c.ymcdn.comc.ymcdn.com/.../student_writing_fipse_produ.docx · web view... which focuses on...
TRANSCRIPT
Graduate Student Writing 1
Supporting the Development of Doctoral Student Writing:A Review of the Literature
and accompanying resources
Alisa Belzer, PhDRutgers University
with assistance from
Martin Reardon, PhDEast Carolina University
Chris Ray, PhDNorth Dakota State University
Graduate Student Writing 2
The importance of being (or learning to become) an effective writer in graduate school,
especially among doctoral students, probably cannot be overstated. Writing is generally the
primary medium for demonstrating knowledge and expertise, and therefore plays a key role in
assessing learning. It is also associated with functioning appropriately and successfully on the
professional level after graduation (Ondrusek, 2012). However, there is frequent
acknowledgement, through faculty report, that graduate students struggle with writing (Switzer
& Perdue, 2011). Mullen (2001) finds that most graduate students would concur; they report that
writing is difficult for them. The cost of these difficulties is considerable. Poor writing abilities
in graduate school are associated with delayed or decreased graduation rates (Aitchison & Lee,
2006; Casanave & Hubbard, 1992; Lee & Aitchison, 2009; Ondrusek, 2012; Switzer & Perdue,
2011) making attention to this issue of great importance. When placed against a backdrop of
increasing demands for accountability regarding time to completion and graduation rates
(Aitchison & Lee, 2006; Lee & Aitchison, 2009; Skillen & Purser, 2003), the need to attend to
the development of graduate student writing skills is imperative.
Faculty who teach in EdD programs may want to assume that students know how to write
by the time they get to graduate school. However, the expectations for writing in graduate
school are often quite different than those for undergraduates in terms of complexity, detail, and
specialization (Koncel & Carney, 1992; Lavelle & Bushrow, 2007), or for what they need to do
to function successfully in their day to day work lives as professionals. Additionally, Bloom
(1981) argues that graduate students are different from undergraduates. They are older, more
mature, usually working harder and for longer hours at jobs, and they face a “mixture of
dependence and independence, freedom and responsibility [which] create tensions and problems
Graduate Student Writing 3
particular to their writing that are far more common among graduate students than
undergraduates” (p. 103-104). This means that helping graduate students develop their writing
skills may be less about remediation and more about helping them step into new writing
identities (Ivanic, 1998; Sallee, Hallett, & Tierney, 2011). Yet focus on this aspect of graduate
education is often scant. Writing difficulties often go unattended to, and when they are
addressed, for example by a dissertation supervisor who painstakingly works with the student to
revise and edit drafts, it may be too little or too late (Switzer & Perdue, 2011). Maher, et al.
(2008) observe, ironically, that many programs take it as an obvious responsibility to train
students to do research, but neglect to make sure they can effectively write about their findings
when they have completed their research. Instead, many students are left to learn on their own
by trial and error, by observation, and sometimes by trying to get help from dissertation advisors
who may not be well equipped to teach writing and may not have the time to help (Lee &
Aitchison, 2009). Depending on the dissertation chair to address writing difficulties can
significantly slow the dissertation process and be especially problematic in programs with
accelerated timelines typical of CPED-influenced EdD programs.
Wellington (Wellington, 2010) asserts that graduate programs must take the writing issue
on explicitly and directly, warning that if they do not address it, student writing is unlikely to
improve. Yet, Kamler and Thomson (2008) observe that, although of central importance, writing
is rarely systematically taught. This paper reviews the literature on this topic in the hopes that it
can assist CPED-influenced EdD programs respond to Wellington’s warning. In particular, I
argue that we should not depend on the dissertation chair to teach writing--often a painstaking,
time consuming, and frustrating experience for both the student and the chair--when we want our
students to complete their dissertations in a timely way and focus on doing impactful work rather
Graduate Student Writing 4
than on developing their communication skills at the 11th hour. Because “the development of
writing and research skills involves a long-term process (Maleny, 1999). Mullen (2001)
recommends that it be initiated when students first start in doctoral programs. Wellington (2010)
argues that a multipronged effort is warranted—an effort which includes substantive feedback
from instructors, writing workshops, and exhorting students to make conscious efforts to
improve.
I argue here for the importance and efficacy of embedding efforts to support the
development of graduate student writing in course work. Although I discuss more traditional
solutions such as requiring students to take writing courses (or making academic writing the
focus of a required professional seminar or other stand-alone course) or offering workshops or
peer writing groups, the literature suggests that these are only partial solutions. Writing courses
and workshops may be decontextualized and generic making it difficult for students to benefit
from them. Additionally, the working professionals that tend to populate CPED-influenced EdD
programs may have little time to participate in anything beyond coursework. Their identities as
successful and driven professionals may also work against their seeing themselves as in need of
help. Koncel and Carney (1992) underline this situation by reporting that students whom they
studied did not choose to take advantage of voluntary writing supports either because they did
not feel they needed them or did not feel they had the time to use such supports. Supporting the
development of graduate student writing is a pedagogical problem which should not be separated
from increasing content knowledge and skills. Therefore, it should be treated as a critical
element of graduate education (Aitchison & Lee, 2006).
This review of research literature focuses in particular on writing support that is
embedded and contextualized by incorporating it as an ongoing aspect of coursework. For this
Graduate Student Writing 5
reason, this review excluded literature on the pedagogy of dissertation mentoring or writing for
publication. It also generally excluded research which falls under the topic “writing for
academic purposes”, which focuses on non-native English speakers, unless the research seemed
relevant to all learners. On the assumption that graduate student writing tasks, the graduate
school context, and graduate students themselves are different from undergraduates and
undergraduate education, this review also excluded literature on the vast body of research on
undergraduate writing support. Although the literature on undergraduate writing support is
replete with many teaching strategies that could translate to a graduate school setting, that which
is most relevant is often also introduced in “how-to” and “instructional tip” type texts intended
for graduate students and instructors. In other words, material aimed at undergraduates but
useful to graduate students is often replicated in literature included in the search criteria.
The purpose of this literature review is to describe broadly the strategies for supporting
graduate student writing and to make an argument for doing so not only in isolated workshops
and free standing required or optional writing courses, but in the context of course work. While
specific strategies are discussed, this is less of a “how-to” than an attempt to direct faculty
thought and effort toward working explicitly on improving student writing from the first class of
the EdD program to the end. This paper is intended also to raise institutional awareness of the
benefits associated with smoothing doctoral students’ paths to graduation, and more fully
preparing them to communicate their findings effectively and in ways that can increase the
impact of their work well beyond their graduate school experiences.
Theoretical Framework
A socio-cultural view of writing, which emerges from New Literacy Studies theorists
(Street, 1984), suggests that the writing that doctoral students must learn how to do is distinct
Graduate Student Writing 6
from all other writing tasks they have thus far encountered (and hopefully mastered) in school.
This view rejects the notion that literacy consists of a static set of skills that is learned once and
done, albeit applied to increasingly complex tasks. Instead, the assumption is that the parameters
of all literacy tasks, and thus what constitutes competence, are shaped by purpose, audience, and
social contexts. When applied to academic writing, scholars can be seen as participating in
discourse communities with a specific set of social practices (Aitchison, 2009; Berkenkotter,
Huckin, & Ackerman, 1988; Blakeslee, 1997; Gee, 1996; Ivanic, 1998; Kamler & Thomson,
2006; Kamler & Thomson, 2008; Lea, 2004; Lee & Aitchison, 2009). Lea and Street (2006)
crystalized this socio-cultural approach by identifying and comparing and contrasting three
perspectives on academic student writing. The first, a study skills approach, assumes writing is a
cognitive skill. Typically, instruction from this perspective focuses on supporting the
development of surface level writing skills and assumes that these skills are generally
transferrable from one writing task and context to the next.
The second perspective Lea and Street (2006) name, academic socialization, is more in
line with a socio-cultural perspective because it assumes that there are discipline-specific
discourses and genres. However, these discourses and genres are viewed as relatively stable;
once they are learned they can be reproduced relatively unproblematically. An academic
literacies perspective, Lea and Street’s third way of thinking about academic writing, is distinct
from this perspective, however, because it assumes that mastery is ultimately defined and shaped
by identity, power, and authority at the personal, institutional, and society levels. Kamler and
Thomson (2006) further explain the academic literacies perspective by referring to Fairclough’s
(1995) three dimensions of discourse: text, discourse practice, and sociocultural practice. Here,
the text can be conceived of as at the center of three, nested layers, each shaping the one inside
Graduate Student Writing 7
of it. In this way, scholars participate (and students must learn how to do the same) in a
discourse community with a set of social practices that are shaped “locally” by the institution and
the advisor, and more distally by the discipline (Kamler & Thomson, 2008). Research in this
area has tended to point out the challenges of students coming to understand and demonstrate
competence according to the particular writing expectations and standards particular to their
departments, universities, and disciplines.
Although Lea (2004) argued that a pedagogy of academic literacies has not been well
developed, this approach makes clear that writing instruction would need to be contextualized
within the actual discourse community of doctoral programs. Lee and Aitchison (2009) assert
that
According to the view of writing as a socially constructed enterprise, the best kind of
writing assistance is that which is embedded in real-life writing practices offering a range
of strategies that focus on the socially situated (institutional and disciplinary) processes
and practices of text-construction while acknowledging the emerging and multifaceted
identity of the writer (p. 92).
Here, a focus on the surface features of writing (study skills approach) would be assumed to be
ineffective because it fails to take into account disciplinary practices and broader institutional
expectations and norms (Kamler & Thomson, 2008). Similarly, writing workshops for graduate
students from across the university offered by university writing centers are assumed to have
limited impact because they are by definition generic and can only help students learn how to
demonstrate writing competence in an academic community of practice in the most general
sense. Based on an academic literacies perspective, “academic writing is better learned along
Graduate Student Writing 8
with subject content and knowledge, rather than ‘bolted on’ as a separate activity” (Aitchison,
2009, p. 906)
In addition to recognizing the importance of context in learning how to be effective
writers at the doctoral level, others have focused on the internal processes involved in doctoral
students coming to see themselves as competent writers. If doing so means becoming a part of a
discourse community, then this often involves taking on a new identity (Berkenkotter et al.,
1988). In particular, Ivanic’s (1998) ground breaking work on writing identity points out that
“writing is an act of identity in which people align themselves with socio-culturally shaped
possibilities for self-hood, playing their part in reproducing or challenging dominant practices
and discourses, and the values, beliefs, and interests which they embody” (Berkenkotter et al.,
1988; Ivanic, 1998). Although Ivanic argues that writing identities are not fixed, she also
suggests that writing support should include efforts to help developing writers see themselves as
members of a discourse community that writes.
This literature review emanates from an understanding that an academic literacies
perspective should undergird the support of writing development and that this process means
taking on a new identity as a scholarly practitioner.
