An awesome workshop. My takeaways are: 1. Scientist are defacto teachers of writing 2. Professors don't have a language for speaking about their expertise 3. Write from the readers' perspective 4. Reading scientific articles takes energy 5. Readers focus on sentence structure before substance 6. Emphasis 7. Structure helps the writer/reader see things 8. Readers change their mind, data do not change 9. The rule of writing scientific papers is "No Rules" 10. Determine what your facts are (from your data) and then speak for them 11. No neutral sentence, you must choose a side Thank you, Judy Swan.
@dennisestenson78202 жыл бұрын
Great synopsis. For #5, I would say that readers focus on presentation/structure before content.
@Aritul2 жыл бұрын
Thank you!
@britneytezino3187 Жыл бұрын
Wow thank you so much
@swancooper593 Жыл бұрын
thank you, abdullah i. - I keep revisiting this presentation and learn something new every time: this time your takeaways! Most appreciated.
@miaeverdeen7938 Жыл бұрын
Thank you Abdullah, your list is helpful 👍🏼
@Ztzyyy17 күн бұрын
Although somewhat lengthy, this talk was interesting, fun, and highly informative.
@erickouhai981810 ай бұрын
Although, most of the time, I write in a way that blurry's the things that I want to say; I may not be qualified to stand in the same grounds of professionals as sophisticated as her, much less to judge how great she delivers her lectures, which is blatantly obvious and need not be mentioned, but because I've had the luxury of watching this lecture on KZbin, extracting some new information that is so valuable, it's equivalent to a purse of gold, I, for one, at the very least, as a token of my deepest appreciation, have to say that this lecture is truly enlightening. Really. I thank, most especially, Mrs. Judy Swan and all the people who made this possible. I felt like I owed all of them a comment, and here it is.
@myeongwoo3 жыл бұрын
Judy Swan is a good teacher. I took her writing workshop when I was in NJ.
@EricBrennanOrganic4 жыл бұрын
This workshop was excellent, but, I wish I could have seen the full handout from the lecture, and also heard the comments from the audience. Now here's a re-write. Although I didn't have access to the full handout, this workshop was excellent. :).
@rajeshthakur82766 жыл бұрын
This whole talk has a high level of information and experience packed into one and a half hours of time. For learners and academician, this is a must watch like. Thanks, Judy Swan and organizers for this... Best Regards.
@srimathisumathi321224 күн бұрын
Thank you Judy for that excellent session. I knew about the sentence structure, but you showed me how important the two clauses are when you look at it from the reader's point of view. I am sure I would gained much, much more if I was there physically.
@miriamtorres5515 жыл бұрын
I decided to study Accounting because I work better with numbers, than with language. However, I feel that this presentation has opened up a door of possibilities for my understanding of language and better communication skills. So glad you recorded this for the public. (And, yes, the benefits would have been doubled, if all of the student's responses would have been heard, repeated, or presented in some way.) Thank you so very much!!!
@asheaustaire72037 жыл бұрын
Although I dropped out of school twice, this magnificent lecture by Judy Swan has inspired me to reapply to NYU. I hope I can find professors who are willing to use my time as wisely as she did.
@proto90537 жыл бұрын
In the nature of the lecture, I will give you a thumbs up.
@elalaelasariuinjakarta75484 күн бұрын
Wow...Great lecturer. Thank you for sharing how to write a scientific paper. Excellent.
@davidbarlow4319 жыл бұрын
Although the last 25 minutes were not much use as the audience could not be heard, and Judy did not repeat what they said for the mic, the first hour was very informative and well worth listening to for anyone who writes reports of all natures.
@hpliew258 жыл бұрын
Agree, maybe they can provide subtitles for the audience inputs.
@alessandraz.83326 жыл бұрын
nice structure! :D
@hasnatsujon4 жыл бұрын
I see you have learned
@giocaliguia83708 ай бұрын
Let me try making it more positive: Although the last 25 minutes were not much use as the audience could not be heard, and Judy did not repeat what they said for the mic, for anyone who writes reports of all natures the first hour was very informative and well worth listening to.
@excitedaboutlearning16398 ай бұрын
@@giocaliguia8370The structure you use is much more complicated than what the original poster uses. Yours has three subordinate clauses before the main clause and thus requires the reader to keep much more information in the working memory. Keeping so many details in the working memory is hard, but it can be trained. When I first started reading scientific papers in 2020, I couldn't keep all the information in my working memory till I reached the main clause, but little by little, you can train your working memory to chunk the information. Subordinate clause + main clause or main clause + subordinate clause is what I recommend using. If the structure were to get a lot more complicated than that, it makes sense to divide the thought into multiple sentences rather than saying it all in a single, highly complex sentence. Edit: your and OP's message follow similar structures, but yours has one more subordinate clause before the main clause.
