Ali Fitzpatrick

July 16, 2014

Clinical Practicum II

Service Learning: RTOW Student Paper Competition
Each year, Radiation Therapists of Wisconsin (RTOW) holds a paper competition
for radiation therapy student members to enter. Judges are professional members of the
organization who do not have any radiation therapy students at their clinic or hospital, and
who volunteer to read an average of 20 research papers and rate them using a rubric with
several different criteria in areas of composition, content and scholarship. First, second
and third place papers receive a monetary award and are required to create a presentation
for the RTOW website.
I was initially approached to be a student paper judge at the RTOW meeting in the
spring of 2014. I agreed and received the rubric and rules for the scoring of papers in the
beginning of May. Throughout the month, I received 16 research papers from student
members around the state of Wisconsin, all identified by title, not by author name or
institution. It was my responsibility to score each paper using the guided rubric on areas
including paper completeness, purpose, development and content, insight, quality of
writing, organization, writing and grammar mechanics, and analysis of research material.
Each paper was allowed a possible maximum score of 36 points.
The topics of papers varied widely, and included subjects regarding pediatric proton
treatments, online support groups for patients, intraoperative radiation techniques,
antioxidant use throughout radiation therapy treatment, ASTROs guidelines for the
Choosing Wisely Campaign and an exploration of treatment set-ups for craniospinal
irradiation, prone breast, SBRT lung, and total body irradiation. Other topics explored the
use of radium-223 for metastatic prostate disease, PCI for SCLC and ALL, and
occupational cytotoxic exposure risk for radiation therapists. Although some topics were
repeated among students, each paper was distinctively written and chose to focus on
slightly different aspects of radiation oncology.
As I reflect upon this experience, I realize that I enjoyed reading every paper. As a
student who is currently working on a similar project, I felt like I had a different
perspective than many of the other judges may have had. I noticed myself picking out
citation errors within papers, which is something I never could have done before this
medical dosimetry program! I could understand how much effort was placed into each
paper, and grading the work of other students really helped me when I was writing my own
first draft of my comprehensive case study.
I was honored to be asked to be part of the judging panel this year, and I think if
asked next year, I will participate once again. Reading the work of other students and
professionals helps me reflect on my own work as a student, and opens many questions for
myself to address throughout my own writing process. I think this volunteer opportunity
allowed me to help other students through constructive feedback, as well as encourage
myself to continue to write effectively and concisely.


























RTOW
ESSAY COMPETITION RULES AND REGULATIONS

I. Awards

A. Therapist Category

First Place $150
Second Place $100
Third Place $50
B. Student Category

First Place $150
Second Place $100
Third Place $75
II. Eligibility
Therapists/students must be an active member or the RTOW. Students must be enrolled in
an accredited Radiation Therapy School as of the date of submission.
(Elected officers of the RTOW are not eligible.)
III. Manuscripts
All manuscripts must be original and submitted by one author. Student manuscripts can be
previously published or submitted in competition to an organization other than the RTOW.
The manuscript must have a clearly identifiable abstract, introduction, discussion, and
conclusion.
ASRT professional paper submission guidelines are recommended.
A complete bibliography/reference list should be included that reflects current research and
information.
Footnotes/endnotes must conform to an accepted style (See the professional journals for
examples.)
Essays must be typewritten on 81/2 "by 11" paper, double-spaced with wide margins.
Length should be appropriate to cover the chosen topic but should not exceed 15 pages.
Student papers are required to be a minimum of 10 pages in length.
Any paper that can be identified as to author, school, or hospital will be rejected.
IV. Guidelines for Illustrations
Illustrations and visual materials should be pertinent and contribute to the manuscript.
Charts, diagrams and illustrations must be clearly labeled with a suitable legend and numbered to
correspond with information in the text.
Illustrations shall not carry any identification of author, place, or person. Faces of individuals
appearing in photos that could lead to identification shall be blocked out.
V. Judges
Three judges as appointed by the president of the RTOW or education committee will evaluate
essays.
Judges will be emailed unidentified copies of the submitted manuscripts.
All decisions of the judges are final.
VI. Judging Criteria
See attached writing evaluation form regarding criteria areas of composition, content, and
scholarship.
VII. Deadline and submission of essays for competition
A. One electronic copy of the manuscript and illustrations must be submitted to the designated
RTOW member no later than May 16.
B. The copy must have no identification of author, program or institution.
C. A completed application form must accompany the manuscript.
D. Each author submitting a manuscript will be required to agree that she/he will create a
presentation for the RTOW website.













RTOW Rubric for Final Paper 2013
Paper Name:

Scoring 4 3 2 1

Criterion Score

Paper
Completeness
Introduces and
presents paper
effectively and clearly
Introduces and
presents paper
adequately
Introduces
and presents
paper
somewhat
effectively
Introduces and
presents paper
poorly

Purpose Purpose is readily
apparent to the
reader
Purpose is not
consistently
clear throughout
the paper
Writing has a
clear purpose
but may
sometimes
digress from it
Purpose is
generally
unclear

Development
and content
Develops paper with
exceptional care,
including all topics
assigned in a
seamless manner;
provides a balanced
presentation of
relevant information
and shows a
thoughtful, in-depth
analysis of the topics;
reader gains insights
Develops paper
as assigned,
including a full
discussion of
each topic
assigned;
information
displays a clear
analysis of the
significant topics;
reader gains
some insights
Does not fully
develop paper
as assigned
and may
ignore one of
the three
major issues
or treat it in a
cursory
manner;
analysis is
basic or
general;
reader gains
few insights
Paper is
undeveloped;
paper does not
relate to the
assignment and
includes very
little discussion
of the issues
discussed in the
course; analysis
is vague or not
evident; reader
is confused or
may be
misinformed

Insight Ideas are supported
effectively; writer
shows clear evidence
of having understood
and synthesized
course concepts
Application to
the event may
be incomplete
There is no
evidence that
the writer has
read the
assigned texts
or understood
the concepts

Quality of
Writing
The application of
concepts to the event
chosen is exceptional
Ideas are
generally
supported; writer
shows evidence
of having read,
understood, and
correctly applied
the course
concepts to the
event chosen
Many ideas
are
unsupported
and it may not
be clear
whether the
writer has
understood or
synthesized
the concepts
Writing is
incoherent and
shows little or
no insight

Organization
1
Arranges ideas
clearly and logically
to support the
purpose or argument
Arranges ideas
adequately to
support the
purpose or
argument
Arranges
ideas
adequately
Arranges ideas
illogically; ideas
frequently fail to
make sense
together

Organization
2
Ideas flow smoothly
and are effectively
linked; reader can
follow the line of
reasoning
Links between
ideas are
generally clear;
reader can follow
the line of
reasoning for the
most part
Although
ideas
sometimes fail
to make sense
together;
reader
remains fairly
clear about
what writer
intends
Reader cannot
identify a line of
reasoning and
becomes
frustrated or
loses interest

Writing &
Grammer
Mechanics
Writing demonstrates
a sophisticated
clarity, conciseness,
and correctness
Writing is
accomplished in
terms of clarity
and conciseness
and contains
only a few errors
Writing lacks
clarity or
conciseness
and contains
numerous
errors
Writing is
unfocused,
rambling, or
contains
serious errors

Analysis of
researched
material
Depth of analysis of
researched material
is complete.
Depth of
analysis of 75%
of researched
material is
complete.
Depth of
analysis of
50% of
researched
material is
complete.
Depth of
analysis of less
than 50%
researched
material is not
complete.

Total Score

Comments: