This document describes a study that explored the writing experiences of two former undergraduate students in applied social sciences in Colombia. It aimed to understand how their writing developed and changed from their undergraduate experiences to their current workplace writing. Key findings included that the undergraduate programs did not focus much on specialized writing genres and were more focused on writing to learn than learning to write. However, research reports provided valuable experience. There were also differences found between the type of writing assessed in large-scale undergraduate assessments and what is demanded in the workplace. Both participants showed growth in professional communication genres from their undergraduate experiences to meet workplace demands. Further research is suggested on writing development across disciplines and student profiles.
A presentation about assessment in Moroccan high school. The standards-based approach to the teaching of English suggested in this Slideshare requires performance-based assessment.
A presentation about assessment in Moroccan high school. The standards-based approach to the teaching of English suggested in this Slideshare requires performance-based assessment.
In this paper, there are three articles that concentrate on the analysis of genres should be reviewed.
Particularly so, these three articles shed light on the contribution of the corpus linguistics methodology to the
analysis and application of academic genres. For easy reference, I have to label Article 1 on From Text To Corpus-
A Genre-based Approach to Academic Literacy Instruction by C Tribble and U. Wingate, Article 2 on Using Corpusbased
research and Online Academic Corpora to Inform Writing of the Discussion Section of a Thesis, by L. Flower
dew and Article 3 on An Integration of Corpus-Based and Genre-Based Approaches to Text Analysis in EAP/ESP:
Countering Criticisms Against Corpus-Based Methodologies, also by L. Flower dew.
Studies in Higher Education Volume 25, No. 1, 2000Teaching.docxflorriezhamphrey3065
Studies in Higher Education Volume 25, No. 1, 2000
Teaching Doctoral Students to
Become Scholarly Writers: the
importance of giving and receiving
critiques
ROSEMARY S. CAFFARELLA & BRUCE G. BARNETT
University of Northern Colorado, USA
ABSTRACT Data were gathered from 45 doctoral students through focus groups, observations, and
written and oral re¯ ections to ascertain their perceptions of a speci® c teaching process (the Scholarly
Writing Project), which was designed to assist these students in learning how to do academic writing.
It was found that preparing and receiving critiques from professors and peers was perceived to be the
most in¯ uential element in helping them to understand the process of scholarly writing and in
producing a better written product. More speci® cally, these students believed that two factors integral
to the critiquing process were responsible for building their con® dence as academic writers: personal-
ized face-to-face feedback; and the iterative or ongoing nature of the critiques they received. In
addition, these students emphasized that although the critiquing process was powerful and useful, it
was also highly emotional and at times frustrating. The ® ndings suggest that, in teaching scholarly
writing, instructors should be very clear about the purposes and bene® ts of a strong and sustained
critiquing process, and assist students in learning how to both receive and give useful feedback.
Introduction
University faculty often assume that their doctoral students begin graduate school as
pro® cient writers or that they will develop this skill during their program of studies. What is
shocking to faculty is that many graduate students not only do not write like scholars, but
they also may not think like scholars. This problem is particularly evident in professional
schools in which many doctoral students in the USA are full-time practitioners with very
demanding schedules and precious little time for research and writing. In general, many
faculty observe that teaching the scholarly writing process often comes in the form of t̀oo
little too late’ . In particular, some students may not be exposed to the scholarly writing
process until the dissertation, which may have signi® cant implications for the completion of
their doctoral program. Those of us who assist students in learning the scholarly writing
process ask ourselves the following question: `Is there a better way to teach novice scholars
what we know about the seemingly mysterious process of scholarly writing?’
The purpose of this article is to describe a research study conducted in order to obtain
doctoral students’ perceptions of a speci® c teaching process (the Scholarly Writing Project,
or SWP), which was intended to assist them to improve their scholarly writing skills. From
our perspective, scholarly writing was equated with academic writing, such as the production
of dissertations and journal publications. We were most interested to learn w.