@usavaatab67153 жыл бұрын
Brilliant presentation. I am using your print-out and argument to convince my teenage students that grammar is central to success. Your points can be used to point out why teaching the 112 sentence patterns and clause structures is our first step to teach our elementary students to think and communicate clearly .. Thank you for making it available to the public.
@MichaelDiamondMusic3 жыл бұрын
The lecture printout link is no longer active. Sounds like you got it before the link broke. Is a copy online anywhere?
@usavaatab67153 жыл бұрын
@@MichaelDiamondMusic tried to send but doesn’t seem to allow share. Any other way I should try? Unfortunately I never downloaded it.
@giocaliguia83708 ай бұрын
Just search "Judy Swan Handout" or check here techcomm1.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/swan_handout.pdf@@MichaelDiamondMusic
@teachingwithdmitriyfedorov27703 жыл бұрын
The same stuff I'm teaching to my Ielts students. Your work always has to be logical in terms of structure, the way your ideas are presented, the number of arguments in each Body paragraph. Our job is to write smoothly and not let anything break this flow.
@emilycarter89222 жыл бұрын
You might want to watch this kzbin.info/www/bejne/imLTcmWKe6p8obc
@fewcommentsonnews.48423 жыл бұрын
SCIENTIFIC WRITINGS _ Never i was able to thinking of it before. How many of Researchers team to participate in such responsabillity, often during of tireless years inside of Lab. CONGRATULATIONS TO YOU !
@suzannemoogan96757 жыл бұрын
What a fantastic lecturer she is, so engaging definitely not one of those who like to hear themselves talk.
@transiturbanist9 ай бұрын
Excellent presentation. I agree with Eric, I wished that someone had repeated the comments or if someone had passed around a microphone.
@sankeolsimicklepcha97033 жыл бұрын
Dawkins and Pinker should be the idol of every academic writer. I have come across many lectures like the lady above but Pinker and Dawkins' writing is absolutely marvellous.
@farahhammoud44774 жыл бұрын
Absolutely loved this. Brought things to light that I have never noticed before!
@Ph4n_t0m8 жыл бұрын
This was an invaluable presentation. Thank you!
@dwarren15214 жыл бұрын
This is the purpose of higher education. To teach people how to do something that's applicable in the real world.
@KJKP6 жыл бұрын
To understand the concepts presented here, explore the concepts of recency effect (people tend to remember the last part of information), the primacy effect (they recall the first information strongly), and recall the information in between at much smaller rates.
@carolinespec8 жыл бұрын
Just wonderful presentation! Thank you!
@ZainMclean-q1d Жыл бұрын
This is a great lecture! Congratulations!. Very good video, very helpful, delicately presented and fun. Thank you..
@lcama51786 жыл бұрын
Great presentation! I learned a lot.
@curtaquimica6 жыл бұрын
So fast for a brazilian professor but still a wonderful speech. Excelent job.
@lecturerchandran3 жыл бұрын
Really a lot of information for a researcher.We have to appreciate the presentation in making the reader to understsnd the influence of text in the main clause .Once you keep following the text upto 10 minutes then you will keep watching till end.A must watch video to every researcher .
@Myat-oh8iy2 жыл бұрын
Thank you for uploading such valuable lecture., Admin. Pls more videos.
@aoihana10425 жыл бұрын
This is such a useful and practical presentation for a scientific writer, especially grad students. Thank you.
@yuanhuihuang153110 жыл бұрын
This is good despite the little hiss. I will recommend.
@sheilagavin65363 жыл бұрын
Thank you Prof. Judy Swan! Great content!
@mahfuzulhaquenayeem6753 жыл бұрын
Fantastic lecturer! Thanks a lot.
@carcucov9 жыл бұрын
This is a great lecture! Congratulations!
@ahmedauwal49138 жыл бұрын
Excellent presentation. I really learnt a lot....... Thank very much Judy Swan
@RoboticEngineerAutomation3 жыл бұрын
Did anybody else notice the murmur underneath her breath at 9:40 when she loss herself on some side storry and said 'how did this get there' haha I love her already
@EddieStyle4 жыл бұрын
Very good video, very helpful, delicately presented and fun. Thank you.
@mareksajner85675 жыл бұрын
this is unbelievably exciting!
@z853c73 жыл бұрын
Video starts at 12:21
@azharoslan9 жыл бұрын
Thank you for this amazing, amazing content!!!
