This week’s readings feature
empirical research on writing groups for doctoral students. This is a conscious
effort on my part to blur the lines between the facets of the course that
relate to technical aspects such as building writing skills and the more theoretical
parts of the course (e.g., talking about ideas). Comment on whether these readings
shed light on any aspects of this course.
I have come up with a few points that I think connect this week’s readings to what we have discussed in the course thus far.
ReplyDeleteThe assigned articles (Aitchison and Lassig, Dillon and Diezman) focused on research writing groups and how the support of these groups helped each person develop/deepen their scholarly writing abilities and find their scholarly identity. In chapter 5 (p.94), Becker talks about his involvement in a very similar process, though he doesn’t refer to it as a formalized writing group. Becker shares how he and his graduate school colleagues read and commented on each other’s work. This experience normalized and supported the idea that rewriting (editing and critiquing) is a part of the process of creating a “finished product.” This idea of a finished product or final answer is addressed in both books as a false notion. For Biesta and Burbules the answer is ever-changing and ever-evolving (p. 110). Becker says when he thought he was done with a piece of work, he often realized that he wasn’t (p. 103).
I think that in the search for knowledge and the search for writing the best article ever, things may be easier if you adopt an understanding and acceptance that you are a lifetime learner and that your experiences with people and things around you significantly impact the process of learning. All of those things impact our knowing. Becker talks about writing from the world around you (p. 107). This idea presents itself in Biesta and Burbules (p. 108) when inter-subjectivity is described as the world that we live in and the interaction between us and the world. A part of the process from educational inquiry to educational knowledge is allowing (or challenging) oneself to think about the connectedness of things as they relate to other things.
My final comment is the idea of teacher as student and student as teacher (Becker with respect to writing) and educational practitioner as educational researcher and educational researcher as educational practitioner (Biesta and Burbules with respect to education). Both books speak to the necessity of each and the support for education/knowledge that is gained when the contributions of each role is recognized and effectively utilized.
The notion of “identity” as outlined by Lessig et al, I think, is an important one to consider especially given this week’s blog prompt. The “blurred lines” Professor Stemhagen is attempting to create between writing skills and theory are cleared up when we consider our identities as writers and what we should hope to get out of our own academic writing and that of our peers. I would say by working in writing groups we get the chance to learn from one another about: 1) general writing skills and 2) various topics that relate to our field. Together, we not only get better at writing, we also start to gain a sense of what we really believe. Reading the work of our peers helps with identifying our own areas of weakness, but it also allows us to understand important issues in education from someone else’s perspective. Certainly, we do this in class discussions as well, but I think there is something different about reading someone’s thoughts. In person and out loud, I think some people (myself included) are sometimes hesitant to share what’s really on their mind. For some, the spoken word is difficult to articulate. I know my writing has its own style and voice. I think that’s true for most people. I think there is so much we can learn from reading the work of others. Over the course of a doctoral program, I think our “identity” as a scholarly writer morphs both technically as well as theoretically. I think the piece by Aitchison supports these claims as well.
ReplyDeleteI’m really enjoying Becker, but I think his encouragement to be brave about our writing is spoiled by his underlying pessimism. It seems that there is so much competition to get writing out there and that graduate students and junior professors are intimidated to give their work to others for critique. To that I would say, such is nature of the academic profession. By getting into academia you have to be willing to put yourself out there. You have to embrace the criticism and learn from it. By doing so, not only does your writing improve, but you learn more about your discipline than you ever thought possible. I think Becker’s line on page 115 supports this idea. He wrote, “To overcome these fears, to take the risk of being thought sloppy or stupid, you have to trust your colleagues.” Now, I’ve taken this quote out of context because he goes on to write about trust and identifying who you can trust, which is quite unfortunate. The competitive side of academia, I think, makes us better. Healthy competition is a good thing and again, I think Becker makes it sound worse than it is, or perhaps, worse than it needs to be. That said, I concede my experience at the doctoral level is limited.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed the focus of Aitchison’s article. It was interesting to read about the value of writing groups for graduate students and the ways students benefitted from participation in these groups. The article provided a relevant snapshot of the slowly shifting structures for writing-related pedagogies in graduate programs. Aitchison (2009) states “Particular attention is given to one finding; that is, how learning to critique in a group context acts as a central pedagogy for learning to write” (p. 906). This highlights the value that can be gained from encouraging the intersection of theory and skill-building. Students can gain valuable skills from discussing writing and participating in peer-editing. Students build the necessary understanding and literacies around writing skills when they have opportunities to actively engage with the writing process, as opposed to just receiving feedback in isolation when writing is used as a stand-alone assessment tool. The hands-on experiences of reading and critiquing writing translated into higher success levels for all involved.