The Nature of Graduate Student Writing
A literature review that focuses on supporting the development of doctoral students, as
distinct from undergraduates is appropriate because writing expectations for them are different
from those of undergraduates (Ondrusek, 2012; Rose & McClafferty, 2001; Starke-Meyerring,
2011). At the academic skills level, they are expected to have mastered basic sentence
construction, grammar, punctuation, and organizational challenges (although it cannot be taken
for granted that they have). The nature of graduate student writing builds on these expectations
Graduate Student Writing 9
by demanding the more frequent exercise of those academic skills of writing in more complex
contexts. Graduate students typically have to write more extended pieces and in a range of
genres. In addition, they may be assessed more frequently, and more weight is assigned to their
writing abilities than when they were undergraduates (Lavelle& Bushrow, 2007; Rose &
McClafferty, 2001). Furthermore, as suggested in the theoretical framework, they also have to
learn how to participate actively in a discourse community in which undergraduates, at best, only
participate on the periphery.
An academic literacies perspective might suggest that every discipline, every university,
every department, and even every dissertation chair has expectations related to a distinct
discourse community. However, articulating the nature of graduate student writing expectations
more generically can make sense if the texts they have to produce (especially the dissertation)
are understood as a genre (Carter, 2011). When the discourse community is conceptualized more
broadly in this way, there are at least two skills that can be identified as those that graduate
students must master to become competent writers: the ability to conduct and communicate text-
based analysis, synthesis, and critique, and the ability to formulate arguments (Casanave &
Hubbard, 1992; Kamler & Thomson, 2006; Tardy, 2005). However, even these generic skills
may be expressed in distinct ways depending on the more specific discipline and institution-
based discourse community of which the student is a member. Kamler and Thomson (2006)
assert that writing at this level consists of recount (what happened), summary, and argument, and
that these elements have to be mixed and organized in just the right way if doctoral students are
“to make their mark, to state their case, to stake a claim” (p. 85).
Being able to demonstrate competency in these areas is complex. Students need to know
enough about the topics about which they are writing to know how to participate appropriately in
Graduate Student Writing 10
the larger, extended conversations of the particular discourse community they are seeking to join.
This involves knowing “what content to transmit…[and] how to transmit that content in a
persuasive way” (Tardy, 2005). Further, they need to nurture their emerging identities as
researchers in order to comfortably take up an authoritative stance (Kamler and Thomson, 2006)
needed to join these conversations. They must also find ways to balance convention and
innovation (Blakeslee, 1997) so that they enliven the discussions of the discourse community
with fresh insights. This type of competence includes using the rhetorical conventions of the
discipline while infusing the texts with individual voice (Cotterall, 2011).
It is no wonder that most doctoral students need guidance in achieving writing
competence at the doctoral level. To be regarded as competent, doctoral students must master
many complex skills that most have not been asked to demonstrate previously. Rose (2001)
observes that most graduate students have not had the kind of training as undergraduates that
would prepare them adequately for the writing expectations of doctoral level work. He
acknowledges that many doctoral students have writing difficulties, but asserts that the support
they need should not be viewed as remedial. Although it is important to address the skill and
technical challenges they sometimes demonstrate, it is as important to support the development
of their identity as scholarly writers and to nurture an understanding of what it means to
participate in an academic discourse community. This makes the focus of writing support for
graduate students very different from an appropriate focus for undergraduate students.
The Writing Challenges Graduate Students Face
On the assumption that writing tasks for graduate students are different than for
undergraduates, many researchers have focused on identifying the nature of the difficulties they
face in mastering the tasks of becoming effective academic writers at this level. Although
Graduate Student Writing 11
Casanave and Hubbard (1992) identified a wide range of writing tasks faculty assign to graduate
students, much of the literature that focuses on graduate student writing difficulties focuses on
the challenges of producing a high quality literature review. Perhaps this task is viewed as
particularly problematic because it requires so many different skills that must be used in
combination. These include knowing how to search systematically for, identify, evaluate, and
analyze appropriate sources (Kwan, 2008; Plakhotnik & Rocco, 2012; Switzer & Perdue, 2011).
However, beyond these tasks, comes the even more daunting identity work they must undertake
when “the novice researcher enters what we call occupied territory--with all the imminent danger
and quiet dread that this metaphor implies” (Kamler & Thomson, 2006, p. 29).
While others use less dire language to talk about the challenges of writing a literature
review specifically, or completing other graduate writing tasks generally, there is much that
suggests graduate students engage in writing at the very edges of a discourse community. While
they may be there legitimately, and may learn to some extent by participating in the discourse of
that community (Lave & Wegner, 1991), they often continue to struggle to become competent.
At least part of the problem is that the experts--their teachers, mentors, and advisors--do not fully
recognize how unfamiliar the community is to many students. Through years of experience, they
have come to see academic writing as normal and universal. Starke (2011) suggests that
experienced academics lose sight of the situated and culturally specific nature of academic
discourse.
Hedgcock (2008), a graduate student who documented his development as a scholarly
writer, supports Starke’s suggestion by asserting that many of his difficulties could have been
averted if writing expectations had been made more explicit. For example, he points out that the
common assignment of “write a paper” is vague for most novices. Similarly, Bharuthrem and
Graduate Student Writing 12
McKenna (2006) identified “difficulty in understanding or interpreting the question” (p. 500) as
a student-reported challenge. Hedgcock (2008) was gradually able to suss out what his
professors expected by paying attention to frequently used terms in both the language of
assignments and the feedback he got. However, his difficulty understanding faculty expectations
is a helpful example of what students often go through while trying to join the unfamiliar
discourse community that is academic writing. Another metaphor that is often invoked to
describe this situation is that student have trouble understanding the “rules of the game”
(Berkenkotter et al., 1988; Wellington, 2010) indicating that they experience difficulty figuring
out how to appropriately join in to the community.
Perhaps an even more apt metaphor is that of a conversation in which academic discourse
could be compared to the written version of a lively conversation taking place among a group of
loquacious interlocutors. Graduate students then have the complex and dogging challenge of
joining a conversation already in progress among experts, about which they may lack the back
story, and may not be up-to-date on the current topic, even while they are struggling to figure out
the etiquette of participating (Kamler & Thomson, 2006; Ondrusek, 2012; Tardy, 2005). Given
that the other participants are preoccupied with their own role in the conversation, unskilled (and
sometimes unwilling) in helping newcomers, and may be not even fully aware of the difficulties
the newcomers face (Skillen & Purser, 2003), the challenge becomes clear. For example,
novices need to learn the right way to ask questions and “what kinds of disciplinary orthodoxies
must be reproduced” (Starke-Meyerring, 2011, p. 81). Further, the most listened to and
respected speakers are often the best story-tellers. Yet, how to insert story-telling into academic
writing seems to be a poorly understood task among most graduate students, who do not
understand this as their task, and do not appreciate that their story can function as the next
Graduate Student Writing 13
installment in someone else’s story. It may not be possible to participate in the conversation
without engaging in extensive reading and gaining the experience with the topic that graduate
students often lack (Maher, Feldon, Timmerman, & Chao, 2014). Thus, success in entering the
conversation hinges “on the learner’s ability to integrate subject matter knowledge with a
knowledge of situationally appropriate linguistic and rhetorical conventions” (Berkenkotter et al.,
1988, p. 37).
While the challenges of figuring out how to become a member of a discourse community
are daunting, they cannot be totally separated from more surface level technical challenges, some
of which are identified in the literature as discrete skill deficits. For example, Kiley (2009)
argues that graduate students experience “stuck points” such as making an argument by using
defensible evidence, understanding the role of theory as both underpinning and being an outcome
of research, and using a framework to locate and bound research. Kammler and Thomson (2006)
point to the problem of students who pile up quotes and summaries. In such instances, they do
not connect the literature to their studies and fail to point to the relative importance of one
reference over another; student authors’ voices disappear and they become invisible in their own
texts.
Other researchers identify difficulties at the sentence and paragraph levels. For example,
Delyser (2003) observes that students have difficulty drawing strong connections from one
sentence to another, and others point to difficulty organizing ideas, summarizing, writing
persuasively, using correct grammar, word usage and vocabulary, citation, and revision (Can
and Walker, 2011; Carter, 2012; Casanave and Hubbard, 1992; Rose, 2001). Lastly, the
literature points to the difficulty that graduate students demonstrate in formulating arguments (N.
Carter, 2012; Davies, 2008; Kiley, 2009; Koncel & Carney, 1992).
Graduate Student Writing 14
In addition to and perhaps undergirding all other difficulties, are affective barriers that
students encounter (Bloom, 1981). Bloom (1981) was particularly sensitive to the distinct ways
in which doctoral students’ lives can contribute to anxiety, procrastination and perfectionism can
be exacerbated for funded students who feel a particular obligation to be high achievers and
worthy of the support they receive. Although some researchers suggest that studying examples
of proficient writing can be helpful, Bloom suggests that it can also add to students’ insecurity by
creating disconcerting comparisons between the goal and their present writing abilities. The lack
of structure and the long term nature of the dissertation process can make things more difficult
especially when an advisor leaves, or when a student’s job or personal responsibilities change.
Wellington (2010) observes that negative feelings about writing come from a sense that
the work is frustrating and hard, and that graduate students experience stress, fear, and
uncertainty about the task. Onwuegbuzi and Collins (2001) studied relationships between
writing aversion, procrastination, and apprehension. They found that “graduate students’
apprehension about writing appears to be related to academic procrastination stemming from fear
of failure and task aversiveness” (p. 562). It seems likely that procrastination can contribute to a
negative cycle regarding writing. Other factors that contribute include unrealistic expectations
on the part of the student writers, fear of negative evaluations coupled with resistance to critique,
unrealistic time management, over-emphasis on the production of error-free texts, prior academic
experiences, and low self-efficacy fueled by worry and doubt (Ondrusek, 2012). These affective
issues may be exacerbated by misconceptions about what successful writers do (Koncel &
Carney, 1992). For example, many students believe they have to have everything worked out in
their minds before they begin to write or do not understand the importance of iterative revision
(Maher et al., 2014; Ondrusek, 2012; Wellington, 2010).
Graduate Student Writing 15
To return to a point made earlier, an additional challenge of becoming a proficient writer
in graduate school involves identity formation (Ivanic, 1998). Making the necessary
developmental transition (Maher et al., 2014) can be difficult when it means taking on a new
identity as a “doctoral researcher” or scholar (Kamler & Thomson, 2006). Engaging
simultaneously in what Kamler and Thomson (2006) call “text work” and “identity work” is
inherently stressful and uncomfortable (Ivanic, 1998). Kamler and Thompson observe that
“what is at stake is the difficulty of writing as an authority when one does not feel authoritative”
(p. 508). This dissonance can contributes to difficulty establishing an appropriate voice in
written work as students struggle to take up their own authoritative voice and integrate it with the
scholarly works they must cite (Ivanic, 1998; Kamler & Thomson, 2006; Rose & McClafferty,
2001)
Writing within the distinct discourse community of a professional practice education
doctoral program also brings distinct writing challenges. Rather than course work that helps
students move toward the typical PhD task of identifying a gap in the knowledge base as the
starting point of a dissertation project, EdD students are expected to frame their dissertations
around problems of practice. This problem of practice orientation also impacts the writing
assignments they are expected to complete during their course work leading up to the
dissertation. In delineating a problem of practice, students have to identify a specific, local
problem, but position it within larger educational issues. Therefore, they may struggle to find an
appropriate balance between the personal and the general. When more experiential and localized
information is included, it must still link up to the broader research topic and the relevant
literature.
