scholarly journals ESTABLISHING A COOPERATIVE WRITING GROUP AMONG TEACHER EDUCATORS: POSSIBILITIES AND CHALLENGES

2012 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-130
Author(s):  
Tuija A. Turunen ◽  
Raimo Kaasila ◽  
Anneli Lauriala
Keyword(s):  
Social Comparison ◽  
Academic Writing ◽  
Teacher Educators ◽  
The Other ◽  
Writing Groups ◽  
Cooperative Research ◽  
Group Mentoring ◽  
Writing Group ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
Group Members

Getting published has become important in academia and also among teacher educators. The purpose of this paper is to investigate potential benefits and challenges when establishing an academic writing group among Finnish teacher educators. The three authors of this paper applied an autoethnographic approach to study the starting points of the writing group. In the group, mentoring and social support were used to share experiences and knowledge about academic writing. Relationships and contributions from all participants were emphasised. Each member was considered equal to the other members. The study demonstrated that writing for international academic audiences was challenging; it was deemed to be both emotionally and intellectually demanding. Many participants described the experiences of tension when allocating time for teaching and writing. Membership in the group provided possibilities for social comparison. The members encouraged self-improvement and allowed other group members to become reflective mirrors. The participants considered their membership in the writing group positively and indicated that it had contributed to their academic writing. On the basis of the project, it is recommended to establish continuing writing groups to promote academic writing and publishing as a central part of teacher educators’ profession. Key words: academic writing, autoethnography, co-mentoring, cooperative learning, cooperative research, researcher’s career, social comparison.

scholarly journals Get a Room! How Writing Groups Aid the Development of Junior Academics’ Writing Practice and Writer Identity

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-74
Author(s):  
Jenny Mattsson ◽  
Emma-Karin Brandin ◽  
Ann-Kristin Hult
Keyword(s):  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Academic Writing ◽  
Structured Interview ◽  
Writing Groups ◽  
Writer Identity ◽  
Main Research ◽  
Writing Group ◽  
Key Characteristics ◽  
The University ◽  
Writing Practice

The present study revisits writing retreat participants who have spontaneously formed writing groups before or after attending a retreat hosted by the Unit for Academic Language at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. All in all, 11 doctoral students and 1 post doc were interviewed using a semi-structured interview model. The answers were thematically analysed based on Murray’s (2014) concept of coherence in writing groups as well as parts of Aitchison and Lee’s (2006) key characteristics of writing groups. The two main research questions posed concern (i) whether the informants have changed their writing practice and/or the way they think and feel about writing since joining a writing group, and (ii) whether possible changes have aided the development of their identity as academic writers. Results show that the informants have indeed changed central aspects of their writing practice and that this in turn has positively influenced how they now think and feel about writing. This has to some extent contributed to the informants’ development of their writer identity; however, the present study also sheds light on the fact that more needs to be done at departmental levels across the university to make academic writing visible.

scholarly journals Improving together: better science writing through peer learning

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. A. Stiller-Reeve ◽  
C. Heuzé ◽  
W. T. Ball ◽  
R. H. White ◽  
G. Messori ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Communication Skills ◽  
Time Management ◽  
Peer Learning ◽  
Scientific Writing ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Science Writing ◽  
Writing Groups ◽  
Disciplinary Boundaries ◽  
Writing Group ◽  
Group Members

Abstract. Science, in our case climate- and geo-science, is increasingly interdisciplinary. Scientists must therefore communicate across disciplinary boundaries. For this communication to be successful, scientists must write clearly and concisely, yet, the historically poor standard of scientific writing does not seem to be improving. Scientific writing must improve and the key to long-term improvement of scientific writing lies with the Early Career Scientist (ECS). Many interventions exist for an ECS to improve their writing, like style guides and courses. However, momentum is often difficult to maintain after these interventions are completed. Continuity is key to improving writing. This paper introduces the ClimateSnack project, which aims to motivate ECS's to develop and continue to improve their writing and communication skills. The project adopts a peer-learning framework where ECS's voluntarily form writing groups at different institute s around the world. The group members learn, discuss and improve their writing skills together. Several ClimateSnack writing groups have been formed. This paper examines why some of the groups have flourished and others have dissolved. We identify the challenges involved in making a writing group successful and effective, notably the leadership of self organized groups, and both individual and institutional time management. Within some of the groups, peer learning clearly offered a powerful tool to improve writing as well as bringing other benefits, including improved general communication skills and increased confidence.

scholarly journals Communities of writing – co-construction of knowledge within an Agraphia writing group

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 30
Author(s):  
Roger Andre Søraa ◽  
Lina Ingeborgrud ◽  
Ivana Suboticki ◽  
Gisle Solbu
Keyword(s):  
Community Of Practice ◽  
Academic Writing ◽  
Academic Identity ◽  
Research Note ◽  
Writing Groups ◽  
Construction Of Knowledge ◽  
The Past ◽  
Writing Group ◽  
The Creation ◽  
A Priority