ReplyDeleteAitchison’s article related well to some of Becker’s insights in Chapter 5. Becker (2007) states “I had learned to see rewriting as fun, something like doing crossword puzzles, not as an embarrassing task whose necessity revealed my shortcomings. I learned that thinking about writing, experimenting with my own style, and tinkering with other’s work were fun too” (p. 95). Becker’s experiences echoed some of the sentiments that Aitchison encountered in her research; namely, that viewing writing and editing as a collaborative undertaking can help reduce anxiety and increase effectiveness. Similarly, Lassig (2013) made a compelling point that scholarly collaboration around writing helped reduce feelings of “isolationism” and negate the long-standing idea that the doctoral student must endure a solitary “trial” in order to earn their degree.
All three of the readings from this week caused me to draw connections between the theory of writing and the practice of writing. Although I know Becker might hate my metaphor, I’m beginning to think of writing not as an individual sport, but as a team sport.
ReplyDeleteAs I began to read in Aitchison this week about doctoral education writing groups that support the development of research student’s writing, I was reminded of an article we were assigned by Richards. In his Stewards of a Field, Stewards of an Enterprise, Richards includes a Table of Crucial Elements of Scholarly Inquiry and Student Learning developed by Cohen and Ball. The final group of outcomes in the table includes four habits of mind that stewards of the field need to develop that could be supported in writing groups. These habits of mind: (1) seek opportunities to present draft analyses or arguments and revise as a result of listener’s reactions, (2) seek and use criticism, (3) expect the revision that writing and rewriting entail, and (4) be sensitive to different discourses in the design, conduct, and communication of research in different settings and with different audiences; acknowledge the importance of providing support to students as they transitions to scholars.
While reading Student or Scholar? Transforming identities through a research writing group (Lassig, Lisette, & Diezmann) I found the struggles of students becoming scholarly writers reminiscent of the struggles faced by teachers as they transition to educational researchers in The Peculiar Problems of Preparing Educational Researchers (Labaree). Both groups wrestled with their identities and their place in their personal and professional hierarchies.
The most important theme I saw emerge from these articles, and the Becker chapters, was the importance of developing a community of trusted peers. Every week in this course we have formed groups and shared our personal thoughts about our readings. Sometimes we had agreed with one another, sometimes we have not, but always we have been supportive. I believe we have developed a classroom where it is safe to share what we are thinking. Looking ahead, I believe the stage has been set for us to form our own research writing groups.
As I think about our semester thus far, these articles don't necessarily bring out the readings as much but highlighted the structure and assignments for the semester in this course. As I look back at your syllabus, you have scheduled time for us to utilize writing groups. You want to provide an introductory crash course in writing groups and the benefit they can have towards our future as a doctoral students. You have asked us to think about our disciplines which may be largely different among our classmates but then utilize each other as critics to think more deeply and broadly about our interests. The concept of writing groups is not revolutionary but I think you strategically included these readings as a way to help us prioritize our future. I also liked the idea that was reflected in the Lassig et. al reading which talked about the supervisor joining in as the student, the teacher being vulnerable and allowing his/her own writing to be reviewed and edited.
