Academic Writing II — Editing & Feedback

Learning Objectives

By the end of this session, you will be able to:

• Design and format tables and figures to APA 7th standards — selecting the appropriate display format (table vs. figure) based on the data and the point you want to communicate, and formatting each for clarity, accuracy, and professional presentation
• Apply a systematic editing process to your own writing — progressing from structural editing (argument, organisation, completeness) through line editing (clarity, coherence, concision) to copy editing (grammar, formatting, references) — in the correct sequence
• Diagnose and fix the most common advanced writing problems in academic prose — including dangling modifiers, unclear pronoun references, subject-verb disagreement in complex sentences, and inconsistent tense within and across chapters
• Interpret, prioritise, and respond to supervisor feedback systematically — distinguishing between mandatory corrections, suggested improvements, and stylistic preferences, and developing a revision plan that addresses feedback without losing ownership of your argument
• Conduct a structured peer review of methodology and findings chapters using discipline-specific criteria — evaluating replicability, analytical rigour, and the quality of evidence-to-claim connections

Session Planner

Suggested breakdown of the 4-hour contact session.

Time	Segment	Activity	Mode
0:00–0:10	Opening	Recap Week 21; "Last week: writing as argument. This week: editing what you've written, presenting data visually, and using feedback to strengthen your work. Writing is rewriting — the first draft is raw material; the quality comes from editing."	Whole class
0:10–0:30	Lecture 1	Tables and figures in academic writing — APA 7th formatting rules; when to use a table vs. a figure; design principles (the self-sufficiency test, the 10-second test); common formatting errors in student dissertations	Lecture
0:30–0:50	Lecture 2	The three-pass editing process: structural editing → line editing → copy editing. Common advanced writing problems and their fixes. Responding to supervisor feedback — the feedback response matrix; interpreting contradictory feedback; maintaining ownership of your argument while incorporating external input.	Lecture
0:50–1:05	Activity	Table/figure makeover: given a poorly formatted table and a poorly designed figure from actual student drafts, redesign each to APA standards. Exchange — does the redesign pass the 10-second test?	Pairs
1:05–1:20	Discussion	Share redesigns; discuss the most common formatting errors and the biggest improvements; facilitator shows the "model" redesign and explains the principles applied	Whole class
1:20–1:35	Break	—	—
1:35–1:55	Feedback Workshop	Interpreting supervisor feedback — the feedback response matrix. Role-play: given a supervisor's feedback email with 8 comments (mixed mandatory/suggested/stylistic), classify each, prioritise, and draft a response. Discuss classification disagreements.	Whole class
1:55–3:25	Lab Work	Part A: Format your analysis output as APA tables and figures; Part B: Structural edit of one chapter using the three-pass method; Part C: Peer review of methodology and findings chapters	Individual/Pairs
3:25–3:50	Editing Clinic	Open troubleshooting — students raise specific writing/formatting problems; facilitator addresses common patterns; peer pairs share one editing insight each	Whole class
3:50–4:00	Exit Ticket	Submit one formatted table/figure + structural edit plan	Individual

1. Tables and Figures — Presenting Data Visually

Tables and figures are not decorations or afterthoughts — they are arguments in visual form. A well-designed table allows the reader to verify your claims against the data. A well-designed figure communicates a pattern, relationship, or comparison more efficiently than paragraphs of text. A poorly designed table or figure confuses the reader, obscures the data, and undermines confidence in your analysis. The standard for capstone tables and figures is that they should be self-sufficient: the reader should understand what is being presented, how to read it, and what the key takeaway is — without referring to the body text.

