Searching for Metacognitive Generalities: Areas of Convergence in Learning to Write for Publication Across Doctoral Students in Science and Engineering

Abstract

What aspects of writing are doctoral students metacognitive about when they write research articles for publication? Contributing to the recent conversation about metacognition in genre pedagogy, this study adopts a qualitative approach to illustrate what students have in common, across disciplines and levels of expertise, and the dynamic interplay of genre knowledge and metacognition in learning to write for research. 24 doctoral students in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) were recruited from subsequent runs of a genre-based writing course and were interviewed within a 2-year period when they submitted an article for publication, 3 to 11 months after course completion. Over time and across disciplines, doctoral students’ metacognition converges on four main themes: genre analysis as a “tool” to read and write, audience and the readers’ mind, rhetorical strategies, and the writing process. Furthermore, these themes are extensively combined in the students’ thinking, confirming conceptualizations of expertise as an integration of knowledge types. Metacognition of these themes invoked increased perceived confidence and control over writing, suggesting key areas where metacognitive intervention may be promising.

Setting the stage(s) for English for Research and Publication Purposes: Authors, audiences, and learning the craft

“…We have consistently argued in our work (Mcgrath et al, 2019;Negretti & Mcgrath, 2018;Negretti & Mcgrath, 2020;Negretti, 2021) that metacognition -metacognitive awareness of genre-specific knowledge-is crucial in the development of writing expertise, and therefore it should be deliberately included in writing pedagogy. We acknowledge that in this, we are not the first: beaufort (2007,2012) raised the metacognitive dimension of writing in her theorization of expertise, and, together with Iñesta (beaufort & Iñesta, 2014), highlighted the need to make explicit learners' knowledge about how to write -and how to regulate (or self-regulate) their writing process (Castelló et al, 2013).…”

“…As theorized further by Tardy et al (2020) as well as others (driscoll et al, 2019;Negretti, 2021;Novacek 2011), the process of recontextualization or transfer, especially as learners develop, requires metacognition: the awareness of what you know, including how to adapt your knowledge to different situations, as well as the ability to plan, monitor and control how you learn. Tardy (2020) and her colleagues view both genre awareness and metacognition as referring to a broader, conceptual understandings of how genres can be used (independently from language), and argue that genre awareness can be considered as a specialized, writing-specific type of metacognition, necessary for recontextualization against the backdrop of varied social contexts.…”

“…In this section, we connect the Writing Context task to our discussion about social practices in research writing and their connection to discipline (for further studies on social and disciplinary practices surrounding doctoral writing, see also gonzález-Ocampo & Castelló, 2018;Moore & Schleppegrell, 2020;Negretti & Mcgrath, 2020;Negretti, 2021;Paltridge & Starfield, 2020;Park & Schallert, 2019). The data extracts we present are drawn from the assignments written by students in various iterations of the course, over a period of 2 years.…”

“…The key question here is, what are the implications of metacognition for writing, and for writing pedagogy? A recent paper by Negretti (2021) investigated the common aspects of writing that doctoral students in STEM are metacognitive about, and raised three specific theoretical points that are particularly pertinent to writers: First, writers with different backgrounds and experiences may hold different and/or inaccurate declarative metacognitive knowledge about writing (dunning et al, 2003), and may need help in developing accurate metacognitive knowledge of expert writing. Second, procedural knowledge (the know-how) is often implicit (see beaufort & Iñesta, 2014): students may not be aware of what they are doing, or whether it is effective, and may benefit from tasks that foster conscious and explicit attention to these processes (Winne & Azevedo, 2014).…”

“…In this paper, we look closely at this stage and these stages, the actors and their audiences, and make three key points derived from an amalgamation of our previous research (Kaufhold & Mcgrath, 2019;Mcgrath, 2015;Negretti, 2017Negretti, , 2021Negretti & Mcgrath, 2018 and illustrated by new data. First, we show that a disciplinary framing of research-based writing is not necessarily reflective of the hybridised, fluid and multidisciplinary groups that our students write within.…”