ReplyDeleteAs I reflect on the readings from today, I also feel as though I have gotten a glimpse into your personal philosophy for doctoral students which has really been the overall theme of the semester. We all have to spend time thinking about what our motivation is for pursuing research and how educational research is unique. I think what I didn't anticipate from this course was the reflective nature of thinking about our role as researchers and the future that we have in the program. We have to spend time thinking about how we want to further our knowledge as well as learn and grow with others in the program. The community of practice that is described is something that we all need to ensure is important to our role as students.
Atchisson’s comment, “In higher education, written work is most often valued as an assessment tool, rather than as a vehicle for learning” (pg. 907) reminded me of our class discussion last week. We talked a little about why this is the case. We’re expected to write things quickly and for a grade but never really proceed through the writing process in a constructive manner. I wonder why this process has become common place. If writing a paper were embedded into our coursework and had writing groups involved, like we will in this course, I predict we would all learn more about becoming a better writer but also about our identity as proposed by Lassig, Dillon and Diezmann. I imagine, some instructors would not want to incorporate this style of learning because it may take time away from standard lectures covering “necessary” material. If more faculty members were versed in adult learning practices and theory, they may understand that activities such as writing groups play to the wants and needs of adult learners. Writing in groups gives us, as adults, a little more control over making assignments meet our needs and provides us with more freedom to explore.
ReplyDeleteI have never considered joining a writing group, probably because I leave completion of a writing assignment until the final days before its due date, so working in a group would not be very effective. I also think I do not typically hold myself accountable to a schedule which gets me into a last-minute predicament. Working in our writing groups will create a much-needed obligation of completion, as described by Atchisson. I’m very interested to see how this process and our writing progress unfolds. I imagine some of us will have difficulty requesting “explicit feedback” while other will find it difficult to refrain from being overly critical.
I felt as though I was walking through a hall of mirrors while reading the required texts this week. My graduate assistantship assignment for the past two weeks has been to research methods for graduate students to not feel so lonely as a result of the lonely act of writing that takes up much of the time of a graduate student. While doing this, I am often sitting ALONE. Then our readings brought this point home again: our identity in becoming doctoral writers is partially formed by the community of practice that we enter. The people we work with help build our identity, not just the information we take in through our coursework readings and lectures. I have found this to be true in my two semesters so far, and I value the community of which I have started to become a part. My classmates, my research lab, my groups for class projects or studying, my coworkers in the GA office, have all helped me begin to take on the identity of doctoral writer. It was interesting to read these studies about the value of these writing groups during the same week we had to read about Becker’s explanation of the feeling of risk when sharing writing, even with a group like this. The years it took for this group to establish comfort with each other and then even shift to becoming experts in certain areas is a theme seen in Becker’s student as well as these studies. I love the use here of Lave and Wenger’s situated learning theory though, because it means that we don’t have to know it all and be full participants immediately; our role as students at first is to simply show up and start seeing what full participation looks like. We aren’t there yet, and that’s OK. Although my individual work has not yet been critiqued by the members of my research lab, I am thankful for the time I’ve been able to see what type of critiques are given and how those critiques are received and used. Both empirical studies made references to this type of behavior, beginning by watching, and then being able to enter in later.
ReplyDeleteIn a separate meta-narrative, I saw that the line was blurred between the empirical research written and published and the choice/time/access/ability to apply said research to our practical lives as doctoral students. We have often talked in class this semester about the rigid line drawn between research and K12 education. What we have not spent much time discussing is that educational research does not stop at 12th grade. How is empirical research affecting our own lives as students? How generalizable are the conclusions drawn in these two studies? In other words, should we be able to apply these studies to our own practice as students? Aichison was referring to the risk of universities in changing their practices, but I like her use of the phrase “informed risk” to describe what it may feel like for us to work within a writing group; it clearly has some empirical research behind it, but sharing our writing still comes with risk, as the specific context/people are different for us then the empirical studies we read. I appreciated (and felt that it echoed our discussions in class) that both articles ended with a statement to the effect of “writing groups are great, but won’t fix all the problems of doctoral students becoming professional writers.” (As an aside, why were both studies in Australia?)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe empirical research articles definitely shed light on a many characteristics of this course. The pragmatic approach to inquiry and research seems to be a heavy topic in this class, one of which I am really drawn to. We have focused much of our time on Dewey and the need for practicality in knowledge. Knowledge has earned a, somewhat, new definition in my eyes and that definition is mostly concerned with action, interaction, and utility. The empirical readings were directly related to these in that they encouraged learning to write in a scholarly fashion through all three of the aforementioned nouns. Action was fulfilled by engagement in writing personal works and critiquing the works of others, which was a continuous effort. Interaction was satisfied by constant team/group work amongst intellectuals at various levels from novice to expert communicating about said works in order to come to an agreement of sorts for the enrichment of individual writing abilities. Utility was achieved because individuals were able to receive feedback, make corrections, and improve their works along with their ability to create future works. They were able to use everything they learning and put those tools into action.