1.1 APA 7th Table Formatting — The Rules

Element	APA 7th Rule	Common Student Error
Table Number	Bold, above the table: Table 1. Numbered sequentially in order of first mention in the text (not by chapter).	Numbering restarting each chapter ("Table 3.1"); numbering not sequential; inconsistent formatting of "Table" vs. "Table."
Table Title	Italic, on the line below the number. Brief but descriptive — the reader should understand the table's content from the title alone.	Vague titles ("Regression Results"); titles that don't specify the DV, IVs, or sample; titles in bold or plain text rather than italic.
Column Headings	Brief, clear, with units where applicable. Only the first word and proper nouns capitalised. Standard abbreviations acceptable if defined in a note.	Overly abbreviated headings ("Sat."); headings without units; inconsistent capitalisation; vertical text (avoid — it is hard to read).
Table Body	Horizontal lines only: above and below the header, and below the body (before notes). NO vertical lines. NO horizontal lines between data rows (APA allows them sparingly for clarity — but the default is no internal lines).	Gridlines on every row and column (the Excel default); vertical lines; shaded or coloured rows; inconsistent decimal places.
Numbers	Consistent decimal places (usually 2 for statistics, 2–3 for p-values). Report p-values to 2–3 decimals (p = .032), not as inequalities (p < .05) unless below .001. Report exact p-values — the software gives them; use them.	Inconsistent decimals (some 2, some 3, some 4); reporting p as .000 (should be p < .001); using asterisks without defining them in the note.
Table Notes	Three types, in order: General note (explains the table overall — definitions, N, "M = mean, SD = standard deviation"). Specific note (refers to a specific column, row, or cell — indicated by superscript letters a, b, c). Probability note (defines asterisks: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001).	Missing notes entirely; notes that don't define abbreviations; asterisks in the table body without probability note; using * for p < .05 without defining it.

1.2 The 10-Second Test for Tables and Figures

Show your table or figure to a peer for 10 seconds. Take it away. Ask: "What was the main point?" If they cannot answer, the table or figure has failed. A well-designed visual communication tells the reader what to see within seconds. Apply this test to every table and figure in your dissertation. Those that fail need redesign.

1.3 Figures — Design Principles for Academic Graphics

Principle	What It Means	Good Practice
Choose the right chart type	Bar charts for comparisons across categories; line charts for trends over time; scatter plots for relationships between continuous variables; box plots for distributions across groups. Pie charts are almost never appropriate in academic writing — bar charts convey the same information more accurately.	Before creating a figure, write one sentence: "This figure shows that [claim]." Then choose the chart type that best supports that claim.
Label everything	Axes must be labelled with the variable name and units. Legends must be clear. Every element the reader needs to interpret the figure must be visible on the figure itself — not buried in the caption or the body text.	Axis labels: "Job Satisfaction (1–5 Likert Scale)" — not "Satisfaction." Legend entries should use the construct names from your study, not variable codes.
Minimise chart junk	Remove everything that does not directly support interpretation: 3D effects (distort perception), gridlines (usually unnecessary), decorative backgrounds, excessive colour. Every visual element that does not communicate data is noise.	Default to greyscale or a simple colour palette. If using colour, ensure it is distinguishable when printed in black and white (most dissertations are read in print). Test: print your figure on a black-and-white printer. Can you still interpret it?
Use captions effectively	APA figure captions go BELOW the figure. Figure number in bold: Figure 1. Caption in plain text, briefly describing the figure. Unlike tables, APA figure captions serve as the title.	"Figure 1 Interaction Effect of Autonomy and Organisational Support on Job Satisfaction" — The caption should tell the reader what they are looking at.

2. The Editing Process — Structural, Line, and Copy

Editing is not proofreading. Proofreading is the final check for typos and formatting errors — it comes last. Editing is the substantive work of improving the argument, organisation, clarity, and precision of your prose. The three-pass editing process applies editing at the correct level of granularity, in the correct sequence. The most common editing error is to start with copy editing (fixing commas) before structural editing (fixing the argument) — resulting in beautifully punctuated prose that makes no sense.

2.1 The Three-Pass Editing Process

Pass	Focus	Questions to Ask	Typical Issues Found	Time per Chapter
Pass 1: Structural Editing	Argument, organisation, completeness	Does this chapter make a clear argument? Are the sections in the right order? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant? Does each section advance the chapter's argument? Would the reader finish this chapter knowing what it argued?	Missing sections; redundant sections; sections in illogical order; argument unclear or absent; key evidence not presented; chapter doesn't connect to RQs	60–90 min
Pass 2: Line Editing	Clarity, coherence, concision at the paragraph and sentence level	Does each paragraph have a clear topic sentence? Do sentences flow logically? Are there nominalisations to hunt? Are there hedge thickets to prune? Is the researcher's voice present in the commentary? Are quotes integrated into the narrative?	Topic drift; nominalisation overload; hedge thickets; missing warrants; weak transitions between paragraphs; quotes dropped in without introduction or commentary; passive voice where active would be stronger	90–120 min
Pass 3: Copy Editing	Grammar, spelling, punctuation, formatting, references	Are there typos? Subject-verb agreement? Consistent tense within and across chapters? APA formatting applied correctly to all elements? Reference list consistent and complete?	Typos; grammar errors; inconsistent tense (future → past); APA formatting errors; reference inconsistencies; inconsistent heading styles; missing page numbers	45–60 min