In this paper, there are three articles that concentrate on the analysis of genres should be reviewed.
Particularly so, these three articles shed light on the contribution of the corpus linguistics methodology to the
analysis and application of academic genres. For easy reference, I have to label Article 1 on From Text To Corpus-
A Genre-based Approach to Academic Literacy Instruction by C Tribble and U. Wingate, Article 2 on Using Corpusbased
research and Online Academic Corpora to Inform Writing of the Discussion Section of a Thesis, by L. Flower
dew and Article 3 on An Integration of Corpus-Based and Genre-Based Approaches to Text Analysis in EAP/ESP:
Countering Criticisms Against Corpus-Based Methodologies, also by L. Flower dew.
Studies in Higher Education Volume 25, No. 1, 2000Teaching.docxflorriezhamphrey3065
Studies in Higher Education Volume 25, No. 1, 2000
Teaching Doctoral Students to
Become Scholarly Writers: the
importance of giving and receiving
critiques
ROSEMARY S. CAFFARELLA & BRUCE G. BARNETT
University of Northern Colorado, USA
ABSTRACT Data were gathered from 45 doctoral students through focus groups, observations, and
written and oral re¯ ections to ascertain their perceptions of a speci® c teaching process (the Scholarly
Writing Project), which was designed to assist these students in learning how to do academic writing.
It was found that preparing and receiving critiques from professors and peers was perceived to be the
most in¯ uential element in helping them to understand the process of scholarly writing and in
producing a better written product. More speci® cally, these students believed that two factors integral
to the critiquing process were responsible for building their con® dence as academic writers: personal-
ized face-to-face feedback; and the iterative or ongoing nature of the critiques they received. In
addition, these students emphasized that although the critiquing process was powerful and useful, it
was also highly emotional and at times frustrating. The ® ndings suggest that, in teaching scholarly
writing, instructors should be very clear about the purposes and bene® ts of a strong and sustained
critiquing process, and assist students in learning how to both receive and give useful feedback.
Introduction
University faculty often assume that their doctoral students begin graduate school as
pro® cient writers or that they will develop this skill during their program of studies. What is
shocking to faculty is that many graduate students not only do not write like scholars, but
they also may not think like scholars. This problem is particularly evident in professional
schools in which many doctoral students in the USA are full-time practitioners with very
demanding schedules and precious little time for research and writing. In general, many
faculty observe that teaching the scholarly writing process often comes in the form of t̀oo
little too late’ . In particular, some students may not be exposed to the scholarly writing
process until the dissertation, which may have signi® cant implications for the completion of
their doctoral program. Those of us who assist students in learning the scholarly writing
process ask ourselves the following question: `Is there a better way to teach novice scholars
what we know about the seemingly mysterious process of scholarly writing?’
The purpose of this article is to describe a research study conducted in order to obtain
doctoral students’ perceptions of a speci® c teaching process (the Scholarly Writing Project,
or SWP), which was intended to assist them to improve their scholarly writing skills. From
our perspective, scholarly writing was equated with academic writing, such as the production
of dissertations and journal publications. We were most interested to learn w.
1. Writing experiences of undergraduate students
in the Colombian higher education:
understanding developmental changes of two
former recent students in applied social
sciences
Elizabeth Narváez-Cardona
2. Context of the inquiry project
This exploratory project arises in the context
of the emerging field on teaching and
researching on higher education writing in
Colombia.
3. Context of the inquiry project
1. Regarding public policies, the government
has decreed since 2010 assessing
compulsorily undergraduate students in
their last year of the programs before
obtaining their degrees.
The assessment on writing abilities in
Spanish is one of the components of this
public policy.
4. Context of the inquiry project
2. Some studies have reported that
Colombian higher education is not providing
extensive or curriculum resources to learn
how to write across undergraduate
experiences, neither the emerging field has
conducted developmental studies to explore
across time what is undergoing with the
students in their tertiary experiences.