Graduate Student Writing 16
San Miguel (2007) helps make clear that the problem of practice dissertation is an
unfamiliar genre for students (and perhaps for faculty as well). While first person narrative
accounts and references would be the norm in a professional practice dissertation, there is also an
expectation of a more scholarly approach using an appropriate discipline-specific academic
writing style. Hence, San Miguel conjectures that “it seems that a key challenge for practice-
based researchers is how to go about adopting or adapting textual conventions so that one’s own
and one’s colleagues’ professional expertise can be reconfigured as legitimate academic
knowledge” (p. 81). This challenge hearkens back to foundational philosophical issues of what
counts as knowledge and evidence, what is appropriate for citation, and raises the question of
who is considered a knower, and the appropriate medium in which to communicate with diverse
audiences (e.g., scholars and practitioners). All of these additional issues understandably create
confusion and represent challenges not only for students, but for faculty who have been trained
in the PhD tradition (San Miguel, 2007).
Strategies for Supporting Graduate Student Writing
The remainder of this paper focuses on specific strategies for supporting the development
of graduate student writing skills. It is divided into two sections. The first section focuses on
what I call “traditional” strategies because they are grounded in legacy assumptions about
doctoral students including that they are full time, probably funded, maybe quite young with few
responsibilities other than being a student, and fully able to engage in their doctoral work without
many competing demands on their time. These traditional strategies are also grounded in
pervasive assumptions about writing--that it is comprised of a set of skills that can be learned and
applied across a wide spectrum of contexts, texts, audiences, and purposes. Approaches based
on the traditional view tend to be voluntary and are offered outside of course work. These
Graduate Student Writing 17
approaches tend to be generic, and, consequently, are often made available to graduate students
across the university.
The second section focuses on what I call “alternative” strategies. This section is
grounded in assumptions that are diametrically opposed to the traditional assumptions, including
that professional practice doctoral students are part-time students who are extremely busy full-
time professionals, often with families and other pressing responsibilities that limit the amount of
time they can devote to their graduate work, and that the tasks of competent writing at this level
are shaped by conventions of the discipline, the department, the academic unit, the university,
and the academic and practice fields. Consequently, alternative approaches are embedded in
course work so that assistance is situated and experiential (Kolb, 1984; Lave & Wegner, 1991),
does not require extra time outside of course work, and is grounded in an academic literacies
framework (Lea & Street, 2006).
The terms “traditional” and “alternative ” are not meant to imply any value judgments
and should not be thought of as presenting an either/or set of choices. Potentially, deploying a
broad range of strategies encompassing both approaches can help graduate students improve
their writing. In this way they can function as scholarly practitioners (CPED citation) who can
effectively share their research with a variety of stakeholder so as to impact the field and
improve educational outcomes for a wide range of learners. However, I argue here that it is
imperative to provide alternative strategies given what we believe to be the realities that
professional practice doctoral students and programs face.
Traditional Approaches
Traditional interventions, because they make assumptions about students and about the
tasks of writing, tend to be generic and voluntary. The most commonly suggested are advice
Graduate Student Writing 18
books, free-standing writing classes (credit or non-credit), workshops and retreats, and peer
writing groups. However, these interventions tend to locate the problem in the student and focus
on technical difficulties. In fact, it is probably easier to try to address a skills deficit than to
teach social practices (Badenhorst, Moloney, Rosales, Dyer, & Ru, 2014), especially in the
context of interventions that are in any way separated from the actual contexts in which writing
takes place (i.e., to complete specific assignments, tasks, and purposes). This is not to say that
they are ineffective. In fact, many researchers report on specific traditional approaches for the
sake of sharing their successes. However, they do not generally demonstrate how short term
successes contribute to long term development of writing skills across different developing
scholarly practitioner writing tasks, nor are they always practical for professional students.
Advice Books and Tips. It is probably commonplace for the harried professor to
recommend that students purchase books that dole out writing advice for academic success
generally or for the dissertation specifically. Presumably, they hope that this will help students
address their writing difficulties and alleviate the time consuming demands of reading
awkwardly written student (Lee & Aitchison, 2009) texts, as well as being an indicator of their
own uncertainty about how best to help their students improve. Doing so, therefore, also has the
advantage of providing expertise where the professor may feel limited; few have learned
systematically how to help students improve their writing and, consequently, most depend on
how they were taught, previous experience, and tips they have accrued from colleagues
(although conversations about practice are often rare in higher education). Speaking from my
own experience, helping students improve their writing in a dissertation is one of the most time-
consuming, exhausting, and frustrating tasks of being a professor. If a book can help, why not
recommend that students read it?
Graduate Student Writing 19
Several advice books are repeatedly recommended in the literature and accrue accolades
from Amazon.com reviewers. For example, Delyser (2003) recommends several books which
she uses in a writing seminar she teaches including Bolker’s (1998) Writing your dissertation in
fifteen minutes a day, Watson’s (1987) Writing a thesis: A quick guide to long essays and
dissertations, Becker’s (1986) Writing for social scientists: How to finish your thesis, book, or
article, and Williams’ (1990) Style: Toward clarity and grace. However, others have critiqued
these kinds of resources. While advice books may tap into doctoral students’ need for assistance
that they may not get from instructors and mentors, Kamler and Thomson (2008), who analyzed
the content of dissertation advice books, found that they tend to characterize the dissertation as
having a rigid format and style. While this may not be problematic in and of itself, an academic
literacies approach (Lea & Street, 2006) suggest it offers an incomplete and misleading response
to the task of writing a dissertation. Paltridge (2002) compared eight dissertation guidebooks to
30 theses in a range of doctoral fields written by students from the U.S., U.K., Australia, and
New Zealand. He found that half of the theses varied from the generic, traditional format
described in these books and thus obscured the variety of expectations and affordances that
actually occur in doctoral programs (and possibly more so in innovating professional practice
doctoral programs) around the world. Although there was considerable variation in the amount
of space devoted to discussion of overall organization and form, these texts failed to touch on the
range of options that are being deployed. Furthermore, “much less attention was given to thesis
or dissertation writing itself, or the content of individual chapters” (p. 136). These features
suggest that dissertation advice books may fail to hit their mark.
Not only is the universal format of dissertations portrayed in advice books unwarranted,
Kamler and Thomson (2008) found that they describe the writing process as a series of linear
Graduate Student Writing 20
steps to be completed rather than the iterative back and forth writing and revising process that it
is. Further, Kamler and Thomson observe that this book genre tends to overgeneralize about
writing rules that are often hard to operationalize, and offer reassurance at the same time that
they instill fear. Therefore, they unrealistically offer hope and promise success if students follow
a “foolproof” set of procedures. Maher et al. (2008), who wrote about their experiences as
graduate students learning to improve their writing, affirm that advice books fail to deliver on
their promises, observing that they tend to focus on tips and tricks and structure and rules rather
than specific ways to become better writers. This is not necessarily to say that dissertation and
general writing advice books are useless. They may sometimes be very helpful, to some
students, under some circumstances, but they clearly do have drawbacks and are unlikely to
deliver on broad claims about writing improvement and dissertation completion.
Writing Classes and non-credit Writing Groups. There are many first-person,
instructor-written accounts which describe the design of writing courses that either stand alone or
are offered as running parallel to a content course, implemented with the aim of supporting the
development of graduate student writing. These tend to build in peer feedback as a key
component (Delyser, 2003; Paltridge, 2002). Rose’s (2001) description is frequently cited by
others as an exemplar of this type of support. He describes a long-running course at UCLA as
being structured as a writing workshop. Students bring what they are working on for other
classes and get feedback on three to five pages at a time. They read aloud, give their own
evaluation of the piece, and then an open discussion of it follows. Rose reports that while
students do often struggle with surface issues such as summary, citation, usage, and punctuation,
discussion of these can lead to more substantive topics about academic discourse including
forming an argument, writer identity, and discipline-specific writing. Because conversations
Graduate Student Writing 21
about basic skills often overlap with much more complex writing issues, “distinctions between
what is basic and what is not become harder to make” (p. 29). Other models described in the
literature follow a similar format (Paltridge, 2003). Rose asserts that there are several benefits of
this course format. Having a structure for reading work aloud is very helpful; often students hear
mistakes and awkward, unclear, or overly long sentences before anyone has to point them out.
The workshop format also helps students begin to see writing as a craft and helps dispel
unhelpful beliefs about writing. Because the class is cross-disciplinary, it can help students deal
with complex issues of audience and become better, more analytical and critical readers. As the
writing course became institutionalized at UCLA, Rose reports that it has had several significant
spin-offs including faculty talking more about supporting writing development with each other
and students, and many students forming their own peer writing groups subsequent to taking the
writing workshop course. Although the success of this course hinges on students learning to give
and receive feedback, Rose does not describe specifically how they develop these skills;
unfortunately, this information is generally lacking in the literature.
Badenhorst et al. (2014) observe that many writing courses for graduate students
typically fail to address the true difficulty of understanding academic writing as a set of social
practices that students need to acquire, opting instead to see the student as deficient and the
writing tasks they must accomplish as a set of technical skills. They, along with others,
developed a course model that focus more explicitly on helping students understand the “rules of
the game” with regard to academic writing. The course they describe was based on an
understanding of the barriers students encounter within the curriculum instead of trying to fix
what is perceived to be wrong with students. The course encourages students to do “discourse
analysis” which clearly assumes that academic writing is a distinct form of communication.
Graduate Student Writing 22
Here the goal is to help them understand and recognize the underlying assumptions of academic
writing. The course activities emphasize writing as a social practice and help students
understand what these are within their discipline, department, field, and university by facilitating
critical dialogue about academic discourses. As a result, Badenhorst et al. report that “students
began to analyze their own position, their audience, what they wanted to achieve and how much
choice they had” (2014, p. 9).
Another course model, described by Delyser (2003) also builds in peer feedback and
analysis of the discourse of academic writing, but additionally seeks to build a writing culture in
which giving and receiving feedback is a primary activity. Each session has three focus areas:
writing process and mechanics, analysis of discipline specific models, and a peer feedback
workshop. Students have short writing assignments for homework and complete writing
exercises during class. Each week they read published papers and analyze them with regard to a
particular topic such as openings, use of theory, audience, transitions, and using evidence.
Students are encouraged to talk to each other about their writing. Through these activities, as
well as an appropriate class size for substantive discussion of one student’s writing each week,
food, and discussions about writing and writing habits, fears and phobias, Delyser asserts that the
students develop a sense of safety and become a community “who can talk with each other about
their writing, who are able to share their work, and help themselves and one another with the
writing process” (p. 174). She claims that this give and take contributes directly to students
learning about the revision process. The final assignment for this course is to submit a revised
version of the chapter or paper that received feedback during class. Although similar to others,
she asserts that few writing guides useful, Delyser does recommend several she finds helpful and
integrates readings and exercises from them in the class segment on process and mechanics.
