Dialogic approaches to writing: student perspectives on two Argentinian doctoral initiatives

Álvarez, Guadalupe; Colombo, Laura

doi:10.1080/13562517.2021.1952566

Cited by 4 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The learning of doctoral students can draw inspiration from the peer learning methods of undergraduate students (Meschitti, 2019). The most relevant conditions for doctoral students to effectively promote the process of paper writing and dialogue are the exchange of drafts and the disciplinary background of participants (Álvarez & Colombo, 2021).…”

Section: Conclusion and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Academic Anxiety of Chinese Interdisciplinary Doctoral Students in Thailand: A Qualitative Study

Wang,

Khan

2023

ICCMETS Conference Proceedings 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study aims to make an exploration of the factors affecting anxiety among Chinese Interdisciplinary Doctoral students in Thailand. Qualitative pieces of evidence are collected to prove the factors affecting Academic Anxiety among Chinese Interdisciplinary Doctoral Students in Thailand. Nine doctoral students coming from China were selected to discuss the research topic in individual interviews. Based on the results of qualitative research, the author finds that Driving factors for interdisciplinary doctoral studies (DFF) is the moderator not only between Academic pressure (AP) and Academic Anxiety (AA) , but also between Difficulties of Academic Plus English (DAPE) and Academic Anxiety ( AA). I t is suggested to support the mental health of Chinese Interdisciplinary Doctoral Students, which may give them confidence in participating in research.

show abstract

Section: Conclusion and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Academic Anxiety of Chinese Interdisciplinary Doctoral Students in Thailand: A Qualitative Study

Wang,

Khan

2023

ICCMETS Conference Proceedings 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Critiquing the work of others is, in fact, a valuable strategy in learning to write (Aitchison, 2009). Dialogic exchanges, in which authors provide other authors with feedback on their writing, facilitate learning about academic writing and even help doctoral students to recognize and address "problems" in their own writing (Álvarez & Colombo, 2021;Spies et al, 2021).…”

Section: Dialogic Feedback and Thinking Interdependentlymentioning

confidence: 99%

Writing Feedback and the Success of English as an Additional Language (EAL) Doctoral Students: The Role of Dialogue

Griffin Spies,

Carcoba-Falomir,

Sarisahin

et al. 2023

IJDS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim/Purpose: Scholars and practitioners agree that feedback is critical to doctoral students’ academic writing development, yet effective feedback processes are complex. The purpose of this case study was to examine the role of dialogue in a Writing Feedback Group (WFG) in facilitating the development of the scholarly writing of English as an Additional Language (EAL) doctoral students. The research question that guided this study was: How does dialogue within a writing feedback group create opportunities for EAL doctoral students to advance their knowledge and skills pertaining to scholarly writing? Background: Traditional doctoral student writing feedback, characterized as monologic and unidirectional, positions students as passive learners and is difficult for students to use to improve their writing. Dialogic and bi-directional feedback positions students as active learners as they engage in ongoing verbal and/or written exchanges about their writing. Examinations of verbal feedback on doctoral writing show face-to-face exchanges are a source of motivation and necessary for in-depth exchanges about ideas. There is limited understanding, however, as to how dialogue facilitates doctoral students’ development as scholarly writers. This case study examines the dialogue of EAL doctoral students as they read and respond to one another’s scholarly writing. Methodology: This was a qualitative case study of an established writing group. Four EAL doctoral students and one faculty member participated in this study during a 16-week semester. Conversational turns during 12 feedback sessions were analyzed using inductive coding with an interpretive approach to allow research findings to emerge from the data. A constant comparative method was used to classify and compare codes and categories and identify themes related to the study’s research question. Contribution: The findings from this study contribute to the body of knowledge on the role of dialogic feedback in doctoral writing development. The findings show how doctoral students’ dialogue about one another’s writing created critical learning experiences for their writing development. This study provides an explicit and systematic approach to dialogue in writing feedback groups. Findings: Dialogue scaffolded EAL doctoral students’ translation of their complex knowledge to accessible text and helped them respond to the rhetorical context. Dialogue also facilitated doctoral writers’ awareness of the importance of precise language and structural organization for readers of their academic writing. Recommendations for Practitioners: The WFG established a platform for doctoral students to try out their writing and to actively engage with others in receiving and providing ongoing feedback. It is suggested that institutions of higher education create ongoing opportunities for doctoral students to discuss scholarly writing. Writing feedback groups can take many forms, including established groups embedded into coursework or between advisor and advisees. Recommendation for Researchers: This study examined the dialogue of a writing feedback group whose process was highly structured. To develop a deeper understanding of the influence of dialogue on writing, it should be studied in various types of writing groups. Impact on Society: Research and scholarship are critical to advancing our society. Doctoral students who speak English as an additional language bring distinctive cultural perspectives to research. Their voices and research are critical to future academic literature. Future Research: The findings from this study highlight how dialogue in a writing feedback group afforded doctoral students ongoing opportunities to give and receive feedback on critical academic writing skills on their individual current writing projects. Further research is needed to understand the role of dialogue in the WFG on doctoral students’ enduring understanding and the application of academic writing skills on future writing projects.