ReplyDeleteThe Becker reading directly relates to what we have been discussing in this course as well. Becker stated, “The chief point is that no one learns to write all at once, that learning, on the contrary, goes on for a professional lifetime and comes from a variety of experiences academia makes available” (Becker, 2007, p. 91). This statement specifically speaks to Dewey’s argument about knowledge being gained through action and that it is ever changing as impending experience continues to play out. Becker continuously explained how he was able to write and edit through practice, experience, and life interactions. “You learn to write from the world around you, both from what it forces on you and from what it makes available” (Becker, 2007, p. 107).
ReplyDeleteDialogue emerges as a theme from this week’s readings that connects with certain methodological and philosophical aspects of this course at large.
Dialogue, or “talking”, pops up in chapters 5 and 6 of Becker’s book on writing. On page 100 he proposes the benefits of talking about the topic of one’s writing before sitting down to actually write. He argues that this offers the chance to crystallize thoughts and formulate ideas and arguments, stating, “ this does some of the work of a rough draft”(p. 100). Becker also highlights artist and writer David Antin’s process of “writing by talking” as an example of the usefulness of dialogue in the writing process (p. 101). In chapter 6, Pamela Richards describes the low-stakes advantages of talking about writing as a way to begin the process, “Talking about work is less of a risk than writing about it” (p. 118). Richards promotes dialogue with others as a less stressful method for getting feedback about one’s writing topics. Dialogue is also handled in detail in the Aitchison article. The specific behaviors and dialogic methods that comprise a productive writing group critique are appealing and helpful. (Incidentally, this process also connects meaningfully with components of a constructive art critique, which I found interesting.)
Dialogue has also been a strong methodological component of this class. Congruent with Dewey’s idea of transaction, each week we discuss our readings with a small group and, later, with the entire class. Dewey’s writings stress dialogue and social interaction as foundational to learning via the transactional process. Attention to this dialogic process further strengthens the connection between technical aspects of writing and a larger philosophical approach to learning. I would argue that the writing/dialogue process is bidirectional, as the act of composing thoughts, ideas, and arguments in written form ahead of discussions can also aid in the learning that comes from dialogue with others. Aitchison comments on this point when describing the advance writing exercises that students complete before coming together as a writing group to share feedback. I see the blogs posts we write in 702 as the other side of the dialogic process, which aids in the formation of ideas before entering into dialogue with our classmates.
The Becker reading is getting really good! I think it is directly relates to our earlier conversations about writing groups or the lack thereof. The process of writing earlier in my career did not create space to develop an interactive writing process. I like the ideas that it presents around writing groups, trading papers, the need to read, review, and think together about writing prompts and details. I think I have shared this before but Dewey’s idea of pragmatism also directly relates to writing. It is the process of gaining knowledge and making sense of it through action. Writing is a process that requires a series of cycles before it becomes the best work. I am interested in how the discipline papers serve as an opportunity for us to really dive deep into our own ideas about our studies and how we can be process them critically when sharing this knowledge through writing.
