• About
    • Cally Guerin
    • Claire Aitchison
    • Susan Carter
  • Contact us

DoctoralWriting SIG

DoctoralWriting SIG

Tag Archives: stuckness

Generic doctoral writing programmes: What do you do and why do you do it?

03 Monday Sep 2018

Posted by doctoralwriting in 3. Writing Practices

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

4x4 exercise, stuckness, writer's block, writing exercise

E Marcia Johnson, our guest blogger, has been the Director of the Centre for Tertiary Teaching & Learning (CeTTL) since 2012. Coming from a background in eLearning and Applied Linguistics, she has taught and researched in Canada, Japan, and New Zealand. Marcia and her team have introduced a number of cross-disciplinary, cohort-based initiatives to improve the student experience of learning, particularly doctoral writing and academic integrity. In particular, their weekly Doctoral Writing Conversation has facilitated the development of a range of strategies to help PhD students become successful thesis writers.

By E Marcia Johnson

Given the increasingly large, diverse cohort of doctoral students in many New Zealand and Australian universities (and elsewhere), additional pressure is being placed on academic staff to supervise more and more students. However, the rhetorical demands of thesis writing are quite specific, with Carter (2011) proposing that doctoral writing is its own literary genre. A strong case can thus be made for generic thesis writing programmes to be offered by specialists with expertise in writing; such programmes could not only aid students’ emerging thesis writing competence, they would provide welcome support for supervisors. What I’ll describe in this post is an example of what can be done as part of a generic thesis writing programme (the Doctoral Writing Conversation (DWC)), but – importantly – the underlying reasons for doing it. Continue reading →

I just don’t get it! Why don’t you like my writing?

21 Monday Apr 2014

Posted by doctoralwriting in All Posts

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

feedback, stuckness, threshold concept

by Cally Guerin

We’ve been writing a lot about feedback in recent months, and have tackled this from a number of angles in the previous blogs. One aspect that we haven’t touched upon yet is how, despite the best will in the world, sometimes students simply don’t seem to understand what supervisors are trying to tell them. Recently I’ve observed a supervisor working closely with a student and providing detailed feedback on various levels – sentence structure, overall document structure, and the big ideas aspects of the thesis – and yet the student still doesn’t appear to understand what is being asked of her. The feedback is provided in both written and oral forms, everyone is trying really hard to do the right thing, and yet no progress is being made. This has pushed me to consider what else is needed to get the message across about why the writing is just not working.

Students may not recognize what it is that supervisors, examiners and journal reviewers value in academic writing. For example, what students might regard as weak because it is only ‘subjective opinion’, we might regard as the necessary expression of critical judgement; in some cases, personal reflection has a perfectly legitimate role to play in situating the author in relation to the object of study.

Doctoral writing doesn’t necessarily respond well to the kind of marking rubrics common in undergraduate writing, where very specific criteria can be requested and provided. Here, instead, we are asking for ‘new’ work. It is certainly possible to establish some general criteria to help us assess doctoral writing, and I’ve found Boote & Beile’s (2005) work very helpful in this regard. However, a checklist is a blunt instrument when it comes to the subtle nuances and elements of voice and genre required at doctoral level – and without those elements, the writing simply doesn’t pass muster. Or, in academic terms, it may be signaling its underpinning epistemology quite inaccurately.

Sometimes it is not enough simply to tell a novice writer what to do, nor even to demonstrate the process and ask them to explain the reasons for the revisions, particularly if the issues are broader than expression within a paragraph. Rather than direct instruction, it would seem that some students need to establish for themselves the difference between the current writing and the desired product. I wonder if part of what is going on here relates to a basic principle of adult learning (Lieb, 1991) – being autonomous and self-directed. There are some things that we need to work out for ourselves, that we need to discover rather than be instructed about. I’m not suggesting that we should abandon students who are struggling to understand; rather, it seems that some elements of writing are better learnt through guided self-critique instead of being told ‘the answer’.

One response to this dilemma is for academics to provide models of the kind of writing that is desired, whether that is in the form of a journal article, a dissertation, or some other genre. This is, of course, a fairly standard practice. However, the next step needs to be a comparison between the model and the student’s own writing. And it seems necessary for the student to do this for themselves – it just doesn’t seem to have the same impact if the supervisor or learning advisor simply points out the differences. By actively identifying and explaining the differences between the two pieces for themselves, students can start to notice the ways in which their own writing is not matching the model.

There was a lot of talk of threshold concepts (Meyer & Land 2013) at the QPR conference last week. I’m not sure that the kind of ‘stuckness’ I’m thinking about here would really constitute a threshold concept as such, but it can certainly be troublesome for those struggling to find a way over this bump in the process of learning about doctoral writing.

Have you struck similar situations where the communication about what is needed in the writing breaks down like this? Have you found other solutions that you could share with our readers?

Stephen Lieb (1991) Principles of Adult Learning, VISION, Fall.

 

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts.

Join 16,912 other followers

Follow me on Twitter

My Tweets

Categories

  • 1. The Thesis/Dissertation
  • 2. Grammar/Voice/Style
  • 3. Writing Practices
  • 4. Publication
  • 5. Identity & Emotion
  • 6. Community Reports
  • All Posts

Events

  • British Educational Research Association Conference
  • EARLI (European Association for Research and Learning and Instruction)
  • HERDSA Conference (Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia)
  • Quality in Postgraduate Research (QPR) Conference
  • The Society for Research into Higher Education Conference

More people like us

  • AcWriMo (Academic Writing Month)
  • AILA Research Network on academic publishing
  • Association for Academic Language and Learning (AALL)
  • Consortium on Graduate Communication
  • Doctoral Teaching SIG
  • Explorations of Style: A Blog about Academic Writing
  • patter
  • PhD2Published
  • Research Whisperer
  • ThesisLink
  • Thesiswhisperer
  • Writing for Research
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy