HOME
EcologyPaper Review Session
November 2011 - January 2012

Reporter: Beni Rajarjo

(1st year PhD student, Indonesia)

 

  • Paper Review Session (PRS) is a session for supporting studentsf English organized by the NKK Laboratory, IDEC Hiroshima University. The objective is to improve studentsf skill in reading, writing and presenting scientific papers. The program is organized by and offered for students of NKK Laboratory.


Some activities during Paper Review Session

Participants
All participants were newly arrived students of our lab. They are;

      1. Beni Raharjo (PhD student; Indonesia) - Chairman
      2. Eko Prasondita (Masterfs student; Indonesia)
      3. Eny Haryati (Masterfs student; Indonesia)
      4. Muhamad Ikhsan (Masterfs student; Indonesia)
      5. Netty Mutiara (Masterfs student; Indonesia

Weekly Timetable


No

Date*

Presenters

Topics

Panelists

1.

November 1, 2011

Beni Raharjo

Class Introduction

-

2.

November 8, 2011

Ikhsan, Eko, Netty, Eny

Presentation Practice

Beni, Rachmad

3.

November 15, 2011

Eny Haryati

Succession after forest fire

Ikhsan, Netty, Eko

4.

November 22, 2011

Muhamad Ikhsan

Spatial database using RSGIS

Netty, Eko, Eny

5.

November 29, 2011

Netty Mutiara

Survey and analysis of REDD

Eko, Eny, Ikhsan

6.

December 6, 2011

Eko Prasondita

Agroforestry

Eny, Ikhsan, Netty

7.

December 13, 2011

Eny Haryati

Forest fire

Ikhsan, Netty, Eko

8.

January 17,
2012

Muhamad Ikhsan

Forest delineation

Netty, Eko, Eny

9.

January 24,
2012

Netty Mutiara

REDD

Eko, Eny, Ikhsan

10.

January 31,
2012

Eko Prasondita

Biomass estimation

Eny, Ikhsan, Netty

*All classes were conducted from 12.00 to 13.30

Activities
Each 90-minute PRS had the following outline.

  • Paper review (presentation) - 15 minutes (sessions 1 - 4)

Each participant had to review one selected paper and makes one or two page of A4 summary of his/her review. The review was divided into five parts as follows

  • objective questioning
  • method criticism
  • analysis review
  • scientific value of the paper
  • suggestion for next research based on the paper

In this part, participants acted as journal reviewers, reviewing other papers thus evaluated what were the strengths and weaknesses of the selected paper

  • Paper presentation ? 15 minutes (sessions 5 - 8)

Each participant had to present one selected paper using PowerPoint slides. In this part, participants were authors of the paper. Therefore, they needed to understand the whole structure and content of the presented paper.

  • Q&A - 30 minutes

Each period had a Question and Answer section concerning both English and the paperfs contents.

  • Discussion - 40 minutes

The chairman addressed a discussion section related with (but not limited to) the presented paper. Error corrections were also delivered during the discussion. Particular paragraphs or sentences were deeply articulated.

  • Evaluation - 5 minutes

Peer evaluation was conducted by all participants in terms of English, presentation skills and reading comprehension.

Syllabus
Each syllabi is as follow

  • Understanding main ideas

The ideas were not only the central message but also the main idea of particular paragraphs. All participants were required to be able to extract main idea of selected papers

  • Understanding research structure

The writing styles of scientific papers are not always alike. However, the general structure is similar. This syllabus helps participants to understand what an acceptable research structure is.

  • Presentation skill

Presentation is one central skill for delivering scientific messages. Participants were helped to practice their presentation skills in English.

  • Making sentences

This exercise helped participants to build scientific English sentences. The focus was on compound sentences, conjunction and the interconnection between sentences to make paragraphs flow naturally.

  • Error spotting

Participants who were not in the position of presenter helped to spot the presentationfs errors and to give suggestions.

Papers which were selected by participants

  • Secondary succession after fire in imperata cylindrical grasslands of East Kalimantan, Indonesia ? I. Yassir, J. van der Kamp, P. Buurman, 2010. (Selected by Eny)
  • Spatial database Development for greenhouse gas emission Estimation using remote sensing and GIS - Lilik Budi Prasetyo, Genya Saito, Katsuo Okamoto, Haruo Tsuruta, Ishizuka Shigehiro, Ueda Shingo, Upik Rosalina, Daniel Murdiyarso, Atiek Widayati. (Selected by Ikhsan)
  • Locating REDD: A global survey and analysis of REDD readiness and demonstration activities - Gillian A.Cerbu, Brent M.Swallow, Dara Y. Thompson, 2010. (Selected by Netty)
  • Financial and economic suitability of agroforestry as an alternative to shifting cultivation: The case of the Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh ? Golam Rasul, Gopal B. Thapa, 2006 (Selected by Eko)
  • Biomass recovery of naturally regenerated vegetation after the 1998 forest fire in East Kalimantan, Indonesia ? HIRATSUKA Motoshi, TOMA Takeshi, DIANA Rita, HADRIYANTO Deddy, MORIKAWA Yasushi, 2006? (Selected by aEny)
  • A fully automated procedure for delineation and classification of forest and non-forest vegetation based on full wave form laser scanner data ? C. Straub, H. Weinacker, B. Koch, 2008 (Selected by Ikhsan)
  • What makes a fREDDf country? - J. Phelps, M.C. Guerrero, D. A. Dalabajan, B. Young, E.L. Webb, 2010. (Selected by Netty)
  • Biomass estimation using satellite remote sensing data ? An investigation on possible approaches for natural forest ? P. S. Roy and Shirish A. Ravan, 1996. (Selected by Eko)

Evaluation

  • PRS is a very important session, supporting studentsf research.
  • PRS is significantly different to regular English classes due to its focus on using English for scientific communication.
  • All participants face common difficulties because the lacking of experience in both delivering presentations and writing in English. However, some improvements have been achieved in both English and presentation skills.
  • The overall attendance was 100%
  • The PRS needs more improvement in methodology for getting more participantsf involvement in discussions. On-the-spot sentence/paragraphs building practice is strongly recommended for the next PRS.

Testimonies

 


EcologyHOME