Writing together, learning together : the value and effectiveness of a research writing group for doctoral students

The high level of scholarly writing required for a doctoral thesis is a challenge for many research students. However, formal academic writing training is not a core component of many doctoral programs. Informal writing groups for doctoral students may be one method of contributing to the improvement of scholarly writing. In this paper, we report on a writing group that was initiated by an experienced writer and higher degree research supervisor to support and improve her doctoral students’ writing capabilities. Over time, this group developed a workable model to suit their varying needs and circumstances. The model comprised group sessions, an email group, and individual writing. Here, we use a narrative approach to explore the effectiveness and value of our research writing group model in improving scholarly writing. The data consisted of doctoral students’ reflections to stimulus questions about their writing progress and experiences. The stimulus questions sought to probe individual concerns about their own writing, what they had learned in the research writing group, the benefits of the group, and the disadvantages and challenges to participation. These reflections were analysed using thematic analysis. Following this analysis, the supervisor provided her perspective on the key themes that emerged. Results revealed that, through the writing group, members learned technical elements (e.g., paragraph structure), non-technical elements (e.g., working within limited timeframes), conceptual elements (e.g., constructing a cohesive arguments), collaborative writing processes, and how to edit and respond to feedback. In addition to improved writing quality, other benefits were opportunities for shared writing experiences, peer support, and increased confidence and motivation. The writing group provides a unique social learning environment with opportunities for: professional dialogue about writing, peer learning and review, and developing a supportive peer network. Thus our research writing group has proved an effective avenue for building doctoral students’ capability in scholarly writing. The proposed model for a research writing group could be applicable to any context, regardless of the type and location of the university, university faculty, doctoral program structure, or number of postgraduate students. It could also be used within a group of students with diverse research abilities, needs, topics and methodologies. However, it requires a group facilitator with sufficient expertise in scholarly writing and experience in doctoral supervision who can both engage the group in planned writing activities and also capitalise on fruitful lines of discussion related to students’ concerns as they arise. The research writing group is not intended to replace traditional supervision processes nor existing training. However it has clear benefits for improving scholarly writing in doctoral research programs particularly in an era of rapidly increasing student load.

It’s always a pleasure : exploring productivity and pleasure in a writing group for early career academics

The professional development needs of early career academics (ECAs) are increasingly subject to scrutiny. The literature notes writing groups can be successful in increasing research outputs and improving research track records – a core concern for ECAs. However, the pressure on ECAs to publish takes the pleasure out of writing for many. We argue writing groups, created by and for ECAs, can provide an environment for ECAs to (re)produce pleasure in writing and participation in the processes of academic review and debate. In addition, our experience of a writing group was that it provided a platform of social and emotional support contributing to our personal well-being and professional development.

Student or scholar? Transforming identities through a research writing group

This article explores the role a writing group played in influencing the scholarly identities of a group of doctoral students by fostering their writing expertise. While the interest in writing groups usually centres on their potential to support doctoral students to publish, few studies have been conducted and written by the students themselves. Using a situated learning perspective on identity, we explore the connection that emerged between our perceptions of ourselves as developing expertise as scholarly writers and the function of the writing group as a dynamic space for transforming our identities. Findings show that our writing group served as a flexible and interactive Community of Practice (CoP) that shaped critical and durable shifts in identity amongst members.

Shut up and write! Some surprising uses of cafes and crowds in doctoral writing

This chapter discusses a ‘writing movement’, which is currently occurring in various parts of Australia through the support of social media. A concept emerging from the café scene in San Francisco, ‘Shut Up and Write!’ is a meetup group that brings writers together at a specific time and place to write side by side, thus making writing practice, social. This concept has been applied to the academic environment and our case-study explores the positive outcomes in two locations: RMIT University and Queensland University of Technology. This informal learning practice can be implemented to assist research students in developing academic skills.

