Helen Fallon, NUI Maynooth Anne Murphy, Tallaght Hospital l

 Background  Blended Learning Approach  Feedback  Outcomes

 One Day Academic Writing Workshops  Blended Academic Writing Programme 2011 ◦ One Day Writing Seminar ◦ Online Programme of writing tasks ◦ Two peer feedback days spread over nine months

ANLTC 23 people attended ◦ 19 HE institutions ◦ 2 Public libraries ◦ 2 Health Sciences Libraries

And a Writing Group for those interested... Posters invited for the seminar

 2 stages  Stage 1 (tasks 1-7) over 3 months  Peer-feedback day  Stage 2 over 5 months  Peer-feedback day

 7 Tasks based on article The Academic Writing Toolkit  guidance based on article in more informal language  Mentor & participant

 Task 1 – Develop a working title and 3 three keywords for your article  Task 2 - What is the audience and purpose for your article? What journal/conference might you submit to?  Task 3 –Write a word informative or structured abstract for your article

March 2011: Tasks 1-3 / Anne A working title and 3 keywords  Task 1 – 7 days  And a May date proposed for completed first drafts Audience, Purpose, Publication  Task days “I'm enjoying the process and finding the structured approach invaluable.” Abstract/Outlining  Task 3 – 7 days

Usually my writing projects have involved jumping right in to the writing phase. I rarely gave time to sitting down and thinking about my keywords or title

The group was a useful forum for getting suggestions on possible outlets for articles. This included suggestions on possible conferences to present at, which is a useful precursor to publishing an article

I appreciated one suggestion at the beginning on possible journals for the article. This made it a realistic goal and definitely helped me focus on what I wanted to say. Before I would never have thought about who the final article was intended for

 Task 4 - Outline and title  Task 5 - Draft 500 words  Task 6 - Continue to 1,000 words  Task 7 - Online Peer Feedback

Draw up an outline for your article  Task 4 – 7 days Drafting 500 words Task 5 – 7 days “ Found this part [writing the Methods section] quite demanding and feel lots of info is missing, probably that's an entirely normal experience..” Drafting to 1000 words Task days

Before this, I would probably work on entire sections at a time and in chronological order. I never felt I could move on to the next section until the previous section was complete. Dipping in and out of sections in shorter bursts of time really helps me write more productively

[I realised] that my experience was what was key. The lit review, analysis, etc., could all be built around that Something that stuck with me is that “bad” writing is ok at first to get the article on paper in some form initially

I realised that I had worthwhile experiences to bring to the table and that perfection and starting with an expectation of a very high standard was not needed – just start writing and then develop/edit as you go

It’s amazing how this early work can evolve over the following weeks. I found myself reading back over my work from the early tasks and making changes (to both the article and my structure. I found myself justifying any changes I made. It meant that I was considering my changes and why they were occurring. It felt like my article was evolving!

It didn't feel intimidating or like it was too onerous to complete All your work/ideas are exposed and that can be a very daunting thing

“I'm unsure what level it's at - but this I hope to discover through the peer review process!” Guidelines ◦ What do you like best about this piece? ◦ What is your main suggestion for improvement? (20 words or less) ◦ Overview of how this might be achieved (1 paragraph)  Received and provided feedback via to 5 peers

I never realised the benefit of getting input on my work halfway through completion After the peer feedback the focus of the article became clearer and I decided to change tack and target a professional journal and write about my own experience. I felt in more control of the article and less stressed

 trust, openness and support between participants  demanding... hear everyone's feedback without being defensive... had to work at that  energising... we experienced flow  most valuable... taking part in the dialogue... to reflect back... the value of their work and experience... to see the light in someone's eyes as they realised the worth of what they do.

I was surprised at my own psychological behaviour in terms of acting so aggressively and defensive initially towards the feedback I received. I felt my draft was being torn to shreds by the criticism, which is all part of the learning experience. Their views and feedback were very worthwhile, and provided more focus and elucidation on the sections which needed to be developed

 IBTS  Writing time  Flexible timetable  Action learning sets

 Participants reported high rate of conference presentations including three international conferences  One participant won AISHE poster competition  Journal articles including SCONUL Focus, An Leabharlann, Transfusion  Book review

 Conference & seminar presentations  Published the journal review study  Invited to present at seminars  Invited to peer review for HILJ  Authorship w/ clinical teams

 Demystify writing process  Learned about the mechanics of writing  Incremental tasks made the process more manageable  Provided a supportive community of practice – sharing of knowledge, information & insights from across different types of libraries

 Allowed people choose their time for writing  People developed resilience through peer-feedback  Cost effective  Normalise writing as part of what we do – we all have valuable work experiences for posters/articles/presentations

Further Resources Academicwritinglibrarian.blogspot.ie