<p class="Normal1">This research note reflects on practices in an academic writing group for PhD candidates at a Norwegian university. Academic writing is one of the most important skills an academic must develop, but reflecting on and improving this skill in a collective is not necessarily a priority. Previous research on writing groups has examined such groups through the analysis of pedagogy and academic identity. In contrast, our study reflects on the writing group as a community of practice. We understand improved skills of writing, reading and commenting as practical accomplishments that are situated and co-constructed within this socio-technical context. The background for the research is a departmental group of six to eight members who have met regularly for the past two years. The creation and management of this group has been inspired by the ‘agraphia model’, as developed by Paul Silvia. With this research note, we wish to further develop the understanding of writing groups as communal practices. We do this by reflecting on our own experiences with such groups and discuss potential improvements in their organisation.     </p>

scholarly journals Writing Groups as Dialogic Spaces

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Kathrin Kaufhold ◽  
Daniel Egil Yencken
Keyword(s):  
Academic Writing ◽  
Writing Groups ◽  
Master's Students ◽  
Writing Group ◽  
Writing Practices ◽  
Student Talk

Facilitating sustained dialogic engagement in writing groups to support postgraduates’ research-based writing can be challenging. So far there is little research on dialogic strategies in such groups. Studies of tutor-student talk around texts highlight that different dialogic strategies can invite or exclude contributions. This article investigates how writing group participants negotiate different perspectives on academic writing practices in a multidisciplinary writing group. The study analyses six recorded meetings of multilingual master’s students writing in English at a Swedish university. It identifies dialogue patterns with diverging or converging perspectives, where students refer to a range of universal or discipline-specific norms. Reference to a generic yet unspecific norm creates a space for sharing diverging perspectives while reflecting on ones’ own writing. Applying perceived universal norms to others’ texts can close down dialogue. Awareness of dialogue patterns can help facilitators to decide when to step back and when to step in as moderators.

scholarly journals Improving together: better science writing through peer learning

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (7) ◽  
pp. 2965-2973 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathew A. Stiller-Reeve ◽  
Céline Heuzé ◽  
William T. Ball ◽  
Rachel H. White ◽  
Gabriele Messori ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Communication Skills ◽  
Time Management ◽  
Peer Learning ◽  
Scientific Writing ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Science Writing ◽  
Writing Groups ◽  
Disciplinary Boundaries ◽  
Writing Group ◽  
Group Members

Abstract. Science, in our case the climate and geosciences, is increasingly interdisciplinary. Scientists must therefore communicate across disciplinary boundaries. For this communication to be successful, scientists must write clearly and concisely, yet the historically poor standard of scientific writing does not seem to be improving. Scientific writing must improve, and the key to long-term improvement lies with the early-career scientist (ECS). Many interventions exist for an ECS to improve their writing, like style guides and courses. However, momentum is often difficult to maintain after these interventions are completed. Continuity is key to improving writing. This paper introduces the ClimateSnack project, which aims to motivate ECSs to develop and continue to improve their writing and communication skills. The project adopts a peer-learning framework where ECSs voluntarily form writing groups at different institutes around the world. The group members learn, discuss, and improve their writing skills together. Several ClimateSnack writing groups have formed. This paper examines why some of the groups have flourished and others have dissolved. We identify the challenges involved in making a writing group successful and effective, notably the leadership of self-organized groups, and both individual and institutional time management. Within some of the groups, peer learning clearly offers a powerful tool to improve writing as well as bringing other benefits, including improved general communication skills and increased confidence.

scholarly journals 10. Establishing Peer Mentor-Led Writing Groups in Large First-Year Courses

2012 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 55
Author(s):  
Sarah Marcoux ◽  
Liv Catherine Marken ◽  
Stan Yu
Keyword(s):  
Academic Writing ◽  
Pilot Project ◽  
Process Writing ◽  
First Year ◽  
Writing Groups ◽  
Peer Mentors ◽  
Peer Mentor ◽  
Writing Group ◽  
Term Paper ◽  
The University

This paper describes the results of a pilot project designed to improve students’ academic writing in a large (200-student) first-year Agriculture class at the University of Saskatchewan. In collaboration with the course’s professor, the Writing Centre coordinator and a summer student designed curriculum for four two-hour Writing Group sessions carved out of weekly scheduled lab times, and trained peer mentors to lead students through the writing process.  Writing Groups fostered a sense of community in the otherwise-isolated process of writing a challenging term paper, and provided opportunities for rich and frequent feedback. Ultimately, Writing Groups were shown to demystify the process of academic writing, making it more manageable and accessible to students.