@medhavigulati736 Жыл бұрын
Wow! Thanks, Professor!
@mrpawan9693 жыл бұрын
This is an amazing it will help me to in my examination
@goosecouple8 жыл бұрын
She is really good
@yassersami10 жыл бұрын
I enjoy watching it again and again :)
@nikhilsen90076 жыл бұрын
The document linked is missing. Can someone please provide the document mentioned in the lecture?
@juanchavarro19463 жыл бұрын
Here, it's the pdf: techcomm1.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/swan_handout.pdf
@sirisaksirisak69814 жыл бұрын
All of fact come from rearranging,collecting,practising,acknowlaging and implementing as is to researcher.
@JH-KU3 жыл бұрын
Thank you very much for sharing this. Very useful.
@Productimothy Жыл бұрын
This was a really cool lecture. Thank you. 15:00 Do you think, perhaps, that the reader does both of these processes simultaneously?
@catharinawampol52478 жыл бұрын
*Can anyone recommend paper writing company?*
@patiencecivale18908 жыл бұрын
Ordered my essay at *essay.3al.all-about.in*. I had so much work to complete! I understood that I wouldn't be able to do it on time, and I wasted my time worrying in vain... But now I am happy that I had to overcome such a difficulty, as I have learnt a valuable lesson. Now I know how important it is to manage my time effectively and I know who to turn to in case I have any troubles in academics sphere. This site saved me out of my trouble then and they are going to do it again if I need. It is great to know that there is always a reliable helper around.
@keeperofknowledge41206 жыл бұрын
Use your mind, do not rely on other people. Otherwise, what is the point in doing research?
@AmineAmine-fk2ig6 жыл бұрын
Marketing, Marketing, Marketing.
@andrewjohnson98237 жыл бұрын
Fred really is a nice guy.
@erica.kantchev61444 жыл бұрын
"The main difference as we don't write a single author papers". No. The main difference between real scientists (in the STEM fields) and humanities and economics writers lies in that the writers in the STEM fields first have to generate the subject of their writing (unless they write secondary literature like reviews, book chapters or monographs). That is the biggest difference. I have published a single author paper in a Tier 1 Chemistry journal, Chemical Science. It is possible. The reason it is not done is not about the writing, it is because the way research enterprise is structured, the division of labour. It is very rare to find a single person driving all that goes into producing of a scientific publication, as it happened to me for that work. It is also very common one person - usually the PI save for the few "superstars" who have been bestowed the luxury of having salaried deputies that are sufficiently experienced to handle it - actually does the writing, the other authors have worked on generating the subject that is being written about. So de facto that is again a single-author paper as far as the paper proper is concerned.
@williamclark99734 жыл бұрын
That is an incredibly ignorant statement. Scholars in the social sciences and humanities generate the subject of their writing as well.
@erica.kantchev61444 жыл бұрын
@@williamclark9973 Oh wow, such a great refutation, one that is as knowledgeable and wise as it is long and detailed. Anyone who has tried to publish a paper in the STEM fields knows that there is the fundamental requirement for novelty. In STEM fields you can make a new chemical compound or material only once, formulate a law of physics only once, run a computational model at certain level of sophistication and theory on a specific system or process only once (unless there is a simultaneous and independent effort, it happens more often than people realize). Every new paper must add something new to the body of knowledge on the subject. And you must throughly disclose previous works that may threaten your claim of novelty. This is one of the most important things peer referees and editors watch out for. This is nowhere more clearly illustrated than in my own discipline of chemistry, where pretty much every synthetic paper describes compositions of matter which have never existed before in the real world, and sometimes even the researchers could not envision beforehand. Excuse me, but I do not see how disciplies (I do not call them sciences because they are not) such as economics, sociology, antropology and the like can match that. All of the above regularly offer descriptive and analytical writings on what has already been produced, in a most general sense, by humans at large. Clearly, I do not make this argument about artists, because the topic of the video is "researchers", which artists are not. The most sophisticated of humanitarian researchers run powerful statistical models on large datasets, and that's it. The datasets as a rule come from the "real world", because grant agencies would not finance works of some made up data of no societal relevance. The single author is an unintended consequence of that, because a single person could offer their thoughts a humanitarian topic in writing. The STEM fields need multiple authors because often one project involves the independent expertise of multiple researchers, and/or the labour is so demanding it would be impossible for a single person to carry it out in a reasonable time frame (grants and tenures are competitve, after all, and speed is of essence. The boss wants the manuscript submitted last month, etc etc.). The difference is that the humanitarian disciplines cannot run proper experiments. Here is an example. Economists want to study effect of interest rates on economy. A true experiment would be to create a few replicas of the human society that are isolated from each other and unaware they are being experimented on. Then the researcher like a deus-ex-machina sets the interest rate and watches how the economy responds. It is plain obvious that actual economics researchers we have today absolutely cannot do that.