2.2 Advanced Writing Problems — Diagnosis and Remedy

Problem	Example	Why It's Confusing	Fix
Dangling Modifier	"After analysing the survey data, the results showed a significant effect." — Who analysed the data? The results didn't analyse themselves.	The modifying phrase ("After analysing...") has no subject to attach to — the implied subject (the researcher) is missing, and the grammatical subject ("the results") can't perform the action.	Name the actor: "After analysing the survey data, I found a significant effect." Or restructure: "Analysis of the survey data revealed a significant effect."
Unclear Pronoun Reference	"Managers and employees often disagree about performance evaluations. They believe this is due to differing expectations." — Who is "they"? Managers? Employees? Both? And what does "this" refer to?	Pronouns (they, this, it, these) must have a clear antecedent — the noun they replace. When the antecedent is ambiguous, the reader must guess what you mean. "This" is the most common unclear pronoun in academic writing.	Replace the pronoun with the specific noun: "Managers and employees often disagree about performance evaluations. Employees believe this disagreement results from differing expectations about what constitutes good performance."
Inconsistent Tense	"The study employed a survey design. Participants complete the questionnaire online. Data will be analysed using regression. The results showed a significant effect." — Past, present, future, past — four tenses in four sentences.	Tense inconsistency disorients the reader. The methodology and results chapters describe completed actions — use PAST tense. The discussion chapter interprets findings — use PRESENT tense for your interpretations, PAST for your findings.	Methodology/Results: CONSISTENT past tense. "The study employed a survey design. Participants completed the questionnaire online. Data were analysed using regression. The results showed..." Discussion: "The findings suggest (present) that autonomy is important. This study found (past) that autonomy predicted satisfaction."

3. Responding to Supervisor Feedback — The Feedback Response Matrix

Receiving critical feedback on your writing can be emotionally challenging — you have invested months in this work, and criticism can feel personal. But feedback is the most powerful tool for improving your dissertation. The key is to systematise your response: interpret the feedback accurately, classify it by type and priority, decide what to act on and what to negotiate, and implement changes systematically. The feedback response matrix transforms an emotional experience into a professional process.

3.1 Classifying Supervisor Feedback

Feedback Type	Example	Required Response	Your Decision Authority
Mandatory Correction	"Your regression table reports standardised betas, but the text discusses unstandardised coefficients. These must be consistent." "You claim n = 187 in the text but the table shows n = 175."	Fix it. There is no judgement call — a factual error or inconsistency must be corrected. Do this first, before addressing any other feedback.	None — you must correct the error. You may choose HOW to correct it (which number is correct, whether to report both coefficients), but the inconsistency must be resolved.
Suggested Improvement	"Your discussion of RQ2 would benefit from connecting your findings more explicitly to the theoretical framework you developed in Chapter 2. Currently, the link is implicit." "Consider adding a limitations subsection on common method bias — your data is all self-report."	Evaluate the suggestion on its merits. If it strengthens the dissertation (most supervisor suggestions will), implement it. If you have a reasoned objection, discuss it with your supervisor. Do not ignore it.	You have decision authority, but you should discuss your reasoning if you choose not to implement. "I considered adding a common method bias section, but my study uses multiple data sources (survey + archival performance data), which partially mitigates this concern. I've added a brief note to this effect in the limitations."
Stylistic Preference	"I would write this more concisely." "I prefer the term 'participants' rather than 'respondents' for this type of study." "These three short paragraphs could be combined into one."	Apply your judgement. If the suggestion improves clarity or consistency, adopt it. If it is genuinely a matter of style with no impact on clarity, you may respectfully maintain your own voice. Consistency matters more than which specific stylistic choice you make.	Yours — you are the author. Academic writing should have a consistent voice. If your supervisor's stylistic preference differs from yours, a conversation may help: "I've kept 'respondents' because the literature in my field uses this term for survey participants. Would you prefer I switch to 'participants' for consistency with the rest of the dissertation?"