Graduate Student Writing 23
Descriptions of stand-alone writing classes that enact an academic literacies model are
helpful, but they do not fully document effectiveness. Although students generally evaluate
them favorably, they leave questions about the ways in which students continue to treat writing
as a process, deepen their knowledge of academic writing discourse, and depend on peer
feedback outside of and after they complete the course and face the busy expectations of other
semesters or the isolation typical of writing a dissertation. Even with the best possible outcomes,
the solution of a stand-alone writing course to address the need to develop graduate student
writing skill may be problematic for logistical reasons. First, writing takes time to develop. A
course, even if a semester long, cannot support students over the long haul of graduate training.
If offered as an optional course, busy professional students may be likely to opt out, choosing
instead to focus on content courses that will deepen their knowledge base or further their
professional aspirations. In compressed programs increasingly typical in professional practice
doctoral programs, there may not be room in the curriculum for such a course and faculty may
resist ceding a content course in favor of a course many may perceive as remedial. For these
reasons, it seems unlikely that writing courses can fully address the writing needs of graduate
students.
Descriptions of student writing groups which meet outside of a credit-bearing class
structure share many of the same elements as Rose’s writing course (Aitchison, 2009; Ferguson,
2009; Maher et al., 2008; Plakhotnik & Rocco, 2012) with similar benefits. These include that
they meet on a regular basis every few weeks for an hour-and-a-half to two hours or more, are
voluntary, and feature a workshop approach to writing in which students take turns giving and
receiving feedback on their work. Some are student-run, but others have a professor or writing
center staff facilitator. Studies of student writing groups tend to tout their benefits. For example,
Graduate Student Writing 24
Ferguson (2009) makes claims that writing groups can help students identify and unpack myths
about academic writing that often create barriers to success, help them gain a greater
understanding of academic writing conventions, and improve their critical reading and writing
skills. Aitchison (2009) suggests that writing groups help establish a sense of the craft of
writing, encourage the development of a writing community, and can provide more regular and
timely feedback than faculty may be able to do. They can also help alleviate affective barriers
such as self-doubt, low self-confidence, and anxiety. In general, research in this area tends to
focus on the format and benefits of writing groups. Few point out that students may have some
difficulty or feel uncomfortable critiquing each other’s writing (Aitchison, 2009; Maher, 2008).
However, most report that, as writing became less privatized and students gained experience as
critical readers, their confidence in giving and receiving feedback increased. Even research that
indicates some of the challenges these groups face, however, provides scant or no detail about
how groups overcome them. The literature in this area seems to indicate that an appropriate
process will lead to positive results, despite some initial struggle.
Although their potential value is significant, participation in voluntary writing groups,
separated from course work, may be hard to encourage among graduate students in professional
practice doctoral programs. Many may be squeezing out just enough time from their busy lives
to attend classes and fulfill course requirements. They may encounter significant difficulty
finding time to prepare and participate in writing groups not held during regularly scheduled
class time no matter how much they might like to. Even technology-supported ways of doing
this may fall flat with this population because of the additional time demands this activity
requires to take full advantage of them.
Graduate Student Writing 25
Workshops and Retreats. Descriptions of writing workshops and retreats for graduate
students tend to indicate that they address specific challenges during a short time period.
Because they are often offered to students across the university, they may take a generic stance
on writing, eschewing the academic literacies perspective. This suggests that while they can help
students learn more about some aspects of academic writing, they may more easily circle around
surface level topics and technical difficulties, skirting the specific practices of disciplines,
departments, and programs (Starke-Meyerring, 2011). This means they may be disconnected
from course work and viewed by students as remedial, causing those who attend to feel that their
needs have not been met, and discouraging others from attending (Kamler & Thomson, 2006).
However, Skillen (2003) describes a workshop model that is based on integrating the work of
content area instruction with writing workshop tutors. Here, workshops are offered based on
information gathered from faculty about difficulties students are experiencing and examples of
published research in the discipline which is then annotated with regard to structural features.
During the workshops, students look at the annotated examples, identify the same features in
other examples, and are asked to verbalize an introduction to their research that makes the same
moves. They also use peer review to help students apply what they are learning to their own
writing. Skillen suggests that such workshops must help students gain conceptual understanding
at the same time that they work on surface level issues because these skills are interrelated.
When these aspects of writing are taught in isolation, students have difficulty drawing
connections across them.
Carter (2011) also sees the value of workshops, even when they are generic. She
observes that generic support is practical from an institutional perspective because of the
efficiencies it creates. Pushing back from the academic literacies approach, Carter suggests it
Graduate Student Writing 26
makes sense if the dissertation is viewed, at least on one level, as a genre rather than a discipline-
specific artifact. She asserts that “a thesis from any discipline has a generic quality that
distinguishes it…from an academic article, book, chapter, or paper for a taught course” (p. 731).
Given this conception of the dissertation, workshops can help students with the genre, focusing
in particular on teaching the “rules of the game” of the dissertation genre and as a supplement to
the discipline specific support that a supervisor can provide. Workshop leaders can work on the
common qualities of “thesis-liness” (p. 730), including critical and analytical review of relevant
research literature, a description of research methods, researcher positionality, clear
communication, and the “defensive” discourse common to academic writing. While others have
criticized the cross-campus workshop offering, Carter observes that it can help create a
community of practice across campus and increase interdisciplinary cross-fertilization.
No matter how effective the workshop implementation is, however, at least one negative
that it shares with voluntary student writing courses and extra-curricular writing groups, is that
they depend on students volunteering to participate. Even the best workshop has the chance to
help students improve their writing only if they participate, but many professional practice
doctoral students seem likely to opt out.
Alternative, Course-embedded Approaches
Traditional approaches to supporting graduate student writing development offer several
helpful strategies, but also have inherent drawbacks. For this reason, some researchers suggest
that work on graduate student writing must be considered an integral aspect of the graduate
program curriculum by embedding it in course work (Lea, 2004; Mullen, 2001; Sallee et al.,
2011). Course-embedded approaches to supporting the development of graduate student writing
assume that support should be situated, ongoing, just-in-time (so that it responds to the realities
Graduate Student Writing 27
of our students’ busy lives), focused on accelerated degree completion, and theoretically
grounded in an academic literacies perspective that views all writing tasks and texts as having
distinct expectations and challenges. An analysis of the literature on this topic can be summed
up as pointing to five strategies that can be built into course experiences throughout the students’
program experience. It seems apparent that explicit instruction on writing can support
development (Skillen & Purser, 2003) and two of these strategies focus on this. First is making
expectations regarding writing “rules of the game” for each assignment and for academic writing
in the discipline, the program, and the university more generally as transparent as possible;
second is actually working on writing as part of course activities by analyzing writing models
and reading about writing. The other three strategies cluster around experientially scaffolding
and reinforcing the notion that writing is a process, building habits that support this by
structuring course assignments so that students must revise their writing during the semester,
providing detailed and comprehensible feedback on drafts in a timely manner so that students
can revise based on instructor feedback, and creating ongoing opportunities for peer feedback.
Transparency. Students may have difficulty understanding writing expectations not
only related to a specific course assignment, but also, more broadly, related to the program, the
discipline and the university. Hedgcock (2008), reporting retrospectively about his writing
development, asserted that students should not have to depend on figuring this out on their own
as he did. At the course level, however, instructors may inadvertently assume that assignments
are clear when expectations are more tacit than they realize. Because different courses may
require different kinds of writing (e.g., literature reviews, integration of theory with experience,
reflection), students may need help in understanding specific text demands. An important
starting point in helping students become better writers is for instructors to be reflective and
Graduate Student Writing 28
communicative about the aims, assumptions and goals of assignments, and insure that these are
clear rather than simply taking for granted that they are (Blakeslee, 1997; Koncel & Carney,
1992). Because faculty often have tacit assumptions, knowledge, and expectations, students may
not even know the right questions to ask in order to clarify assignments; therefore, it should be
up to faculty to do this.
Additionally, students need a clear statement of assessment criteria (e.g., by using an
assessment rubric) (Lea & Street, 2006). In order to increase clarity, instructors may need to be
more reflective about their own standards and expectations. In this way, they can share “insider
knowledge” in a comprehensible way with students and help demystify what constitutes effective
writing (Ivanic, 1998). As an example, Hedgcock (2008) reports that he makes an effort “to
demystify the means and the processes of developing professional literacy by acquainting
students with strategies for effective reading and writing, clearly outlining criteria for written
work, and providing benchmark samples” (pp. 43-44). He asserts that these efforts need to work
in tandem with what students can learn through “imitation, explorations, and experimentation”
(p. 44).
Explicit focus on writing during class time. Given that an academic literacies
framework assumes that scholars participate in discourse communities with distinct social
practices and that students have difficulty grasping what these are, researchers suggest that
students need explicit instruction in order for their academic writing to improve. For example,
they need time to talk about different genres of writing, definitions of good writing, and what
practices and skills contribute to being a good writer (Kamler &Thomson, 2006; Skillen &
Purser, 2003). This means, ideally, embedding writing instruction into regular, content-based
coursework.
Graduate Student Writing 29
To do this, strategies for teaching writing in stand-alone courses can be adapted and
embedded in content-focused coursework. A potentially fruitful area for beginning this work is
to create opportunities for students to explore and understand who they are as writers at the start
of their doctoral studies. Although this activity need not be repeated in every course, it could be
helpful to periodically revisit students’ writing identities as they are presumably evolving as they
progress through the program. One way to investigate writing identity is to have students
compose their writing autobiographies. This activity lends itself to periodic revision over the
duration of the program and can be used for self and program evaluation. Another helpful
starting point which Kamler and Thomson (2006) recommend is to have students generate a list
of adjectives which describe themselves as writers, and then sketch a brief history of the types of
writing they have done by focusing in particular on what has been most satisfying and what has
been most challenging. Talking through these autobiographies, they suggest, provides an
opportunity to analyze and unpack students’ (often faulty) beliefs and assumptions about
academic writing. Although she focused on undergraduate writers, Ivanic’s (1998) seminal work
points to the key role that identity plays in the development of academic writing skills. She
suggests that identity study should be part of the work of learning about academic writing. It
gives writers more control of and understanding that writing is a means of portraying a particular
type of person, and that writers must make important choices based on an understanding that
writing is a complex social act. They should also have the opportunity to learn and make choices
about the ways that different discourses position them in different communities (Gee, 1996) and
understand the consequences of those choices. Given this, Ivanic argues that instructors “should
learn to view students’ writing as the product of their developing sense of what it means to be a
member of a specific academic community, of who they are and how they want to be….They
Graduate Student Writing 30
[then] might …be less inclined to jump to damning judgments of student writing, and might
instead be able to help students come to a more conscious understanding of these processes…”
(p. 343). When students engage in the self reflective activities described here, not only do they
benefit from increased self-awareness, but they also provide a window for their instructors to see
how their writing identifies shape their writing.
