Building Scholarly Writers: Student Perspectives on Peer Review in a Doctoral Writing Seminar

Adamek, Margaret E.

doi:10.1080/08841233.2014.995333

Cited by 16 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is an emphasis that doctoral writing ought to be conducted within a social context in order for doctoral students to learn about peer review in academia (Adamek, 2015). Peer writing with fellow doctoral students is frequently depicted as a positive method for developing a researcher identity as doctoral students are able to share their concerns and develop their writing within a like-minded group (Adamek, 2015; Wegener et al, 2016). As demonstrated in my vignette; however, my desire to write differently received mixed responses from my peers.…”

Section: Part Iii: Navigating the Web Of Interpersonal Influencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When James showed interest, I felt relief wash over me and felt that perhaps, after all, this was a good idea to pursue. The doctoral process can be one of immense uncertainty in which doctoral students struggle to craft a secure scholarly identity (Hay and Samra-Fredericks, 2016; Kamler and Thomson, 2006) and students often rely on their peers to provide guidance (Adamek, 2015; Wegener et al, 2016). In my case, my interaction with my peers was mixed.…”

Section: Part Iii: Navigating the Web Of Interpersonal Influencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Writing the doctoral thesis differently

Weatherall

2018

Management Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Writing a doctoral thesis is a testament to years of anxiety, excitement, confusion, terror and passion. A thesis is, however, much more than just an output of learning. It is a formative process through which a doctoral student learns what it means to be a researcher. The doctoral thesis as a form of academic writing has, however, received scant attention in organisational studies. My decision to write my thesis differently inspired me to think deeply about the conventions and procedures of doctoral writing. How is it that doctoral students write? What conventions govern them? And how could doctoral writing be done differently to expand the boundaries of thought in management? In this article, I give an autoethnographic account of how I wrote my thesis differently to provide the groundwork for doctoral students to reconsider the conventional approach to doctoral writing. Ultimately, I offer guidance and points of reflection for how doctoral students and their supervisors might break with writing conventions and contribute to their learning as emerging management researchers through writing the doctoral thesis differently.

show abstract

Section: Part Iii: Navigating the Web Of Interpersonal Influencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Part Iii: Navigating the Web Of Interpersonal Influencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Writing the doctoral thesis differently

Weatherall

2018

Management Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In response, a range of pedagogical approaches has emerged to support doctoral student writing. These include coursework (Adamek, 2015;Mandell et al, 2015), writing groups (Aitchison, 2009;Aitchison and Lee, 2010;Aitchison and Guerin, 2014;Cuthbert et al, 2009;Ferguson, 2009;Murray, 2014) and writing workshops (Badenhorst et al, 2015). There is also literature on the design of writing retreats for novice researchers (Petrova and Coughlin, 2012), as well as research examining the outcomes of retreats designed to support academic writers (MacLeod et al, 2012;Murray, 2012;Murray and Newton, 2009;Murray and Cunningham, 2011).…”

Section: Ijrd 72 198 Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategies for developing a writing community for doctoral students

Roulston

Teitelbaum²,

Chang

et al. 2016

IJRD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present considerations for developing a writing community for doctoral students. Design/methodology/approach The paper reflects on data from a self-study of a writing seminar in which the authors were involved. The authors examined students’ writing samples and peer-review comments, email correspondence, online discussion board postings, meeting minutes and participants’ reflections on their participation in the seminar. Findings While doctoral students described benefits from their participation in the writing seminar, the paper provides a cautionary tale concerning the challenges that can arise in the development and delivery of interventions that focus on developing writing communities involving doctoral students. Research limitations/implications This article draws on findings from an examination of a writing intervention to consider potential challenges that faculty and students face in developing writing communities. Findings may not apply to other kinds of settings, and they are limited by the small number of participants involved. Practical implications The paper discusses strategies that might be used to inform faculty in the development of writing communities for doctoral students. Social implications The authors’ experiences in developing and delivering a writing seminar highlight the importance of the process of trust-building for students to perceive the value of feedback from others so that they can respond to the technical demands of doctoral writing. Originality/value There is a growing body of work on the value of writing interventions for doctoral students such as retreats and writing groups. These are frequently facilitated by faculty whose area of expertise is in teaching writing. This paper contributes understanding to what is needed for faculty who are not writing instructors to facilitate groups of this sort. Participants must demonstrate a sufficient level of competence as writers to review others’ work; develop trusting, collegial relationships with one another; and be willing to contribute to others’ development and make a commitment to accomplishing the required tasks.