3.2 Handling Contradictory Feedback

If your supervisor says "expand this section" and a peer reviewer says "this section is too long," or if two committee members give opposing suggestions, do not try to satisfy both simultaneously — you will produce a compromised document that satisfies neither. Instead:

1. Identify the underlying concern behind each comment. "Expand this section" may mean "I don't understand your argument — you need more explanation." "This section is too long" may mean "I understand your argument but the writing is repetitive." These are not contradictory — they are identifying different problems (insufficient clarity vs. excessive repetition).
2. Prioritise the supervisor over peers for mandatory corrections; prioritise the most expert reader for domain-specific suggestions.
3. If genuinely contradictory (one says "use regression," another says "use ANOVA"), discuss with your supervisor. Explain the contradiction and ask for guidance on resolving it. This is a legitimate use of supervision — you are not expected to adjudicate between conflicting expert opinions alone.

3.3 The Feedback Response Cover Note

When resubmitting revised work, always include a cover note (in the email body or as a separate document) summarising how you addressed each piece of feedback. This demonstrates professionalism and ensures that your supervisor can see that you engaged with their comments systematically.

4. Peer Review — Methodology and Findings Chapters

Peer review is not a formality — it is a simulation of the evaluation process. A peer who reads your methodology chapter and cannot understand how you selected your sample, or reads your findings chapter and cannot connect the results to the RQs, is identifying exactly the problems the evaluation committee will identify. Better a peer at Week 22 than the committee at Week 30.

4.1 Methodology Chapter Peer Review Criteria

Criterion	Question	Rating (1–5)
Replicability	Could another researcher replicate this study from the description provided? Is every element (design, sample, instruments, procedures, analysis) described in sufficient detail?
Methodology-Actual Consistency	Does the chapter describe what was ACTUALLY done (not what was planned)? Are deviations from the proposal documented and justified?
RQ-Method Alignment	Is there a clear line from each RQ to the specific data and analysis that address it? Can the reader trace how each RQ will be (or was) answered?
Justification Quality	Are methodological choices justified (not just described)? For each major decision: is there a reason grounded in the RQs, the literature, or practical constraints?

4.2 Findings Chapter Peer Review Criteria

Criterion	Question	Rating (1–5)
RQ Organisation	Is the chapter organised around the RQs (or themes that map to RQs)? Can the reader easily locate the findings for each RQ?
Evidence Quality	Are findings supported by appropriate evidence? QUAN: are statistics correctly reported? QUAL: are themes supported by rich quotes? MM: are joint displays present and integrated?
Researcher Voice	Does the researcher's analytic voice lead the chapter, or is it a collection of output and quotes? Is there sufficient commentary connecting evidence to RQs?
Transparency	Are limitations of the analysis acknowledged? Are non-significant or contradictory findings reported alongside significant ones?

Think Deeper — Cross Questions

Discuss in pairs before sharing with the class.

Quick Check — Editing Diagnosis

Diagnose the problem with each table, figure, or editing approach.

Knowledge Check — Interactive Quiz

Test your understanding of editing, tables/figures, and responding to feedback.

Lab Activity — Editing and Peer Review Workshop

Part A: Format Your Tables and Figures (45 min)

1. Take one analysis output from your results/findings (correlation matrix, regression table, thematic map, model comparison table). Format it to APA 7th standards following the rules in Section 1.1.
2. Apply the 10-second test with a partner. Redesign if it fails.
3. Create or refine at least one figure for your findings. Apply the design principles (Section 1.3).

Part B: Structural Edit of One Chapter (60 min)

Select one chapter (recommendation: Chapter 3 or Chapter 4). Apply Pass 1 (Structural Editing) ONLY. Do not fix a single typo, comma, or sentence-level issue. Focus exclusively on: argument clarity, section organisation, completeness, and connection to RQs. Complete the structural edit checklist:

Part C: Peer Review of Methodology and Findings Chapters (45 min)

Exchange your Chapter 3 (Methodology) or Chapter 4 (Findings) with a partner. Complete the peer review criteria (Section 4.1 or 4.2). Provide written feedback. Focus on the criteria most relevant to the chapter type.

Exit Ticket

Submit with your formatted table/figure and structural edit notes.

Key Takeaways — Week 22