On a more concrete level of strategies to support writing instruction that is embedded in
coursework, Lavell (2007) developed an instrument, the Inventory of Processes in Graduate
Student Writing that assesses students’ approaches to writing by linking their beliefs about it
with their practices. Presumably, such an instrument is another way to help students be self-
reflective and explicit about who they are as writers and how this influences their approach to
writing. He identified six factors--elaborative, self-efficacy, no revision, intuitive, scientist, task
oriented, and sculptor--which influence students approach to writing, and suggested that
identifying which factors are dominant can help students and instructors target areas of needed
support. To this end, he suggests specific areas of focus that would support growth for each
factor. Using this logic, it is assumed that students who can identify their writing approach can
more directly identify their challenges and consciously and concretely seek to address them.
When embedding the development of student writing skill in course work, it is obviously
important to be parsimonious. Otherwise, the effort could well take away from the instructor’s
goals for coverage of course content. One approach that can help students acquire course content
at the same time that it supports writing development is to treat course texts as writing models
that can be analyzed and discussed not only for their content but for their structure and craft
elements (Harvey, 2008; Kiley, 2009; Lavelle & Bushrow, 2007; Värlander, 2008). This gives
students opportunities to see authors effectively using a range of academic writing strategies at
Graduate Student Writing 31
all levels of writing including sentence, paragraph, section headings and other organizational
features, as well as how arguments are structured and literature is synthesized. San Miguel and
Nelson (2007), in discussing how to implement the use of writing models, suggest that models
need not purposefully illustrate very good or very bad writing; either can open up conversations
about writing. Students report that seeing models not only helps them develop their skills, but
makes instructor expectations more transparent (as cited in Pokorny & Pickford, 2010). Along
the same lines as using published texts as models, Davies (2008) suggests that students follow a
series of steps in the construction of an argument because he observes that they have difficulty
using inference to make an argument and claims that this is a skill that is not often explicitly
taught. Introducing students to language that is used to draw connections in an argument, the use
of graphic organizers, or argument-mapping software tools that force writers to visually
represent the construction of an argument may also help. His suggestions illustrate the power of
teaching writing skills explicitly.
Although not an evidence-based strategy, Kammler and Thomson (2006) suggest using
published texts to create templates upon which students can model their writing. Such a template
can help students take on the identity of a more experienced and authoritative writer by creating
a scaffold before they might be ready to do so independently. This suggestion mirrors an
approach upon which Graff and Birkenstein (2006) structure their text on writing for
undergraduates. Their book is designed to help students see academic writing as a form of
discourse with specific participation moves. They provide templates for many aspects of
academic writing, including appropriately embedding quotes and summaries from other sources
and using signal words to lead the reader through a text. While templates can not provide an
Graduate Student Writing 32
ever useful formula for effective academic writing, students can gain skill through exposure to
this direct instruction approach to direct instruction,
Multiple drafts/revision. Several researchers point to the value of structuring course
assignments to support writing development; the key strategy here is breaking up assignments in
such a way that students are required to submit multiple drafts of the same paper (Bharuthram &
McKenna, 2006; Caffarella & Barnett, 2000; Ivanic, 1998; Starke-Meyerring, 2011). Building
course assignments so that students have more than one opportunity to submit drafts for feedback
serves two important purposes. First, it models the fact that effective writing is typically
produced as the outcome of a process that often includes many efforts at revision interspersed
with feedback from a variety of audiences. Second, it encourages students to revisit their efforts
and work purposefully to improve based on responses from other readers. Researchers have
found that students were more likely to use and learn from feedback on multiple drafts of papers
that they work on throughout the semester than when feedback comes on a final paper. This
makes sense given that Carless (2006) found that feedback on one assignment does not
necessarily translate to skill development for the next one.
One often cited study that demonstrated the value of structuring assignments as a series
of drafts was conducted by Caffarella and Barnett (2000). In a course they studied, the students
were required to submit three drafts of the same paper; the second and third drafts were supposed
to incorporate feedback from both a classmate and a faculty member. For these subsequent
drafts, they were also required to write a memo to describe how they had used the feedback or a
rationale for why they had not. The intervention was designed to simulate a scholarly writing
process. However, opportunities to revise based on feedback can scaffold conceptual
understanding of writing as a process as well. Even if multiple drafts are not possible, breaking
Graduate Student Writing 33
an assignment into small chunks and providing feedback for each chunk can help students focus
more on process than on product (Mullen, 2001; Sallee et al., 2011). Writing multiple drafts in
response to feedback can also help them take a more active role in analyzing the demands and
constraints of various academic writing genres and develop their identity as researchers who can
write effectively about their work (Starke-Meyerring, 2011)
Instructor feedback. Feedback communicates community expectations (Bitchener,
Basturkmen, & East, 2010; Can & Walker, 2011) and therefore is important in supporting the
development of graduate student writing (Hyatt, 2005; P. Ferguson, 2011). Ideally, it should
communicate to learners about the gap between their current performance and where it should be
(Värlander, 2008) and what is needed for meaningful, effective revision (Can & Walker, 2011;
Carless, 2006). Presumably, most faculty would say they give feedback on student work.
However, Hyatt (2005) argues that, if writing pedagogy is going to reflect the developmental
process of learning to write that graduate students must engage in, “then the role and function of
tutor feedback needs to be engaged with more critically” (p. 352). This assessment is echoed by
others who find that feedback often misses its mark because it is poorly done, misunderstood by
students who are not well prepared to receive it, or poorly timed. In other words, not all
feedback is equal in terms of its capacity to promote learning; feedback given does not
necessarily lead to learning (Sadler, 2010). Yet, when feedback is treated and understood as
formative rather than summative assessment, it “has the capacity to turn each item of assessed
work into an instrument for the further development of each student’s learning” (Hyland, 2000,
as cited in Higgins, Hartley, & Skelton, 2002, p. 54).
One of the complications of feedback is that its purpose can vary so significantly.
Several researchers have analyzed actual instructor feedback given to students and note that it
Graduate Student Writing 34
can range from correction and editing at the sentence, paragraph or organizational level, to
rationalizing a grade, to making suggestions about how to do better on future writing endeavors.
Comments can be encouraging or disparaging, and may focus on style, content, argument
formation, and genre. Feedback also varies in terms of the relationship between the instructor
and the student that it implies. While some instructors use imperatives and assume complete
authority, others seek to create dialogue or use passive voice suggesting a more egalitarian
relationship among writers all working toward a common goal (Bitchener et al., 2010; Carless,
2006; Hyatt, 2005; Ivanic, Clark, & Rimmershaw, 2000; Kumar & Stracke, 2007; Mutch, 2003).
Feedback can also be formative, or what Mutch (2003) calls “implied developmental,” or
summative (strictly evaluative). Timing matters too. Pokorny (2010) found that when feedback
comes at the end of a semester on a final project and is accompanied by a grade, even if it is
intended as formative, its developmental impact can be suppressed. Certainly the purpose,
whether it be implicit or explicit, has a significant shaping influence on the form feedback takes
on. Ivanic et al. (2000) suggest that the wide variation in feedback type and style may be due to
diversity of faculty circumstances, values, beliefs, working practices, and purposes for
responding to student work. They find that these are usually implicit and that faculty are not
particularly self-reflective about this issue.
That faculty may not be particularly well thought out in their feedback approach begs the
question of how students perceive it. Findings suggest that they are often confused by it because
it can be vague (e.g., “need more detail” or “need to be more analytical”), obtuse and
incomprehensible, use academic language that is not well understood by students, difficult to
connect to anything specific, or simply illegible (Carless, 2006; Ivanic et al., 2000; Mirador,
2014; Mutch, 2003; Sadler, 2010). Under these conditions, it is understandable that students
Graduate Student Writing 35
have difficulty using feedback to inform and improve subsequent writing efforts. Can and
Walker (2011) surveyed students about their feedback needs and found that they “needed
feedback most frequently for arguments and justifications in their paper, clarity and
understandbility of the statements, inclusion and exclusion of information, introduction, and
conclusion” (p. 518). However, even when faculty work hard to make themselves clear, the one
sided aspect of this type of communication (the receiver is not present to signal understanding)
can lead to misunderstandings (Mirador, 2014; Sadler, 2010). Additionally, students’
interpretations of feedback can be shaped by their own identities. For example, Mirador (2014)
found cultural capital and self-esteem can contribute to the alignment between instructor intent
and student understanding of feedback.
Obviously misinterpreting feedback can create a significant barrier to learning. Other
researchers have identified a strong affective element of feedback that can also contribute to this
problem. This area of research has found that feedback often evokes strong negative emotions
(Can & Walker, 2011; Carless, 2006). Young (2000) argues that these difficulties can be more
intense for older students because it runs counter to their self-concept as adults by reinforcing an
expert/novice relationship with instructors. In particular, he studied the impact of self-esteem on
how students receive feedback and found a strong relationship between them. Regardless of the
nature of the comments, he found that those with high self-esteem viewed feedback positively;
those with low self-esteem had the opposite response and will take negative feedback, even when
it is preceded by positive comments, personally and get upset. Välander (2008) identified the
most common emotions associated with feedback as shame, pride, uncertainty, hope, and fear.
She asserts that students’ ability to use feedback is influenced by their emotions toward it. She
suggests that emotional reactions might completely erase the potential benefits of receiving
Graduate Student Writing 36
feedback because students may have difficulty distinguishing between feedback on their work
and feedback on them personally. A typical recommendation to address the affective impact of
feedback is to begin with positive and encouraging comments, offer suggestions on how to
improve rather than simply describing deficits, and focus on form and content. It should be both
specific to the particular text and general about expectations of the genre so that it can be applied
to subsequent writing tasks. Given that the nature of the faculty/student relationship influences
the way in which feedback is received, treating feedback as an interaction within the context of a
relationship between the instructor and the student can also help. This makes the relationship
that instructors form with students (during class time and through the feedback interaction) at
least as important as the feedback methods (Pokorny, 2010). An additional benefit of treating
feedback as a means of dialogic communication there is less likelihood of misunderstanding
(Sadler, 2010; Värlander, 2008).
Although somewhat sparse, research on the affective impact of feedback suggests that
faculty cannot separate the intended cognitive impact of feedback from the potential emotional
impact. Given the potential for misunderstanding and hurt feelings, several researchers have
made additional recommendations related to preparing students to receive feedback in the most
constructive way possible. Without preparation, feedback may fail to serve a developmental
purpose (Mutch, 2003). For example, Värlander (2008) suggests that instructors discuss the role
of feedback, clarify assessment criteria, and provide models of excellent papers to clarify
expectations. In this way, the process can be made more transparent before feedback is
provided. She also suggests that instructors share their own experiences and emotions associated
with receiving feedback. Sadler (2010) suggests that students need explicit help knowing how to
translate feedback into improved writing. “Unless the prerequisite knowledge is identified and
Graduate Student Writing 37
addressed, the prospects for even the most thorough feedback are inherently limited” (Sadler,
2010, p. 537). This is necessary because it cannot be assumed that they have the same working
knowledge as faculty of how to do so. Another important strategy to prepare students to receive
feedback constructively is to have them engage in peer feedback--a strategy which will be
discussed in depth in the next section. Not only does this help them develop some of the tacit
knowledge about feedback necessary to make sense of it, but also decreases the power
asymmetry of faculty to student feedback (Värlander, 2008) and can help build more of a sense
of working together to improve writing.