Another Voice in the Room: Negotiating Authority in Multidisciplinary Writing Groups

2021 ◽  
pp. 074108832098654
Author(s):  
Sara Wilder
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Research ◽  
Writing Groups ◽  
Student Writers ◽  
Writing Group ◽  
Dissertation Writing ◽  
Group I ◽  
Writing Problems ◽  
Disciplinary Expertise ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Undergraduate Thesis

Scholarship has shown that writing groups are important sites of authority negotiation for student writers, yet little empirical research has examined how groups negotiate authority through conversation or how these negotiations influence students’ developing expertise. Drawing on observations and interviews of an undergraduate thesis and a graduate dissertation writing group, I use the concept of “presentification” to analyze conversational moments in which group members referenced advisors, “making present” advisor authority to influence group collaborations. Specifically, I analyze these moments to show how writing groups can serve as low-stakes communities in which students negotiate their emerging sense of authority. I found that whereas less experienced writers looked to advisors to solve writing problems and used advisor authority to stand in for disciplinary expertise, more experienced writers voiced advisor guidance to help pose writing problems and negotiate their own stance as disciplinary experts. This study thus theorizes one process through which student writers negotiate emerging authority across sites of literate practice and in collaboration with others who may not themselves be members of the same disciplinary community.

Writing Groups in the Digital Age

2017 ◽  
pp. 249-269
Author(s):  
Siobhan T. O'Dwyer ◽  
Sharon L. McDonough ◽  
Rebecca Jefferson ◽  
Jennifer Ann Goff ◽  
Michelle Redman-MacLaren
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Academic Writing ◽  
Digital Technologies ◽  
Digital Age ◽  
Scholarly Activity ◽  
Writing Groups ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Writing Group ◽  
Writing Practice

Social media writing groups are an emerging phenomenon in the academic world. Combining the discipline, mentorship, and peer support of face-to-face writing groups, with the convenience, global reach, and interdisciplinary networks of social media, they offer a way for scholars to apply new digital technologies to the old problem of developing, maintaining, and protecting an academic writing practice. Despite their growing popularity, however, there has been little critical or empirical analysis of these groups. Using Shut Up & Write Tuesdays (SUWT) as a case study, this chapter examines the purpose, use, outcomes, and challenges of a social media writing group for academics. Usage data from the three SUWT Twitter accounts, a survey of SUWT participants, and the narrative reflections of the SUWT hosts, are drawn together to highlight the value, strengths, and limitations of social media writing groups as a scholarly activity in the digital age.

scholarly journals Autonomous Writing Groups and Radical Equality: An Innovative Approach to University Writing

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
pp. 79-102
Author(s):  
Katrin Girgensohn ◽  
Felicitas Macgilchrist
Keyword(s):  
Academic Writing ◽  
Innovative Approach ◽  
Educational Institutions ◽  
Group Model ◽  
Writing Groups ◽  
Higher Educational Institutions ◽  
Jacques Ranciere ◽  
Writing Group ◽  
Higher Educational ◽  
High Level

This paper presents a program for a university writing group, ran as a trial in Germany, that differs from common writing groups by allowing writers a high level of autonomy and choice. To theoretically frame this writing group model, we draw on the French philosopher Jacques Rancière and his presupposition of a radical equality of intelligence. Findings suggest that the use of these writing groups provide a foundation for students to experience academic writing in ways that are more playful, creative, and joyful, without feeling inferior and increasing students’ awareness of their own intelligence, capacity and creativity. By coupling grounded analysis with theoretical reflections, and a set of questions to guide practice, this paper outlines how this program could be relevant for writing educators, curriculum developers, and other faculties in higher educational institutions across global contexts.

scholarly journals Examining Success and Sustainability of Academic Writing: A Case Study of Two Writing-Group Models

2017 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 132-145
Author(s):  
Kinga Olszewska ◽  
Jennifer Lock
Keyword(s):  
Academic Writing ◽  
Academic Staff ◽  
Publication Output ◽  
Writing Groups ◽  
Reflective Journals ◽  
Writing Group ◽  
Field Notes ◽  
Writing Culture ◽  
Faculty Of Education

In contemporary higher education there is a growing demand for academics to increase their publication output. This requirement raises the question of how institutions can best support a sustainable academic writing culture, which is needed to challenge the assumption that all academics know how to write for publication. This case study examines two models used in a Faculty of Education to support writing groups for academic staff. From the analysis of reflective journals, interviews, and field notes, we identified four factors that influence the success of writing groups, as well as six conditions that support the development of sustainable academic writing. We have learned from the study that the success of a writing group is predicated on a collaborative practice that blends relational, communal, and institutional forms of sustainability in a purposeful, engaged, and reflexive way.  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document