ReplyDeleteThe articles on empirical research and writing made me think about the notions of what academic writing is and could be. If teaching writing as a way to learn and process information was common practice, there would be less fear of doing so and would encourage collaborative thinking. The Aitchison’s article focused on the value of writing groups and it aligns to previous course conversations. I think a critical element of these groups is the critique which further suggest the need for deeper empirical research. If one knows that others would be reviewing their unfinished or draft versions of their work they would potentially spend more time on the details. Overall the articles challenges the reader to think about ways to be better disciplined in the understanding of writing and be strategic in how we address our own writing practice.
Writing, and knowledge for that matter, is not bound by time, but is always evolving. Some of what I read in the Aitchison article stood out to me. Part of this article speaks about how society and doctoral programs in general have changed. For example, according to Aitchison, doctoral students have more opportunities to partake in various writing opportunities than they have in the past. Although this might be the case, I feel as though the experience for part-time students is vastly different. However, this might be different based on the university. From my experience it is hard to partake in these extra opportunities due to the timeframe and work commitments during the day.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing that stood out from is the statement about students needing to experience writing with low stakes and having the opportunity to receive feedback. I could not agree with this more. Often, I feel like students are graded on content, knowledge, and writing skills all at once. Although I think this is useful further into the program, I think that this should be a scaffolded approach. In other words, students should first familiarize themselves with the content through the instructor and independent learning, then work their way into the writing process. Ideally, papers would first be based on content, while still receiving feedback on writing with little impact on grades. After this, papers can be rated on more of a holistic approach.
Overall, through most of our readings thus far we have learned about how knowledge and writing are always changing. I believe this to be the case. I feel as though writing is a process and not simply something you can sit down and complete in one sitting. I hope that this program allows more opportunities to write and receive feedback prior to the final submission. I think that we can learn more through feedback than by a grade written at the top of the paper. This would be especially useful if done prior to beginning our dissertation.
Reading these articles this week took me back to my first semester as a doctoral student this past fall. I was told that if I wanted to re-do my paper, I would be able to because that is how academic writing works. If I wanted to turn in a manuscript or an article, I would have a few people read it first before submitting rather than submitting it blindly.
ReplyDeleteReading Atchinson's work, I agree with how different feedback is viewed as an undergraduate versus graduate studies. It is not well received when you are an undergraduate and I would agree. I dreaded receiving feedback on my papers because I viewed corrections as an attack on the content of my paper, like Becker mentioned. This is why I never submitted my papers ahead of time as an undergrad and just took the grade I got. I think this mentality definitely impacted me when I started the doctoral program. If I had taken advantage of peer reviewing prior to this program, I think my writing would be much better than it is today.
As I think about the writing groups that are available to us on campus, I wish the focus on peer reviewing was made mandatory for me during my undergrad. Although I don't think its too late for my writing (nor do I think my writing is unsalvageable), I do feel like I lost crucial time to develop and improve my writing style.
In light of our discussions about writing, specifically around persona and authority, I’ve been reading different books and articles that approach the roles of researchers and writers from a memoiresque perspective. Texts such as that of Becker and Thick: And Other Essay by Tressie McMillan Cottman have pushed me to think more critically about the type of scholarly writer I want to be. As a journalist by trade and a storyteller by avocation, I often feel a polarizing pull to adopt one persona over another that, in full transparency, have presented quite a few unanticipated struggles as I work towards refining my writing and defining who I am as a scholar.
ReplyDeleteSome of my trepidation towards scholarly writing abated from my first semester at VCU to now. I think a lot of that has to do with being required to form a peer writing group in another course and sharing my work. As all of the readings suggested this week, there are tremendous benefits to sharing work with peers. The influence of multiple perspectives pushed me to consider arguments and angles that had been previously neglected and I began to think more critically about how my work might be received in broader spaces. Being part of a peer writing group not only reaffirmed what I had previously learned about writing but also shed a lot of light on what I had yet to learn.
In many ways, I see a direct connection between the writing process and Dewey’s pragmatism. Our approach to writing is constantly being informed by our actions and interactions with the world around us and, as a result, we find the work we produced earlier in our lives/ careers is often very different from the work we presently produce and may be even more different from the work we produce several years from now.