show abstract

“…In addition to self-critical reading and writing, Ciampa and Wolfe (2020) suggest that doctoral students invite peers to critically reflect upon their research work to confront, challenge, and clarify some misconceptions and ambiguities related to the dissertation writing. A peer group review can open, widen, and deepen dialogic spaces that, in turn, can help enrich their dissertationwriting process (c.f., Álvarez and Colombo 2021). Álvarez and Colombo (2021) have endorsed integrating dialogic teaching to advance dissertation writing.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A peer group review can open, widen, and deepen dialogic spaces that, in turn, can help enrich their dissertationwriting process (c.f., Álvarez and Colombo 2021). Álvarez and Colombo (2021) have endorsed integrating dialogic teaching to advance dissertation writing. Furthermore, they have argued that it might not be easy for first-year students to accept critique from their peers, but supervisors must be aware of this factor to prepare their learners for the benefits of peers' reflection on the doctoral dissertation.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Writing challenges, causes, and strategies to facilitate the doctoral dissertation‐writing process: A qualitative analysis

Rafi

Moghees

2022

Int Social Sci J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study grows out of the absence of literature on an in‐depth understanding of dissertation‐writing challenges, facilitating strategies, and causes to develop a more profound understanding of Pakistani doctoral students. This is primarily qualitative research. One of the largest private universities was selected as a case to collect the data. The data were based on 12 Pakistani doctoral dissertations, 49 evaluation reports from 13 countries, mainly from the state‐run universities, and a survey questionnaire responded to by 12 PhD graduates. The data were codified for commonly emerging categories and themes based on the methodological approach of Clarke and Braun (2017). The data revealed that the doctoral students faced challenges concerning mechanics of writing, developing an argument in a coherent whole, and structural organization of the dissertation. The examiners recommended the doctoral students to copyedit/proofread the dissertation to overcome mechanics of writing problems, build the argument logically, use formal language, write transition sentences to knit the texts coherently, embed citations to support the claims, and uniform the structure of the dissertation. Five causes of writing difficulties emerged from the survey questions. Despite a mismatch between the academic resources and research support provided to Pakistani doctoral students, their research work is deemed par with foreign universities, which encourage native‐like English. It is hoped that this study will help doctoral students improve their dissertation‐writing quality.

show abstract

Dialogic approaches to writing: student perspectives on two Argentinian doctoral initiatives

Cited by 4 publications

References 29 publications

Academic Anxiety of Chinese Interdisciplinary Doctoral Students in Thailand: A Qualitative Study

Academic Anxiety of Chinese Interdisciplinary Doctoral Students in Thailand: A Qualitative Study

Writing Feedback and the Success of English as an Additional Language (EAL) Doctoral Students: The Role of Dialogue

Writing challenges, causes, and strategies to facilitate the doctoral dissertation‐writing process: A qualitative analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About