Writing together · 协作写作
| English | 中文 | Pinyin · 拼音 |
|---|---|---|
| cloud document/klaʊd ˈdɒkjuːmənt/ | 云端文档 | yún duān wén dàng |
| style/staɪl/ | 文体 | wén tǐ |
| comments/ˈkɒments/ | 批注 | pī zhù |
| suggestions/səˈdʒestʃnz/ | 建议模式 | jiàn yì mó shì |
| version history/ˈvɜːʃn ˈhɪstəri/ | 版本历史 | bǎn běn lì shǐ |
Two people changed the same conclusion
- Mei changes the final figure while Arun explains the old figure. A shared file alone has not made their report consistent.
- A cloud document 云端文档 gives the team a shared working copy. Agree how edits, reviews and the final version will be managed.
两人得出了相同的结论
- Mei修改了最终数据，而Arun解释了旧数据。仅有共享文件并不能使他们的报告保持一致。
- Cloud document 云端文档为团队提供了一份共享的工作副本。需商定如何管理编辑、审阅及最终版本。
Agree an outline and a reviewer
- Split the report into sections with a named writer, a review partner and a deadline. Agree style 文体: spelling, terminology and tense appropriate to each section.
- Link each conclusion to the evidence section it uses. Writing sections separately is useful, but the team must review the joins.
确定大纲与审阅人
- 将报告分为若干部分，每部分指定一名作者、一名审阅搭档及截止日期。商定style 文体：拼写、术语和时态需符合各部分的要求。
- 将每个结论与其所引用的证据部分相链接。分块写作虽有用，但团队必须对衔接处进行整体审阅。
Two teammates must produce one report. Which plan best supports a consistent final draft? · 两名队友必须共同完成一份报告。哪项计划最能确保最终草稿的一致性？
Section ownership clarifies responsibility; review of the joins checks that claims and evidence agree. · 明确各部分的所有权以厘清责任；交叉审查连接处可核查主张与证据是否一致。
Make the disagreement easy to resolve
- Comments 批注 ask a question or explain a problem. Suggestions 建议模式 propose a visible edit that can be accepted or rejected where the tool supports it.
- Name the location and reason: “In paragraph 2, does ‘it’ mean the survey or the database?” Agree when direct edits are appropriate, such as fixing a typo.
Original: “It improved by 12.” Useful comment: “What improved, and is 12 a count or a percentage?” The writer checks the data before revising the claim.
使分歧易于解决
- 批注 提问或解释问题。建议模式 提出可见的编辑，若工具支持，可接受或拒绝。
- 注明位置和原因：“在段落 2 中，‘它’是指调查还是数据库？”当直接编辑合适时（如修正拼写错误）达成一致。
原文：“它提升了 12。”有用的评论：“什么提升了，且 12 是计数还是百分比？”作者在修改主张前核实数据。
A sentence says “It improved by 12.” Which comment helps the writer check it? · 某句写道“提升了12”。哪条评论能帮助作者核实该表述？
The first comment identifies two specific information gaps without judging the person. · 首条评论指出了两个具体的信息缺失，但未评价当事人。
A teammate writes “The new system is better.” Write a useful review comment. · 队友写道“新系统更好”。请写一条有建设性的评审意见。
Example: “Better than which system, and what measure in our data supports that comparison?” · 示例：“比哪个系统更好？我们数据中的哪项指标支持这一比较？”
Use history as one piece of evidence
- Version history 版本历史 can help identify edits and recover earlier work. Save a named checkpoint before a major revision if your tool supports it.
- History does not capture every contribution. Keep a short task log for research, discussion and offline drafts, and agree how offline work will be merged.
One late paste does not prove that a student did no work. Explain the contribution with drafts and task records. Before restoring an old version, protect newer contributions and tell the team.
将历史作为证据之一
- 版本历史 有助于识别编辑并恢复早期工作。若工具支持，在重大修订前保存命名检查点。
- 历史记录无法捕捉所有贡献。为研究、讨论和离线草稿保留简短的任务日志，并就如何合并离线工作达成一致。
一次晚提交的粘贴不能证明学生未付出努力。通过草稿和任务记录说明贡献。在恢复旧版本前，保护新贡献并告知团队。
A single late paste proves that its author did no earlier work. · 单次迟到的粘贴行为并不能证明作者此前未做任何工作。
Offline drafts and research may precede the paste. Use task records, drafts and discussion alongside history. · 离线草稿与研究可能早于粘贴操作。应结合任务记录、草稿及讨论内容来综合查阅历史记录。
A paragraph was deleted after other teammates added new work. What is the safest first response? · 其他团队成员添加新内容后，某段落被删除。最稳妥的首要应对措施是什么？
Whole-version restoration may remove newer contributions. Identify the missing content and agree how to recover it. · 恢复整个旧版本可能会覆盖较新的贡献。请识别缺失的内容并协商如何恢复。
Give each person the access they need
- Writers need editing access; reviewers may need commenting access; a reader may need viewing access only. Avoid a public editing link for private work.
- Test the final link with the intended reader's permissions. Check the brief for the required format and keep a backup export if appropriate.
赋予每人所需权限
- 作者需要编辑权限；审阅者可能需要批注权限；读者可能仅需查看权限。避免使用公开编辑链接处理私密内容。
- 使用预期读者的权限测试最终链接。根据任务要求确认格式，并在适当时保留备份导出文件。
Match each role to the least access needed for its stated task. · 将每个角色与其所声明任务所需的最小权限相匹配。
Choose permissions by task. A reader does not need a public editing link. · 根据任务选择权限。读者无需公开编辑链接即可访问。
Finish with a cross-check
- One reviewer checks totals, citations, wording and section links; each writer confirms any change to their evidence or meaning.
- For your next group report, produce an outline, a responsibility table, one resolved comment and a checked final link.
A shared copy needs shared rules: ownership, review, access and a final checkpoint. Judge contributions using evidence from the whole process.
Tool guidance: Google Docs version history and suggested edits.
以交叉核对结束
- 一位审阅者核对总数、引用、措辞和章节链接；每位作者确认对其证据或含义的任何更改。
- 对于下一个小组报告，制作大纲、责任表、一个已解决的评论和一个核查过的最终链接。
共享副本需要共享规则：所有权、审阅、访问权限和最终检查点。利用整个过程的证据评估贡献。
工具指南：Google Docs 版本历史 和 建议编辑。
Which belong in a final cross-check? Select all that apply. · 哪些属于最终交叉检查的范畴？请选择所有适用项。
Correct evidence, consistent language and working access matter; a filename is not proof of final review. · 准确无误的证据、一致的语言和可正常访问的内容至关重要；文件名不能作为最终审核完成的证明。
For this workflow, arrange the main stages before submission. · 针对此工作流程，请在提交前安排主要阶段。
Drafting follows the outline; cross-review needs a draft; final confirmation follows review. · 起草需遵循大纲；交叉评审需要草稿；最终确认在评审之后进行。