In spite of many barriers potentially limiting the usefulness of feedback, when asked by
researchers, students express that they are eager to receive feedback (Higgins et al., 2002). Can
and Walker (2011) describe the research base on student perceptions of feedback as limited
because studies tends to be in one discipline, and focus on one specific aspect of feedback, a
single instructor, or a specific population. However, the research that has been conducted in this
area, unfortunately, generally finds feedback to be problematic. Students report that they get too
little too late and that is often not specific enough to be helpful. They perceive that there is often
a mismatch between the grade and the comments (which may be caused, in part, by the impulse
to be positive) (Ferguson, 2011; Mirador, 2014; Pokorny & Pickford, 2010). The students who
participated in Mirador’s (2014) research said that feedback did not give them enough guidance
on how to join scholarly conversations by meeting the standards for discipline-specific discourse
communities. These perceptions of feedback suggest a number of recommendations for faculty.
It should be supportive, frequent and ongoing. If it cannot be applied to subsequent assignments
in the same course, it is not necessarily very useful. Some want opportunities to talk about
feedback in face-to-face meetings with instructors. Ferguson (2011) conducted a survey on
Graduate Student Writing 38
feedback preferences that garnered 465 responses from graduate students. They rated brief
comments and written summaries/overviews as most useful among a range of feedback types.
One- or two-word comments and tick marks or exes were seen as of no value, especially when
the grade is low. While a few students said that too much detail is not good, most said the more
the better. Feedback on structure, overall content, and key ideas was much more highly valued
than feedback on small details. Given that writing confidence is still a significant issue, even at
the graduate student level, providing at least some encouragement is important. Respondents
also suggest that when feedback is combined with a grade, it is important that the relationship
between the commentary and the grade is clear. Can and Walker (2011) found that students want
straightforward, clear direction on how to improve and detailed feedback that helps them move
forward. They prefer suggestions over directive feedback. Although a lot of students say
feedback affects them emotionally, more than half do not feel discouraged or less motivated by
it. The remainder may need help and support to deal with feedback. While it is important to
note that student preferences are not necessarily related to learning outcomes, the bottom line is
that students feel that what makes feedback useful is when it can truly be used to improve their
writing.
Peer feedback. Strategies for embedding peer feedback in coursework are similar to
descriptions of procedures for both writing workshops constituted outside of classes and writing
classes that draw on peer feedback as an important element in supporting writing development.
The advantage of providing time for peer feedback during classes is that everyone has the
opportunity to receive it, regardless of time constraints or motivation, and the work can be tied to
specific expectations, making it very situated. In this way, all students can benefit from specific,
concrete feedback. Perhaps the two biggest challenges of implementing peer feedback are
Graduate Student Writing 39
finding the time to insert it into course meeting times and helping students learn to give effective
feedback. Several researchers describe course situations where they incorporated peer feedback
on the assumption that reading and responding to other students’ writing could improve all
students’ work (Caffarella & Barnett, 2000; Mullen, 2001; Sallee et al., 2011). However,
Cafarella and Barnett report that students expressed reservations about their ability to give
helpful feedback (although they appreciated receiving it from peers), and Waring (2005) found
that there may be some resistance as students traverse the expert/novice boundaries. To decrease
students’ tension and insecurity that can emerge when students are required to give peer
feedback and to increase their effectiveness, Crossman and Kite (2012) argue that students need
preparation and scaffolding. They suggest the instructor discuss the assignment with students,
review the assessment rubric, and teach students how to be peer reviewers (although they do not
specify how). They and others claim that if peer reviewers work from a well-articulated rubric
or other tools to help them focus on writing expectations, they are able to be helpful to their
peers (Lockhart and Ng, 1996, as cited inCrossman & Kite, 2012; Nackoney, Munn, &
Fernandez, 2011). Students can gain additional insight into providing feedback from instructors
if their own feedback is treated as a model (Sallee et al., 2011).
The benefits of peer feedback are documented by several researchers. They include
students gaining greater insight and a more constructive capacity to reflect on their work, the
development of “academic enculturation” (Samara, 2006) which includes discipline specific
knowledge about writing, improved capacity to engage in critical analysis of texts, increased
capacity for self-critique, and affective improvements in motivation, self confidence, and
empathy (Mullen, 2001; Nackoney et al., 2011; Samara, 2006). Perhaps most importantly,
Crossman and Kite (2012) documented improved writing skills as a result of students engaging
Graduate Student Writing 40
in peer feedback. They found statistically significant gains from first to final drafts. In part, they
suggest that this might be due to students gaining a deeper knowledge of the rubric as they work
to give peers relevant feedback which may, in turn, increase their understanding of an
assignment. The amount and timing of peer feedback may also help explain its positive impact.
Additionally students may be better able to explain something they have themselves just learned,
it provides models of how others have solved a problem, and can be motivational to know that
others are experiencing similar challenges (Värlander, 2008).
Discussion/Challenges
A recurring theme throughout much of the research on supporting the development of
graduate student writing is the importance of being explicit with students. This includes
recognizing that the scholarly writing expected of graduate students is a distinct discourse
community (Gee, 1996) with its own practices and ways of participating. On a more concrete
level, explicitness should extend to how assignments and assessment standards are constructed.
It is clear that it is important to make the improvement of writing an explicit goal for faculty and
students, and that making time to actually teach students how to engage in a specific academic
discourse community is important. For professional practice doctoral students, doing so during
class time is likely necessary to ensure that all students have the opportunity to benefit. Also of
crucial importance is providing feedback that is purposefully designed to be developmental.
There are many specific advice books and a large array of tips and techniques for improving
graduate student writing. However, without implementing elements of explicitness in ways that
all students can access during course work, these types of resources may be ineffective in helping
Graduate Student Writing 41
students fully move into the community of practice of those who use writing to communicate
about their research.
There are several challenges to operationalizing the need to be explicit about improving
graduate student writing during coursework. While students’ emotional barriers to learning from
feedback may be at play, perhaps a bigger barrier is the difficulty of engaging faculty in this
work. First, much of what faculty know and value about writing may be tacit. Additionally,
many faculty may feel unprepared to engage in writing pedagogy, believing that doctoral
students should already know how to write, and they should not have to work on this with them,
or they may feel that they cannot afford the time to engage in writing instruction during class
time, given the amount of content they feel they must cover. In addition, faculty may feel that
taking the time to provide substantive and useful feedback on students’ writing, even if they do
know how to do this effectively (which cannot be assumed) is time taken away from doing the
scholarly work for which they are rewarded.
Faculty development aimed at addressing these issues must be responsive to their beliefs
about and knowledge of writing pedagogy as well as the institutional constraints they face in
implementing an effective approach. Otherwise, efforts to improve faculty ability to support
graduate student writing may face resistance that could mute its impact (Ivanic et al., 2000).
Mullen (2001) points out that faculty development cannot just be a bottom-up effort; rather, a
focus on improving graduate student writing must also be addressed at the institutional level.
Skillen and Purser (2003) describe an approach that accomplishes this through integrated efforts
between faculty and what they refer to as “academic literacy teachers”. Here, staff from the
university-wide “Learning Development” unit work with faculty to create how-to guides that are
connected to writing in specific disciplines. They do this by identifying typical research in the
Graduate Student Writing 42
discipline and then collecting and annotating published examples which are shared with students
to make guides which are connected to specific disciplines. Using the annotations in writing
workshops, students identify the same features in other examples, and then verbalize an
introduction to their research that makes the same moves. Next, they engage with peer reviewers
and then work to apply what they learned to their own writing. Skillen and Purser report that this
approach is far more effective than simply telling students to use published research as models
for their writing. Whether providing writing support in this way, in tutorials that follow a lecture,
or supporting ongoing peer review sessions, the idea is to provide scaffolded support for
students. The academic literacy teachers work collaboratively with faculty to identify students’
writing problem areas and appropriate examples of effective writing, and they do ongoing work
with students. In this way they shift some of the burden off of faculty but still make the work on
writing situated and targeted. Faculty are very supportive once they see that this type of
integrated support is effective. They also appreciate the reflecting and learning that is part of the
faculty/staff collaborative work that they do with tutors from the Learning Development unit.
Skillen and Purser (2003) report that when they work together it helps the content area instructor
and the literacy skills person do more than either could alone.
In the end, no one approach can effectively address the writing challenges that graduate
students face. Programs, units, and institutions must work separately and collaboratively to help
faculty and staff help students by drawing on a range of traditional and course embedded
approaches. In this way, Kamler and Thompson (2006) suggest that a writing culture can be
established that explicitly invites students to be a part of it and supports their entry into an
academic discourse community by helping them learn how to be members. Without such efforts,
students will continue to struggle, often losing their way through programs. Even when they do
Graduate Student Writing 43
complete their work and graduate, they may not have fully learned to participate in the writing
discourses of the many communities in which they should participate as “scholarly practitioners”
(Carnegie Project for the Education Doctorate, 2015). Programs that make concrete and specific
efforts to improve their students’ skills and knowledge about writing will produce graduates who
are more likely to disseminate what they have learned effectively, and increase the potential for
their work to have a lasting impact on educational opportunities for learners.
Graduate Student Writing 44
References
Aitchison, C. (. 1. )., & Lee, A. (. 2. ). (2006). Research writing: Problems and pedagogies.
Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 265-278. doi:10.1080/13562510600680574
Aitchison, C. (2009). Writing groups for doctoral education. Studies in Higher Education, 34(8),
905-916.
Badenhorst, C., Moloney, C., Rosales, J., Dyer, J., & Ru, L. (2014). Beyond deficit: Graduate
student research-writing pedagogies. Teaching in Higher Education,
doi:10.1080/13562517.2014.945160
Becker, H. S. (1986). Writing for social scientists: How to finish your thesis, book, or article.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Berkenkotter, C., Huckin, T. N., & Ackerman, J. (1988). Conventions, conversations, and the
writer: Case study of a student in a rhetoric ph.D. program National Council of Teachers of
English.
Bharuthram, S. (. 1. )., & McKenna, S. (. 2. ). (2006). A writer-respondent intervention as a
means of developing academic literacy. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(4), 495-507.
doi:10.1080/13562510600874300
Bitchener, J., Basturkmen, H., & East, M. (2010). The focus of supervisor written feedback to
Thesis/Dissertation students. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 79-97.
Graduate Student Writing 45
Blakeslee, A.M. ( 1,2 ). (1997). Activity, context, interaction, and authority: Learning to write
scientific papers in situ. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 11(2), 125-169.
Bloom, L. Z. (1981). Why graduate students can't write: Implications of research on writing
anxiety for graduate education. Journal of Advanced Composition, , 103-117.
Bolker, J. (1998). Writing your dissertation in fifteen minutes a day: A guide to starting,
revising, and finishing your doctoral thesis. New York: Henry Holt.