The effects of cross -age peer tutoring on writing and reading comprehension skills and attitudes and self -perceptions as writers of third and fourth grade students

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of cross-age peer writing response groups on the writing and reading achievement of third and fourth grade students. Students' attitudes about writing and their perceptions of themselves as writers were also measured at the end of the study. ^ One hundred and twenty-two third and fourth grade students enrolled in a public school in a middle-class, multi-cultural neighborhood participated in the study. Four existing classes of students were randomly assigned to either the experimental condition (EC) or the control condition (CC). Both groups were pretested and posttested for writing and reading achievement. The intervention, cross-age peer writing groups, met for eleven weeks. ^ Three hypotheses were examined in this study: (a) writing improvement score, (b) reading comprehension improvement score, and (c) students' attitudes toward writing and their perception of themselves as writers based on the five scales measured on the Writer Self-Perception Scale. ^ ANOVAs were done on the pretests and posttests for writing and the Stanford Achievement Test reading comprehension subtest scores for the year of the study and the previous year. ANOVAs were also done for the five areas of the Writer Self-Perception Scale. Cross-tabulations were also used to compare improvement level verses treatment group, and grade level. ^ Analysis of the data revealed that there was no evidence that the tutoring (EC) groups made more progress than the non-tutoring (CC) groups in writing and reading. There was evidence of growth in writing, especially by the fourth graders. Most importantly, the fourth grade tutors, the experimental group, had the most positive feelings about writing and themselves as writers. ^

A learning community approach to doctoral education in the social sciences

The paper reports on the findings of a community learning approach to doctoral education involving scholarly writing groups (SWGs) which was developed and implemented in the context of a higher degree research programme within the social sciences in an Australian university. The research evaluated the impact of the teaching intervention on students' perceptions of the community learning experience, their knowledge of scholarly writing and their attitudes towards writing. The findings are suggestive of the advantages of community approaches to learning in higher degree research education as a supplement to independent supervision. The SWGs were associated with improvements in both participants' knowledge of scholarly writing and their attitudes towards writing. However, a variety of characteristics of doctoral education are potential impediments to the creation of ongoing and regular interactions in learning communities such as SWGs. The paper concludes that a flexible approach to the recognition and enhancement of community approaches to learning is required to acknowledge the complex and diverse context of contemporary doctoral education.

Shut up and write! Facilitating informal learning in doctoral candidature

Doctoral candidates spend at least 2/3 of their degree outside of structured classroom instruction; most of their learning and writing takes place in their own time. Providing research degree candidates with writing help during their degree study is difficult. Candidates come into their degree with widely varying needs and levels of experience. Course work might seem to offer a way to create parity, but, according to the Australian Qualification Framework, mandated coursework can only occupy 1⁄3 of the degree

Shut up & write!

This case-study exemplifies a ‘writing movement’, which is currently occurring in various parts of Australia through the support of social media. A concept emerging from the café scene in San Francisco, ‘Shut Up and Write!’ is a meetup group that brings writers together at a specific time and place to write side by side, thus making writing practice, social. This concept has been applied to the academic environment and our case-study explores the positive outcomes in two locations: RMIT University and QUT. We believe that this informal learning practice can be implemented to assist research students in developing academic skills. DESCRIPTION: Please describe your practice as a case study, including its context; challenge addressed; its aims; what it is; and how it supports creative practice PhD students or supervisors. Additional information may include: the outcomes; key factors or principles that contribute to its effectiveness; anticipated impact/evidence of impact. Research students spend the majority of their time outside of formal learning environments. Doctoral candidates enter their degree with a range of experience, knowledge and needs, making it difficult to provide writing assistance in a structured manner. Using a less structured approach to provide writing assistance has been trialled with promising results (Boud, Cohen, & Sampson, 2001; Stracke, 2010; Devenish et al, 2009). Although, semi structured approaches have been developed and examined, informal learning opportunities have received minimal attention. The primary difference of Shut Up and Write! to other writing practices, is that individuals do not engage in any structured activity and they do not share the outcomes of the writing. The purpose of Shut Up and Write! is to transform writing practice from a solitary experience, to a social one. Shut Up and Write! typically takes place outside of formal learning environments, in public spaces such as a café. The structure of Shut Up and Write! sessions is simple: participants meet at a specific time and place, chat for a few minutes, then they Shut Up and Write for a predetermined amount of time. Critical to the success of the sessions, is that there is no critiquing of the writing, and there is no competition or formal exercises. Our case-study examines the experience of two meetup groups at RMIT University and QUT through narrative accounts from participants. These accounts reveal that participants have learned: • Writing/productivity techniques; • Social/cloud software; • Aspects of the PhD; and • ‘Mundane’ dimensions of academic practice. In addition to this, activities such as Shut Up and Write! promote peer to peer bonding, knowledge exchange, and informal learning within the higher degree research experience. This case-study extends the initial work presented by the authors in collaboration with Dr. Inger Mewburn at QPR2012 – Quality in Postgraduate Research Conference, 2012.

