Abstract Analysis and Revision Assignment Using MS Word Readability Statistics

Article Sidebar

HTML PDF Ford Assignment (PDF)
Published: Feb 19, 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.31719/pjaw.v2i1.20

Main Article Content

Julie Dyke Ford
New Mexico Tech

Abstract

In teaching technical writing for nearly 20 years, I have recognized the importance of including writing assignments focused on improving students' clarity and effectiveness at the sentence level. I present a writing assignment for STEM students ranging from freshman to graduate-level. Students first find a published abstract in their discipline and then use readability tools to analyze the abstract's style. They revise the abstract for better readability while maintaining professional tone. This assignment reinforces research skills, audience awareness, and reflection on sentence-level stylistic choices.

Article Details

How to Cite
Ford, J. D. (2018). Abstract Analysis and Revision Assignment Using MS Word Readability Statistics. Prompt: A Journal of Academic Writing Assignments, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.31719/pjaw.v2i1.20
Issue
Vol. 2 No. 1 (2018)
Section
Articles

Prompt endorses the open-access publishing model which maximizes access to information. Authors retain copyright of their published work. Reuse of work published in Prompt must include clear attribution to the original text and be for non-commercial purposes, as specified by Creative Commons BY-NC.

References

Beaglehole, V. J., & Yates, G. (2010). The full stop effect: Using readability statistics with young writers. Journal of Literacy and Technology, 11(4), 53–82.

Bitzer, L. F. (1968). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 1(1), 1–14.

Boettger, R. K., & Wulff, S. (2014). The naked truth about the naked this: Investigating grammatical prescriptivism in technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 23(2), 115–140. http://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2013.803919

CCCC. (2009). Writing assessment: A position statement. Retrieved July 1, 2017, from http://cccc.ncte.org/cccc/resources/positions/writingassessment

Crossley, S. A., Greenfield, J., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Assessing text readability using cognitively based indices. TESOL Quarterly, 42(3), 475–493.

Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne Jr, R. P., Rogers, R. L., & Chissom, B. S. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count and flesch reading ease formula) for navy enlisted personnel. Millington, TN: Naval Technical Training Command Millington TN Research Branch.

Knievel, M., Heaney, A., & Van Baalen-Wood, M. (2010). Breaking the rules: Teaching grammar “wrong†for the right results in technical communication consulting for engineers. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 53(1), 46–57. http://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2009.2038738

McClure, G. M. (1987). Readability formulas: Useful or useless? IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 30(1), 12–15.

NCTE. (1985). NCTE resolution on grammar exercises to teach speaking and writing. Retrieved July 1, 2017, from http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/grammarexercises

NCTE. (2002). NCTE guidelines on grammar. Retrieved July 1, 2017, from http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/qandaaboutgrammar

Northey, M., & Jewinski, J. (2016). Making sense in engineering and the technical sciences: A student’s guide to research and writing. New York and London: Oxford University Press.

Schwartz, H. J. (1980). Teaching stylistic simplicity with a computerized readability formula. Presented at the International Meeting of the American Business Communication Association, Washington, DC.

Wolfe, J. (2014). Disciplining grammar: A response to Daniel Cole. The WAC Journal, 25, 36–41.