5. Justification
Consequently, the field on
Colombian higher education
writing lacks of conducting
developmental studies enabling to
boost curriculum debates as well
as discussions upon the current
scopes of the external large scale
assessment on writing.
6. The project scope
The current pilot project aims at
understanding developmental changes of
two former recent students in applied
social sciences in Colombian Higher
Education.
7. Project goals
The research aims are:
a) Describing narratives on
undergraduate writing experiences
from student perspectives;
b) Inferring potential relationships
between undergraduate writing
experiences and writing tasks of the
current large scale assessment;
c) Identifying commonalities and
differences between undergraduate
writing experiences and workplace
writing experiences.
8. Methodological approach
Two former outstanding recent undergraduate
students of my home university were asked for
participating voluntarily.
Data collection was conducted in Spanish through
a questionnaire as well as writing samples.
This project asked for the participants to create a
small portfolio with:
The most difficult, the easiest, and the most
meaningful texts that were written during their
undergraduate experiences.
Given their professional experiences so far, they also
were asked for selecting a successful text.
9. Methodological approach
Textual analysis was conducted in the
following stages:
1) The questionnaires were read to find
differences and commonalities between
the two narratives of the participants:
writing challenges
processes or other participants involved
in their writing experiences
constrains for writing argumentative
texts
emotions and identities tied to writing.
10. Methodological approach
The writing samples were read and analyzed
based on a rubric with qualitative criteria:
Topic
Year of studies in which the document was written
Document length
Genre
Possible strategies used to write at that time
Textual structure
Writer identity emerging according to the type of
writing
This textual analysis of the writing samples
aimed at describing the documents, rather
than evaluating positively or negatively their
linguistic and rhetorical features.
16. Summary of the main changes identified in the
Findings participants’ writing samples
17. Conclusions, reflections & implications
The undergraduate writing experiences
The undergraduate writing experiences of
both participants seem not having focused
on specialized written genres neither for
academic settings or professional contexts.
These former students mostly were using
writing in higher education to learn rather
than learning how to write.
18. Conclusions, reflections & implications
The undergraduate writing experiences
However, the participants highlighted that
their research reports were valuable
writing experiences.
This might suggest that further research
projects could be conducted to explore
what and how institutional practices are
carrying on reading and writing practices
for this type of genre in Colombian higher
education.
19. Conclusions, reflections & implications
The large-scale assessment writing experiences
The public report released by the Colombian
government in 2012 asserts that the best scores
on writing had been obtained by students in
humanities, social sciences, journalism, and
advertising.
The hypothesis emerging from this project is that
the actual Colombian curricula in Journalism are
obviously tied to writing practices.
Further research projects are needed to explore
how writing development ensues in Journalism
according to Colombian curricula.
20. Conclusions, reflections & implications
The large-scale assessment writing experiences
The public guidelines of the large-scale
assessment on writing have asserted that what is
assessed is the preparedness of the
undergraduate students to fulfill the workplace
writing demands (ICFES, 2012).
This project shows that the type of writing
demanded by the test is far for being the type of
writing demanded in workplace settings.
21. Conclusions, reflections & implications
The workplace writing experiences
Clearly, in both cases, the participants
are coping currently with professional
communication genres given their
responsibilities in their workplaces.
According to the writing samples
analyzed, it is evident that the
participants have undergone sharp
growth and changes to fulfill their
workplace writing demands.
22. Conclusions, reflections & implications
Given that most of their
undergraduate experiences seem
having been focused on writing to
learn rather than learning how to
write, further research projects are
needed to explore how these former
students have tackled the transition
and transferability between their
undergraduate and workplace
experiences, which seem having
entailed strong ruptures.
23. Conclusions, reflections & implications
Finally, since these participants were
outstanding students, further research
projects to collect the same type of data
could be useful to explore differences among
disciplines, as well as among “average”
students with disabled students.