Shut up & write! Facilitating informal learning in doctoral education

Providing help for research degree writing within a formal structure is difficult because research students come into their degree with widely varying needs and levels of experience. Providing writing assistance within a less structured learning context is an approach which has been trialled in higher education with promising results (Boud, Cohen & Sampson, 2001; Stracke, 2010; Devendish et al., 2009). While semi structured approaches have been the subject of study, little attention has been paid to the processes of informal learning which exist within doctoral education. In this paper we explore a 'writing movement' which has started to be taken up at various locations in Australia through the auspices of social media (Twitter and Facebook). 'Shut up and Write' is a concept first used in the cafe scene in San Francisco, where writers converge at a specific time and place and write together, without showing each other the outcomes, temporarily transforming writing from a solitary practice to a social one. In this paper we compare the experience of facilitating shut up and write sessions in two locations: RMIT University and Queensland University of Technology. The authors describe the set up and functioning of the different groups and report on feedback from regular participants, both physical and virtual. We suggest that informal learning practices can be exploited to assist research students to orientate themselves to the university environment and share vital technical skills, with very minimal input from academic staff. This experience suggests there is untapped potential within these kinds of activities to promote learning within the research degree experience which is sustainable and builds a stronger sense of community.

Report: The Canadian Best Practices Educational Toolkits: Translating evidence-based stroke recommendations into practical implementation resources

The Canadian Best Practice Recommendations for Stroke Care are intended to reduce variations in stroke care and facilitate closure of the gap between evidence and practice (Lindsay et al., 2010). The publication of best practice recommendations is only the beginning of this process. The guidelines themselves are not sufficient to change practice and increase consistency in care. Therefore, a key objective of the Canadian Stroke Network (CSN) Best Practices Working Group (BPWG) is to encourage and facilitate ongoing professional development and training for health care professionals providing stroke care. This is addressed through a multi-factorial approach to the creation and dissemination of inter-professional implementation tools and resources. The resources developed by CSN span pre-professional education, ongoing professional development, patient education and may be used to inform systems change. With a focus on knowledge translation, several inter-professional point-of-care tools have been developed by the CSN in collaboration with numerous professional organizations and expert volunteers. These resources are used to facilitate awareness, understanding and applications of evidence-based care across stroke care settings. Similar resources are also developed specifically for stroke patients, their families and informal caregivers, and the general public. With each update of the Canadian Best Practice Recommendations for Stroke Care, the BPWG and topic-specific writing groups propose priority areas for ongoing resource development. In 2010, two of these major educational initiatives were undertaken and recently completed—one to support continuing education for health care professionals regarding secondary stroke prevention and the other to educate families, informal caregivers and the public about pediatric stroke. This paper presents an overview of these two resources, and we encourage health care professionals to integrate these into their personal learning plans and tool kits for patients.