@lordthanoz9 жыл бұрын
excellent lecture! I watched it many times.
@deztroyer763 жыл бұрын
I’d drop that class if I had to look at those chalkboards like that.
@solmazalizade79954 жыл бұрын
thanks for sharing this. I love it.
@sayedahmadnaweed18 жыл бұрын
it is worthy to watch the first one-hour part. but not last 20 minutes.
@sabeen.masroor Жыл бұрын
This is gold
@platovsky3 жыл бұрын
Just beautiful 💎
@mahaelah62953 жыл бұрын
this is fantastic!
@isaacchukwuma44565 жыл бұрын
Great. I learnt alot. Thank you.
@golamrasul21704 жыл бұрын
Great lecture! How can we get handout documents. The links seems is not working
@juanchavarro19463 жыл бұрын
Here, it's the pdf: techcomm1.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/swan_handout.pdf
@platovsky3 жыл бұрын
The best trick to write fluid is drinking 1 coffee whitout sugar whitout milk, and then all is functioning properly.
@dutchymcdutch25534 жыл бұрын
shame the document is no longer there
@lauramahones Жыл бұрын
In the example: "Fred is a nice guy, but he beats his dog"-- aren't the both main clauses? This is a complex sentence-- where both are full sentences with a coordinating conjunction (but)
@davidwilkie95514 жыл бұрын
Wave particle duality of words and structure.
@karlayork8776 жыл бұрын
Somebody needs to act up in class so teacher can get her blackboard cleaned! ;-)
@texastexas45413 жыл бұрын
If anyone here thinks that they will watch couple of videos or take a small course and they will turn into great writers......forget it. It takes years to hone in a set of skills that makes you a good writer. Your old habits derail you on a consistent basis. It takes years and some supervision or help from those who are not afraid to criticize you before you get better.
@davidharrison18607 жыл бұрын
As professors we were required to arrive 30 minutes early to wash our own boards... with bucket and sponge... Different culture of professors today...
@TheDonTim3 жыл бұрын
manual labor is for poor people who don't have degrees.
@MichaelDiamondMusic3 жыл бұрын
The lecture documents link is no longer active. Is it possible to get a copy? Amazing talk and content!
@juanchavarro19463 жыл бұрын
Here, it's the pdf: techcomm1.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/swan_handout.pdf
@MichaelDiamondMusic3 жыл бұрын
@@juanchavarro1946 Thank you very much!
@Mannnoloish2 жыл бұрын
Does anyone have the link to the handout?
@KoyoteHunter19849 жыл бұрын
Look at that messy blackboard!
@nutricaoanimal15019 жыл бұрын
look at that content
@RobertLisboa3 жыл бұрын
Writers “film”.
@ahmedal-mikhlafi15087 жыл бұрын
I found writing a scientific paper is very challenging and I wounder if a proof reading can be available for free.
@judhi2 жыл бұрын
The document in the link above is not accessible
@afterthesmash6 жыл бұрын
I had to try it: inserting "genocide" between subject and verb, and then further burying it by every other available means. _Always a game rooster, Bob, who had once supported genocide, back in the old days (but only for a little while), dropped to his knees in his Sunday best and prodded gently under his prized rose bush to extract an errant football for the boisterous children of the newly arrived immigrant family next door; pausing momentarily, almost imperceptibly, at grass level-as he probed to obtain a sufficiently secure overhand snout-grip on the dewy cone-to thank the Lord for the special soil nutrient which enticed his roses to bloom most rapturously._ Say what you will about Bob, he's a game rooster.
@dreznik4 жыл бұрын
why can't someone clean that blackboard?
@cxa0115004 жыл бұрын
I'm looking up how to wash chalk off a blackboard next. 😶
@saatboyraximov75862 жыл бұрын
Evening everybody I need a help with my first scientific study writing. Topic is PLANNING A SCIENTIFIC STUDY so what should I write about . about how to write a scientific study? Or not
@gfixler10 жыл бұрын
In order to write clearly, we must... wash those chalkboards! Good grief.
@lordthanoz9 жыл бұрын
LOL I was thinking exactly the same!
@Gigiaaron565 жыл бұрын
2018
@zerodayexcuse84494 жыл бұрын
Any passionate academic educator will tell you that chalk board is absolutely unacceptable.