Caffarella, R. S., & Barnett, B. G. (2000). Teaching doctoral students to become scholarly
writers: The importance of giving and receiving critiques. Studies in Higher Education,
25(1), 39-52. doi:10.1080/030750700116000
Can, G., & Walker, A. (2011). A model for doctoral students' perceptions and attitudes toward
written feedback for academic writing. Research in Higher Education, 52(5), 508-536.
doi:10.1007/s11162-010-9204-1
Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education,
31(2), 219-233.
Carnegie Project for the Education Doctorate. (2015). Design ConceptDefinitions. Retrieved
from http://cpedinitiative.org/design-concept-definitions.
Carter, N. (2012). Action research: Improving graduate-level writing. Educational Action
Research, 20(3), 407-421. doi:10.1080/09650792.2012.697403
Graduate Student Writing 46
Carter, S. (2011). Doctorate as genre: Supporting thesis writing across campus. Higher
Education Research and Development, 30(6), 725-736. doi:10.1080/07294360.2011.554388
Casanave, C. P., & Hubbard, P. (1992). The writing assignments and writing problems of
doctoral students: Faculty perceptions, pedagogical issues, and needed research. English for
Specific Purposes, 11(1), 33-49. doi:10.1016/0889-4906(92)90005-U
Cotterall, S. (2011). Doctoral students writing: Where's the pedagogy? Teaching in Higher
Education, 16(4), 413-425. doi:10.1080/13562517.2011.560381
Crossman, J. M. (. 1. )., & Kite, S. L. (. 2. ). (2012). Facilitating improved writing among
students through directed peer review. Active Learning in Higher Education, 13(3), 219-
229. doi:10.1177/1469787412452980
Davies, W. M. (2008). 'Not quite right': Helping students to make better arguments. Teaching in
Higher Education, 13(3), 327-340. doi:10.1080/13562510802045352
Delyser, D. (2003). Teaching graduate students to write: A seminar for thesis and dissertation
writers. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 27(2), 169-181.
doi:10.1080/03098260305676
Ferguson, P. (2011). Student perceptions of quality feedback in teacher education. Assessment
and Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(1), 51-62. doi:10.1080/02602930903197883
Graduate Student Writing 47
Ferguson, T. (2009). The 'write' skills and more: A thesis writing group for doctoral students.
Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 33(2), 285-297.
doi:10.1080/03098260902734968
Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. Bristol, PA: Taylor &
Francis.
Graff, G., & Birkenstein, C. (2006). They say/Isay: The moves that matter in academic writing.
New York: Norton.
Harvey, J. (2008). Bridging the gap: The intellectual and perceptual skills for better academic
writing. Teaching Philosophy, 31(2), 151-159.
Hedgcock, J. S. (2008). Lessons I must have missed: Implicit literacy practices in graduate
education. In C. P. Casanave, & X. Li (Eds.), Learning the literacy practices of graduate
school: Insiders' reflections on academic enculturation (pp. 32-45). Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press.
Higgins, R., Hartley, P., & Skelton, A. (2002). The conscientious consumer: Reconsidering the
role of assessment feedback in student learning. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 53.
Hyatt, D. F. (2005). ‘Yes, a very good point!’: A critical genre analysis of a corpus of feedback
commentaries on master of education assignments. Teaching in Higher Education, 10(3),
339-353. doi:10.1080/13562510500122222
Graduate Student Writing 48
Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic
writing. New York: John Benjamins.
Ivanic, R., Clark, R., & Rimmershaw, R. (2000). What am I supposed to make of this? The
messages conveyed to students by tutor's written comments. In M. R. Lea, & B. Stierer
(Eds.), Student writing in higher education: New contexts (pp. 47-65). Buckingham,
England: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2006). Helping doctoral students write. London: Routledge.
Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2008). The failure of dissertation advice books: Toward alternative
pedagogies for doctoral writing SAGE Publications. doi:10.3102/0013189X08327390
Kiley, M. (2009). Identifying threshold concepts and proposing strategies to support doctoral
candidates. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 46(3), 293-304.
doi:10.1080/14703290903069001
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development. Englewood-Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Koncel, M. A., & Carney, D. (1992). When worlds collide: Negotiating between academic and
professional discourse in a graduate social work program. ().
Kumar, V., & Stracke, E. (2007). An analysis of written feedback on a PhD thesis. Teaching in
Higher Education, 12(4), 461-470. doi:10.1080/13562510701415433
Graduate Student Writing 49
Kwan, B. S. C. (2008). The nexus of reading, writing and researching in the doctoral undertaking
of humanities and social sciences: Implications for literature reviewing. English for Specific
Purposes, 27(1), 42-56. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2007.05.002
Lave, J., & Wegner, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Lavelle, E. ( 1,2 ), & Bushrow, K. (. 1. ). (2007). Writing approaches of graduate students.
Educational Psychology, 27(6), 807-822. doi:10.1080/01443410701366001
Lea, M. (2004). Academic literacies: A pedagogy for course design. Studies in Higher
Education, 29(6), 739-756. doi:10.1080/0307507042000287230
Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (2006). The 'academic literacies' model: Theory and applications
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4504_11
Lee, A., & Aitchison, C. (2009). Writing for the doctorate and beyond. In D. Boud, & A. Lee
(Eds.), Changing practices of doctoral education (pp. 87-99). New York: Routledge.
Maher, D., Seaton, L., McMullen, C., Fitzgerald, T., Otsuji, E., & Lee, A. (2008). 'Becoming and
being writers': The experiences of doctoral students in writing groups. Studies in Continuing
Education, 30(3), 263-275. doi:10.1080/01580370802439870
Maher, M. A., Feldon, D. F., Timmerman, B. E., & Chao, J. (2014). Faculty perceptions of
common challenges encountered by novice doctoral writers. Higher Education Research &
Development, 33(4), 699-711. doi:10.1080/07294360.2013.863850
Graduate Student Writing 50
Mirador, J. (2014). 'I'd like to know why': Cultural capital and MA in education students'
interpretation of feedback commentaries
Mullen, C. A. (2001). The need for a curricular writing model for graduate students. Journal of
further & Higher Education, 25(1), 117-126. doi:10.1080/03098770020030551
Mutch, A. (2003). Exploring the practice of feedback to students. Active Learning in Higher
Education, 4(1), 24.
Nackoney, C. K., Munn, S. L., & Fernandez, J. (2011). Learning to write: Wisdom from
emerging scholars. In T. S. Rocco, & T. Hatcher (Eds.), The handbook of scholarly writing
and publishing (pp. 26-43) Jossey-Bass.
Ondrusek, A. (2012). What the research reveals about graduate students' writing skills: A
literature review. Journal of Education for Library & Information Science, 53(3), 176-188.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (. 1. )., & Collins, K. M. T. (2001). Writing apprehension and academic
procrastination among graduate students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 92(2), 560-562.
Paltridge, B. (2003). Teaching thesis and dissertation writing. Hong Kong Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 8(2), 78-96.
Paltridge, B. (2002). Thesis and dissertation writing: An examination of published advice and
actual practice. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 125-143. doi:10.1016/S0889-
4906(00)00025-9
Graduate Student Writing 51
Plakhotnik, M. S., & Rocco, T. S. (2012). Implementing writing support circles with adult
learners in a nonformal education setting: Priority, practice, and process. Adult Learning,
23(2), 76-81.
Pokorny, H. (. 1. )., & Pickford, P. (. 2. ). (2010). Complexity, cues and relationships: Student
perceptions of feedback. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11(1), 21-30.
doi:10.1177/1469787409355872
Rose, M., & McClafferty, K. A. (2001). A call for the teaching of writing in graduate education
American Educational Research Association.
Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 535-550.
doi:10.1080/02602930903541015
Sallee, M., Hallett, R., & Tierney, W. (2011). Teaching writing in graduate school. College
Teaching, 59(2), 66-72.
Samara, A. (2006). Group supervision in graduate education: A process of supervision skill
development and text improvement. Higher Education Research & Development, 25(2),
115-129. doi:10.1080/07294360600610362
San Miguel, C. ( 1 ), & Nelson, C. D. (. 2. ). (2007). Key writing challenges of practice-based
doctorates. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(1), 71-86.
doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2006.11.007
Graduate Student Writing 52
San Miguel, C., & Nelson, C. D. (2007). Key writing challenges of practice-based doctorates.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(1), 71-86.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.libraries.rutgers.edu/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.11.007
Skillen, J., & Purser, E. (2003). Teaching thesis writing: Policy and practice at an australian
university. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 17-33.
Starke-Meyerring, D. (2011). The paradox of writing in doctoral education: Student experiences.
In L. McAlpine, & C. Amundsen (Eds.), Doctoral education: Research-based strategies for
doctoral students, supervisors and administrators (pp. 75-95). London: Springer
Science+Business Media.
Street, B. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. London: Cambridge University Press.
Switzer, A., & Perdue, S. W. (2011). Dissertation 101: A research and writing intervention for
education graduate students. Education Libraries, 34(1), 4-14.
Tardy, C. M. (2005). “It's like a story”: Rhetorical knowledge development in advanced
academic literacy. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(4), 325-338.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.libraries.rutgers.edu/10.1016/j.jeap.2005.07.005
Värlander, S. (2008). The role of students' emotions in formal feedback situations. Teaching in
Higher Education, 13(2), 145-156. doi:10.1080/13562510801923195
Waring, H. Z. (2005). Peer tutoring in a graduate writing centre: Identity, expertise, and advice
resisting. Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 141-168.
Graduate Student Writing 53
Watson, G. (1987). Writing a thesis: A quick guide to long essays and dissertations. London and
New York: Longman.
Wellington, J. (2010). More than a matter of cognition: An exploration of affective writing
problems of post-graduate students and their possible solutions. Teaching in Higher
Education, 15(2), 135-150. doi:10.1080/13562511003619961
Williams, J. (1990). Style: Toward clarity and grace. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Young, P. (2000). 'I might as well give up': Self-esteem and mature students' feelings about
feedback on assignments. Journal of further & Higher Education, 24(3), 409.
Graduate Student Writing 54
Resources
Graduate Student Writing 55
Sample Writing Rubrics
Recommendations for Integrating Writing Instruction with coursework
Writing tips for students
Example feedback template
Template for analyzing academic writing
Reference list of books that may be helpful even though writing support type books have been
critiqued
Graduate Student Writing 56
Does not meet expectations - 1
Developing/Needs Improvement - 2
Good - 3 Outstanding - 4
Organization The writing is often unclear or unfocused. The organization is not obvious throughout and the reader has few or no guides through the document (i.e. by the use of appropriate headings, thesis statements, and transitions).
The writing is only sometimes clear and focused. The organization is not always obvious throughout and the reader has few guides through the document (i.e. by the use of appropriate headings, thesis statements, and transitions).
The writing is clear and focused. The organization is generally obvious throughout, and the reader is usually guided through the document (i.e. using appropriate headings, thesis statements, and transitions).
The writing is clear and focused. The organization is obvious throughout, and the reader is skillfully guided through the document (i.e. using appropriate headings, thesis statements, and transitions).
Argumentation and analysis
Only some paragraphs are fully developed and coherently connected.The writer makes few clear, strong, and logical points supported with relevant details from the data or related research literature.
Only some paragraphs are fully developed and coherently connected.The writer makes some clear, strong, and logical points supported with relevant details from the data or related research literature.