Working in groups

This chapter is a condensation of a guide written by the chapter authors for both university teachers and students (Fowler et al., 2006). All page references given in this chapter are to this guide, unless otherwise stated. University students often work in groups. It may be a formal group (i.e. one that has been formed for a group presentation, writing a report, or completing a project) or an informal group (i.e. some students have decided to form a study group or undertake research together). Whether formal or informal, this chapter aims to make working in groups easier for you. Health care professionals also often work in groups. Yes, working in groups will extend well beyond your time at university. In fact, the skills and abilities to work effectively in groups are some of the most sought-after attributes in health care professionals. It seems obvious, then, that taking the opportunity to develop and enhance your skills and abilities for working in groups is a wise choice.

Critique groups : a technique for the author’s toolbox?

With a lack of places to gain an education in the craft of romance writing, novelists have few places to turn to gain real feedback. This paper investigates an alternative to textbooks, conferences, and workshops through an examination of the role provided to the writer by critique groups. How these groups work, how they benefit an author, and the critique groups as a whole are discussed. This work studies the form of Peer Assessment and Learning (PAL) and compares the technique used by educational institutions all over the world with the practice of author groups critiquing their own work. The research shows how a critique group can assist a writer to learn, grow and develop, helping to enhance the writer’s skills through constructive feedback, which gives them confidence to sell their work.

Investigating and theorizing discourse during analogy writing in chemistry

Explanations of the role of analogies in learning science at a cognitive level are made in terms of creating bridges between new information and students’ prior knowledge. In this empirical study of learning with analogies in an 11th grade chemistry class, we explore an alternative explanation at the "social" level where analogy shapes classroom discourse. Students in the study developed analogies within small groups and with their teacher. These classroom interactions were monitored to identify changes in discourse that took place through these activities. Beginning from socio-cultural perspectives and hybridity, we investigated classroom discourse during analogical activities. From our analyses, we theorized a merged discourse that explains how the analog discourse becomes intertwined with the target discourse generating a transitional state where meanings, signs, symbols, and practices are in flux. Three categories were developed that capture how students intertwined the analog and target discourses—merged words, merged utterances/sentences, and merged practices.

Working in online groups-the challenges of virtually integrated learning environments

Universities continue to struggle with the need to combine the pedagogical benefits of collaborative learning with large scale, interactive and technologically sophisticated learning and teaching arrproaches and support systems. This challenge requires imaginative approaches if the outcome is not to the 'worst of both worlds' that results in confusion and disillusionism amongst students. This paper presents three case studies that use online technologies to provide collaborative teaching solutions arguably much superior to that possible without an online intervention.

Error correction in second language writing : teachers’ beliefs, practices, and students’ preferences

Error correction is perhaps the most widely used method for responding to student writing. While various studies have investigated the effectiveness of providing error correction, there has been relatively little research incorporating teachers' beliefs, practices, and students' preferences in written error correction. The current study adopted features of an ethnographic research design in order to explore the beliefs and practices of ESL teachers, and investigate the preferences of L2 students regarding written error correction in the context of a language institute situated in the Brisbane metropolitan district. In this study, two ESL teachers and two groups of adult intermediate L2 students were interviewed and observed. The beliefs and practices of the teachers were elicited through interviews and classroom observations. The preferences of L2 students were elicited through focus group interviews. Responses of the participants were encoded and analysed. Results of the teacher interviews showed that teachers believe that providing written error correction has advantages and disadvantages. Teachers believe that providing written error correction helps students improve their proof-reading skills in order to revise their writing more efficiently. However, results also indicate that providing written error correction is very time consuming. Furthermore, teachers prefer to provide explicit written feedback strategies during the early stages of the language course, and move to a more implicit strategy of providing written error correction in order to facilitate language learning. On the other hand, results of the focus group interviews suggest that students regard their teachers' practice of written error correction as important in helping them locate their errors and revise their writing. However, students also feel that the process of providing written error correction is time consuming. Nevertheless, students want and expect their teachers to provide written feedback because they believe that the benefits they gain from receiving feedback on their writing outweigh the apparent disadvantages of their teachers' written error correction strategies.