@ianjohnson4584 жыл бұрын
First thing I thought, too. Christ almighty.
@mockingbird30994 жыл бұрын
It does distract from her lecture.
@robertoa.957410 жыл бұрын
Very good, but there is a sound like a hiss that made me give up watching in the middle.
@listentothecityorg9774 Жыл бұрын
The signboard is my brain 🌩️
@dr.ravindrar.kaikini8020 Жыл бұрын
Sorry Professor, no documents are available in the link...!!!
@giocaliguia83708 ай бұрын
Search "Judy Swan Handout" or check it here techcomm1.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/swan_handout.pdf
@shyleshsrinivasan50926 жыл бұрын
Ok. This is good !
@SHA-tx7te2 жыл бұрын
scientific writing starts with a clean board
@davidharrison18607 жыл бұрын
Judy's presentation would benefit from an edited side screen listing content and context points for the viewer to track and write notes.
@fktx35075 жыл бұрын
I wonder how much this depends on culture. Do these tips apply only to English native speakers or also to other languages?
@kokokuvat53104 жыл бұрын
German for example?
@fktx35074 жыл бұрын
@@kokokuvat5310 Exactly. I am a native speaker of German and continuously struggle with my English co-authors about the proper phrasing of such sentences.
@garcia40624 жыл бұрын
Para mi es interesante, although creo que la aplicación al castellano se dificulta
@echongkan013 жыл бұрын
what is the deal with the chalkboard for a presentation?? barely has contrast.
@cecilechau79325 ай бұрын
Structure --> substance
@thirunavukkarasuasaimuthu67992 жыл бұрын
I write research papers in core engineering
@SPYDAWMN3 жыл бұрын
As you are a teacher = here is a correction. At a CORONATION you are CROWNED. there is no such word as "coronated"
as one with OCD, the fact that she wrote, 1. 2. 3) 4) 5) is undesirable. Plot twist, Fred beat his dog in a race, not physically beat the dog.
@krissifadwa Жыл бұрын
23:38 👍
@suzi12blue Жыл бұрын
@1:10 💯
@JoJo-dj9ek4 жыл бұрын
So scientific
@manoochehrghanbari8223 жыл бұрын
Good
@afterthesmash6 жыл бұрын
12:58 It's almost impossible for me to sit still in my chair while Judy holds up academic journals as the holy grail of effective communication. Steven Pinker has been pretty loud recently in proclaiming that even he doesn't understand what his colleagues are saying much of the time-and he _is_ the prototypical expert reader within his own niche. One of the _major_ reasons graduate students don't have a better grasp of writing politics for journals is that the discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of journal prose (and there are many, many weaknesses) is not robustly discussed. The text is often compressed until _only_ an insider can fully decode its implications. What kind of a writing standard is that? There are _many_ journal articles where 25% less compression would expand the competent audience by 800% (that's my own feeling about this). Often it's just a long-cultivated norm to aid the in-group in publicly glossing over their warts: keep compressing your language until your internal laundry can only be fully witnessed by people privy to an opaque, professional code. It's a difficult writing process-for legitimate reasons-wrapped inside some ugly political machinery, supported by an omerta academic culture (supposing you hope to be promoted ever again), where the omerta culture doesn't have a clear dividing line between the the legitimate technical challenges and the legacy political hindrances, so the one domain rubs off on the other, and both suffer. Part of the reason that so much of the text is bad is that if you supply clean, efficient writing around every technical point, and then resort to thick, terrible language around all the political laundry, it really calls itself out for what it is. Better that the blended mayonnaise-kale is consistent throughout. It's a high diplomatic art to sufficiently conceal the laundry under clean diction (which is why a _few_ academic writers manage to become known for the clarity of their prose-but the secret here is the gifted application of hand-crafted mayonnaise, a time-consuming artisan hobby that only a select few type-A Heston Blumenthals bother to fully perfect). If we had an objective standard for assessing academic journals (suppose machine learning continues to improve at its current pace for another fifty years), I would hazard a guess that present day academic writing would be judged as 10-20% as efficient and effective as it could be, if we were really making the effort (and less subservient to the hindrances of academic glory). By no means in such a world would the current standard of insider-privileged journal compression be allowed to live.
@asaradhi5 жыл бұрын
I am not sure if I understand anything that you have said !
@nidakhan20253 жыл бұрын
For a negative for the 3rd sentence, I'd say - None of the four publications produced I the last funding period focus on the the specific aims in the previous proposal. V bad
@anthonyadusei86088 жыл бұрын
Judy how do I get in contact with you for further discussions.