show abstract

“…Many researchers have even examined peer review in support of learning in all different conditions, such as: (a) conducted in synchronous (13) or asynchronous formats (14)(15) (b) selecting to use pair-wise reviewer assignment in lieu of free selection processes (16) , (c) utilizing pre-made software programs for the management of the overall peer review process (12) , or (d) for the purpose of using an institutional peer review program to manage first-year student assessment expectations (17) . Additionally, Sondergaard & Mulder (1) (2012) provide a substantial list of advantages for using peer review to establish a deeper learning atmosphere supported by timely feedback and the creation of "an alternative channel for student engagement and participation," (p. 347).…”

Section: The Power Of Peer Review…but Only For Writing Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Findings also indicate that if first-year students are more engaged in the grading process they are more informed and less likely to experience anxiety; thus, perform better in unfamiliar areas, such as when a peer review task is assigned that requires a higherorder skill in order to complete (1) . However, the majority of peer review investigations only examined courses designed to support the improvement of writing skills, such as Introduction to Writing (13,15,(18)(19)(20) and English as a Foreign Language (EFL) (14) , or courses that focus upon written skills in other areas of the curriculum such as Biology (17) , Physics (21) , and Geography (22) , and not tasks that require specific step-by-step application, such as information citation for research reporting. Additionally, within earlier studies, perception of the task was the main theme found within this field of inquiry (1) but the overall examination of influence and perceived growth of the participants, who conducted the review, was under-investigated.…”

Section: The Power Of Peer Review…but Only For Writing Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Through the Lens of the Reviewer: Information Literacy, an LMS, and Peer Review

Kappers¹

2016 ASEE Annual Conference &Amp; Exposition Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research paper describes the use of peer review to improve information literacy. Peer-reviewed assignments for learning have been seen favorably within the literature. The articulated benefits range from students feeling more engaged, having expressed less anxiety, or found to be better equipped to perform in unfamiliar areas outside their current learning environments. However, minimal research examines the benefits specifically for the feedback provider (reviewer) when a more modern tool, such as the Canvas Learning Management System (LMS) is used. During the fall 2015 semester, a study was conducted to examine the peer review process from the vantage point of the reviewer when mitigated by an LMS. Since peer review is seen as a social activity, this study is guided by a social constructivism teaching framework to investigate peer review activities for (a) linear relationships to that of a perceived social element inclusion, (b) changes in learning from the perspective of the reviewer rather than the receiver of feedback, and (c) improvement in perceived information literacy. Additionally, this research examines Canvas attributes as identified by Sondergaard & Mulder (1) (2012) of (a) Automation, (b) Simplicity, (c) Customizability, and (d) Accessibility, which support statements from the literature that indicate a lack of investigation of more modern peer review tools. Survey results, both qualitative and quantitative, were analyzed across three different peer-reviewed assignments for this examination. Of the 91 respondents, representing a 32% response rate, descriptive analysis revealed themes ranging from Changes in Student Efforts to Valued New Perspectives; whereas, expected Active Learning and Social Benefits slightly contradicted the positive tone that was originally found in the thematic review. Overwhelming positive ratings were collected regarding the use of the LMS to support and implement a peer-reviewed assignment. Perceived affects upon the peer reviewer, and how these types of assignments can support the proposed ABET General Criterion 3 Student Outcomes and General Criterion 5 Curriculum currently under revision are discussed. Lastly, these data are represented for use as an evaluation baseline for future planned investigations and for other faculty and course developers, who are considering implementation of peer-reviewed activities within first-year program courses.

show abstract

Building Scholarly Writers: Student Perspectives on Peer Review in a Doctoral Writing Seminar

Cited by 16 publications

References 23 publications

Writing the doctoral thesis differently

Writing the doctoral thesis differently

Strategies for developing a writing community for doctoral students

Through the Lens of the Reviewer: Information Literacy, an LMS, and Peer Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About