anyone else. What happens if the thesis fails? Negate it and defend that! In a year or so of focused research, you should be ready for a real thesis defense.

See how easy it is, once you know how?

Research Proposal Help Sheet - a very succinct guidance for starter

RESEARCH PROPOSALS HELP SHEET

Click here to download