I really enjoy writing groups. When I think about my undergrad, I can remember one English teacher trying to implement reading groups. However, the writings in that course were explicit mandatory assignments. We were not interested in reading about how the other students wrote about the same boring topic we were forced to write about. I am really excited to read other students work in this course because I know they will all be from different lens. I look forward to sharing my “knowledge” and how I’ve come to view my discipline. I think with our discipline assignment, will create meaningful discussion, that successful writing groups should produce.
ReplyDeleteIn the Lassig, Dillon and Diezman article I found the discussion of creating identity through the experience of writing groups to be aligned with our initial discussion from (Richardson?) regarding identity of the teacher and the researcher. In this case however, the identity conflict seems more akin to “teacher” and “student.” The authors in (both articles, really) talk about the benefit to being both a student of writing and a teacher of writing at the same time- you are the student when you submit your work to peers for feedback and you become the teacher when you provide feedback to others. I really like the challenge to identity that both articles bring to the forefront- it really acknowledges the question that I have when I participate in peer editing while still feeling “new” to the technical writing that we are being asked to do.
ReplyDeleteThere’s no denying the specific Dewey-an connection made in the Aitchison article. This is best seen as the author calls apon the quote, “for the development of effective learning, students need to be given the experiences of dealing with academic tasks, and feedback on this experience in order to encourage reflection. That is, academic writing is better learned along with subject content and knowledge, rather than ‘bolted on’ as a separate activity.” This is very much in line with Dewey’s ongoing cyclical process of experience and knowledge-building.
Lastly, I was in-tune with another part of the Aitchison article that very much describes my experience in the course this semester. Often, I eave class with notions, and after some “marinating” and “mixing” in with other ideas and concepts from other experiences, I am able to come down with an understanding. I thought about this as the author writes, “Learning occurs prior to, during and after the group meetings; it occurs at an individual and collective level; and differently for different individuals at different times.”
Nicole Peterson
DeleteWhile reading these articles, I related to the article by Aitchison (p. 907) where iit is stated that written work is looked upon as an assessment tool rather than a way of learning. When starting this program, I knew that by no means this was going to be easy. However, looking back at my undergraduate and even my courses for my master’s program, the writing was seen as a way to assess the student. Therefore, I feel that I wasn’t well prepared or had the “advanced academic writing skills” for the Ph.D program.
ReplyDeleteIt is a different process that I am learning, and I need to break my “habits” as Becker writes in previous chapters. I have never been a part of a writing group before simply because they were not required and most students (as stated in previous chapters of Becker) felt like their work was private and were intimidated to share.
From this course and readings, I feel that writing groups are very important and that both parties involved (writer and reader) can benefit from the process. Sure, it will push me out of my comfort zone, but this is what I need to be successful as a critical reader and to build my academic writing skills. I need to take the risk that Pamela Richards expressed in chapter 6.
I think writing groups are great to help develop writing skills. I am a person who enjoys working in groups and I feel more motivated when I am with others. Atchinson's work made me think about the progression of writing as a skill and getting feedback from others. In undergrad, I think writing was less motivating and getting feedback was daunting. Now I think getting feedback and working with others has made writing a better experience for me.
ReplyDeleteAmber Brown
DeleteI really enjoyed reading the empirical research on the use of writing groups with doctoral students. I think at the doctoral level, it is useful to build a community of trust and feedback with your peers. Sometimes I think that graduate school can feel isolating as you try to carve out your writing skills, tone, and style. I think writing groups would be beneficial for doctoral students to engaging more deeply in the writing, reading, and editing process. I think it would also give students a better sense of what their peers are doing and offer opportunities to share, learn, and collaborate. I think it would have been interesting to have started the writing group process earlier in the semester. It would have been interesting to get feedback from our peers over a longer period of time and grow together in the process of writing and moving into our scholarly identity (Lassig, Dillon, & Diezmann, 2013).
ReplyDelete