Most paragraphs are fully developed and coherently connected.The writer usually makes clear, strong, and logical points supported with rich and relevant details from the data or related research literature.
All sentences and paragraphs are fully developed and coherently connected.The writer makes clear, strong, and logical points supported with rich and relevant details from the data or related research literature.
Technical correctness
There are some major technical writing errors with regard to APA conventions, sentence structure, spelling or punctuation.
There are some major or minor technical writing errors with regard to APA conventions, sentence structure, spelling or punctuation.
There are few major or minor technical writing errors with regard to APA conventions, sentence structure, spelling or punctuation.
There are almost no major or minor technical writing errors with regard to APA conventions, sentence structure, spelling or punctuation.
Rutgers University Graduate School of Education EdD Writing RubricRutger
Graduate Student Writing 57
From Harris, M.J. (2006). Three steps to teaching abstract and critique writing. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 17(2), 136-146
Graduate Student Writing 58
Developing Graduate Student WritingA process for integrating writing instruction with courseworkAlisa BelzerRutgers UniversityOctober 2013
1. Decide to consciously help students improve their writing in the context of your course. Make this agenda clear to your students, and let them know that this is a goal above and beyond their learning the course content.
2. In addition to your normal, weekly topical reading assignments, assign a short chapter from an instructional text on writing every other week or so. I recommend Graff, G. and Birkenstein, C. (2006). They say/I say: The moves that matter in academic writing. NY: Norton. OR Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G. and Williams, J. M. (2003). The craft of research. Chicago: Univeristy of Chicago Press. OR Johnson, A. P. (2003). A short guide to academic writing. New York: University Press of America. These all have short chapters and each tackle the challenges our student encounter in somewhat different ways.
3. Each week that you have assigned a writing oriented text, take 15 or 20 minutes of class time to look at an assigned topical text relevant to course content in terms of how the writing skill outlined in the assigned writing text is implemented. Have students point out specific examples. Point to other writing strategies the author employs that you think are particularly helpful in making a strong (or problematic) piece of academic writing. This might actually serve a double purpose of making writing strategies explicit through exemplars and be a lead in to discussion of the central arguments of the piece. In discussing how an argument is constructed it can, obviously, lead to a discussion of what the argument is and how it’s made.
4. Use a piece of student writing from a previous semester to have students critique elements of writing they have been reading about that are missing and that improving on would make for a better writing piece. Do this once or twice during the semester and emphasize skills you have covered.
5. Give at least two writing assignments (one early in the semester and one towards or at the end) that require students to employ the writing skills you have been teaching or ask students later in the semester to rewrite something produced earlier in the semester.
6. Ask students to develop specific goals for improving their writing based on feedback from the first task. Encourage them to keep those goals right in front of them as they write, edit, and revise their work for the second assignment.
7. If you can find the time in class or can justify the time as an assignment, have students peer review a draft of the second assignment looking out specifically for the skills you have focused on through the assigned writing texts. Give them a list of those skills as a reminder and guide for peer review. You can consider requiring students to go through one round of revision based on this feedback (and showing evidence of doing so) before submitting a final draft to you.
Graduate Student Writing 59
8. Use the same rubric to assess writing skills for both assignments so that students get a consistent message about what counts as effective writing and have a clear idea of how to improve on the second piece.
Some considerations:1. You might want to identify 2-4 courses throughout the program that follow this procedure and designate them as writing support courses.
2. If you do turn this into more of a program effort, faculty who implement the process should work together to identify which skills will be the focus in each class so there is reinforcement and new material thought out in a coherent way.
3. Consider encouraging faculty to use the same writing rubric for any course that requires traditional academic writing so that students can get a consistent message about what is viewed as effective academic writing and what progress they are making toward developing their skills in this areas.
4. Consider faculty development seminars in which faculty rate student writing using the rubric to improve the reliability of rubric use. These sessions may also be used to increase consistency and skill around providing feedback on writing and other skills and capacities that faculty may use to support student writing development.
Graduate Student Writing 60
Alisa BelzerRutgers UniversityGraduate School of EducationEducation Doctorate ProgramDecember 2014
Some writing tips for the Qualifying Process or other academic writing tasks
1. Framing: Use an ice cream cone or funnel shape metaphor to help you think about how to organize the framing of your problem which should be the key task of the introduction of your paper. Start by describing the problem (or practice) at the broadest level (top of the funnel or ice cream cone) and work your way down to the specific problem or issue in the context where you want to study (narrowest part of the funnel or ice cream cone). Think of organizing things so that the research question or purpose statement seems like the next natural step after getting to that narrowest, most local or specific aspect of the problem on which you are focusing.
2. Overall organization: To check for overall organization, create a skeleton of your draft. This is a great step to take between a first and second draft. Copy your paper into a new document, then delete everything but your introductory paragraph, subject headings and subheadings, and the first two sentences of each paragraph. Check that there is a logical, linear order from one section to the next and from one paragraph to the next, and that the first sentence of each paragraph is making a more global (big idea) point rather than a local (evidence oriented point). This is also a good way to make sure you aren’t circling back and repeating points or skipping key connecting ideas from one section/paragraph to another. Finally, this is a good way to check that each paragraph belongs under the heading where you have put it.
3. Within paragraph coherence: If you note that a paragraph seems particularly complex or convoluted and you’re not sure why or how to fix it, it can really help to look at each sentence separately and evaluate how well it connects to what came before and after it. Visual space may help you do this. Copy the paragraph into another document and double space between each sentence. Then evaluate the relationship between sentences and fill in needed gaps. Check that one thought really does lead to the next. Make sure every sentence in the paragraph is the same “flavor” cookie and that only the first (and possibly the last) sentences are “global”; the others should be “local” (see Tip 4).
4. Paragraph organization: Each body paragraph should be constructed like an oreo cookie. The first sentence (or second if you use the first sentence to build a transition from the previous paragraph) should be a cookie and it should make a “global” statement about what the paragraph is about/arguing. This is otherwise known as the topic sentence. Everything after that should be “local”, the filling, otherwise knows as evidence, support, or examples that make the point of the top cookie layer. The
Graduate Student Writing 61
paragraph often (but does not have to) end in a bottom cookie layer. Make sure the bottom layer (or the end of the paragraph) is the same “flavor” as the top layer (i.e., that you have not drifted from away from ideas that make the point of the top cookie layer). This bottom layer can also help set up the transition to the next sentence. If you are uncertain what your top cookie layer (topic sentence) should be, read all the sentences in your paragraph and ask yourself what are you telling the reader with these detail? The answer to this question is your top layer.
5. Using direct quotes and citations properly: Only use a direct quote if it is seminal, definitional, or said in such a unique way that it can’t be adequately paraphrased. Use direct quotes very sparingly. Otherwise, paraphrase and summarize. Make sure you introduce every quote with some kind of explanation of why you are including it; after every quote you should tell the reader what you want them to get from it. To continue with the food metaphors, think of every quote as being part of a sandwich: your introduction and comment on the quote are the two pieces of bread. Every filling (the quote) needs bread on either side to make it a sandwich.
Avoid starting a paragraph with a quote or a citation. Start with a global sentence that tells the reader what the paragraph will be about. Don’t depend on a source to do that for you.
6. Ways to Synthesize: Think about drawing connections among texts using and, or, or but. Here is an example are example templates to start the process:Connecting with AND:
• Gopnik and de Botton are concerned with the busyness of modern life.Connecting with BUT:
• Gopnik and de Botton are concerned with the busyness of modern life, but they do not reach the same conclusions about whether this lifestyle is desirable.Connecting with OR:
• Either people should just accept that busyness is a permanent feature of modern life as Gopnik contends, or, as de Botton suggests, they can change their mindset and recover some space for solitude.
Avoid summarizing studies one by one. Group them together and discuss them as whole and use connectors to do so. Use one or two studies to illustrate your big points.
7. Take a critical stand on the literature you review: Don’t forget to be evaluative of the literature you review. You can point to strengths and weaknesses or just distinct characteristics of areas of research in terms of research questions, research design, sample (size, selection, ect.), length of study, etc. Be sure to characterize the research in a particular area in general before you discuss any specific studies that you describe as examples.
Graduate Student Writing 62
8. Proof read, proof read, proof read!! Check that every sentence makes sense, has subject-verb agreement, parallel construction, etc. If a sentence is very long, you are likely to lose your reader and may have lost yourself. Consider breaking long sentences up. A sentence should never be three lines or more long. If it is more than a line and half or so, it is probably longer than it should be. Also paragraphs should not be longer than about 2/3s of a page and should never be shorter than 3 sentences. Make sure you are using proper format for citations and references.
Graduate Student Writing 63
GIVING FEEDBACK ON STUDENT WRITINGSUPPLEMENT 2: FEEDBACK FORM
Name: Course/Section:
Essay Number: Essay Assignment: Essay Grade:
What you’re doing well in this essay:
Global writing issues (argument, structure, focus, logic, analysis, evidence, thesis, topic, etc.):
Local writing issues (sentences, paragraph coherence, clarity, grammar, transitions, word choice, specificity, punctuation, etc.)
Prioritizing what to work on for future essays:
Graduate Student Writing 64
A Critical Thinking Template for Analyzing the Logic of an Article
Modified from Paul & Elder, 2001 The miniature guide to critical thinking concepts & tools
1. The authors felt it was important to conduct this study, and write this article, because _________? (State the relevant background information used to justify their work.)
2. The main purpose of this article, or study, was ____________? (State as accurately as possible the author’s purpose for writing the article.)
3. The key questions the author is addressing are __________?(Identify the key questions in the mind of the author when they wrote the article.)
4. The methods used to answer their key questions were __________?(Describe the general approach used and include details that assist in evaluating the quality of the results – sample size, etc.)
5. The most important information in this article is ____________?(Identify the facts, observations, and/or data the author is using to support their conclusions. Be quantitative.)
6. The results can be put into context by comparing them to _________?(Place the quantitative results into an easily understood context by expressing as %s or by comparing to an intuitively understood value - e.g., 2x the size of a football field)
7. The main inferences/conclusions in this article are __________?(Identify the key conclusions the author presents in the article.)
8. If we take this line of reasoning seriously, the implications are ___________?(What consequences are likely to follow if people take the author’s reasoning seriously?)
Graduate Student Writing 65
Helpful books on writing for faculty and students
Becker, H. S. (1986). Writing for social scientists: How to finish your thesis, book, or article.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bolker, J. (1998). Writing your dissertation in fifteen minutes a day: A guide to starting,
revising, and finishing your doctoral thesis. New York: Henry Holt.
Graff, G., & Birkenstein, C. (2006). They say/Isay: The moves that matter in academic writing.
New York: Norton.
Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2006). Helping doctoral students write. London: Routledge.
Watson, G. (1987). Writing a thesis: A quick guide to long essays and dissertations. London and
New York: Longman.
Williams, J. (1990). Style: Toward clarity and grace. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Zinsser, William Knowlton. (2006) On writing well :the classic guide to writing nonfiction New
York : HarperCollins,
Graduate Student Writing 66