Writing Manual 2009

Montserrat Castelló; Gerardo Bañales; Anna Iñesta & Norma Vega Graduate School of Psychology. Blanquerna. Ramon Llull University. Barcelona

This document refers to those aspects and resources that we need to know and be able to use when writing an academic text. Its contents are organized in three sections: the first one refers to the organization of information, that is, to those issues that relate to the structure of the text, the sections that the paper should have, the information to be included in each section and how each of these sections must be written. The second section examines when and how the author should make him/herself visible, which resources are used to make his/her own position clear and also prevent the text from sounding little academic or impersonal. Finally, the third section refers to some resources used to engage the readers and to make proper use of citations.

Download Writing Manual 2009 (english)

Learning to review

Learning to review by Montserrat Castelló

When we comment on a peer’s text it is important to make suggestions on what we explain not only what should be changed but above all what the problem is or the imbalance we see in the text and why we think that what we suggest is a good solution. Some advices can help us make our suggestions more effective. As for the type of feedback, we can distinguish between three ways to provide it: direct, indirect and critics (Cho, 2006; Koller, 2010).

Direct suggestions have to do with a closed comment that indicates what needs to be done to improve the text (“You have to change the phrase in this sense,” “the beginning should be changed this way…” “You have to add a reference”).

Indirect suggestions refer to the analysis of some problems and difficulties of the texts without proposing any clear or closed change (“I think this point is not sufficiently justified” “This section seems a little confusing”, “this idea is redundant in relation to others”).

Critical suggestions involve dialogue because they are formulated as opportunities to discuss and explain (“This section is not very clear, perhaps you could improve it by adding examples, with more explanations or reformulating what you said. What do you think?” “the discussion focuses too much on a single perspective. Is it the only one you know or do you consider it is the only relevant one in this case?”).

Guía de Revisión Colaborativa (spanish)