写作反馈与英语作为附加语言(EAL)博士生的成功:对话的作用

Q2 Social Sciences International Journal of Doctoral Studies Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.28945/5202
Tracy Griffin Spies, Gloria Carcoba-Falomir, Suheyla Sarisahin, Fatmana Kara Deniz, Yunying Xu
{"title":"写作反馈与英语作为附加语言(EAL)博士生的成功:对话的作用","authors":"Tracy Griffin Spies, Gloria Carcoba-Falomir, Suheyla Sarisahin, Fatmana Kara Deniz, Yunying Xu","doi":"10.28945/5202","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":53524,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Doctoral Studies","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Writing Feedback and the Success of English as an Additional Language (EAL) Doctoral Students: The Role of Dialogue\",\"authors\":\"Tracy Griffin Spies, Gloria Carcoba-Falomir, Suheyla Sarisahin, Fatmana Kara Deniz, Yunying Xu\",\"doi\":\"10.28945/5202\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53524,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Doctoral Studies\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Doctoral Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.28945/5202\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Doctoral Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.28945/5202","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的/目的:学者和实践者一致认为,反馈对博士生的学术写作发展至关重要,但有效的反馈过程是复杂的。本案例研究的目的是研究写作反馈小组(WFG)中对话在促进英语作为附加语言(EAL)博士生学术写作发展中的作用。指导这项研究的研究问题是:写作反馈小组中的对话如何为EAL博士生创造机会,提高他们在学术写作方面的知识和技能?背景:传统的博士生写作反馈具有单一、单向的特点,使学生处于被动学习者的地位,难以用于提高写作水平。对话和双向反馈使学生成为积极的学习者,因为他们不断地就自己的写作进行口头和/或书面交流。对博士生写作口头反馈的测试表明,面对面的交流是一种动力来源,也是深入交流思想的必要条件。然而,关于对话如何促进博士生作为学术作家的发展,人们的理解有限。本案例研究考察了EAL博士生在阅读和回应彼此学术写作时的对话。研究方法:这是对一个已建立的写作小组的定性案例研究。在为期16周的学期中,4名EAL博士生和1名教师参与了本研究。在12个反馈会话中,使用归纳编码和解释方法分析会话转换,以便从数据中产生研究结果。使用恒定比较方法对代码和类别进行分类和比较,并确定与本研究的研究问题相关的主题。贡献:本研究的发现有助于建立关于对话反馈在博士写作发展中的作用的知识体系。研究结果表明,博士生之间关于彼此写作的对话如何为他们的写作发展创造了重要的学习经验。本研究提供了一个明确和系统的方法来对话写作反馈小组。研究发现:对话帮助EAL博士生将复杂的知识转化为可理解的文本,并帮助他们对修辞语境做出反应。对话也有助于博士作者意识到精确的语言和结构组织对其学术写作读者的重要性。对从业者的建议:WFG为博士生建立了一个平台,让他们尝试自己的写作,并积极与其他人一起接受和提供持续的反馈。建议高等教育机构为博士生提供讨论学术写作的持续机会。撰写反馈小组可以采取多种形式,包括在课程作业中或导师与被导师之间建立小组。对研究人员的建议:本研究考察了一个写作反馈小组的对话,其过程是高度结构化的。为了更深入地了解对话对写作的影响,应该在不同类型的写作群体中进行研究。对社会的影响:研究和学术对推动我们的社会至关重要。将英语作为一门额外语言的博士生为研究带来独特的文化视角。他们的声音和研究对未来的学术文献至关重要。未来研究:这项研究的发现强调了写作反馈小组中的对话如何为博士生提供持续的机会,让他们在个人当前的写作项目中给出和接受关键学术写作技巧的反馈。需要进一步的研究来了解对话在WFG中对博士生持久理解和在未来写作项目中应用学术写作技能的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Writing Feedback and the Success of English as an Additional Language (EAL) Doctoral Students: The Role of Dialogue
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Doctoral Studies
International Journal of Doctoral Studies Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
期刊最新文献
A Framework of Rhetorical Moves Designed to Scaffold the Research Proposal Development Process What Does It Mean To Be a Resilient Student? An Explorative Study of Doctoral Students’ Resilience and Coping Strategies Using Grounded Theory as the Analytic Lens PhD by Prospective Publication in Australian Business Schools: Provocations from a Collaborative Autoethnography Mitigating Ceiling Effects in a Longitudinal Study of Doctoral Engineering Student Stress and Persistence Into the Challenges of Aligning Key Sections of Doctoral Dissertations: Cognitive Analysis, Pedagogical Tools, and Instrument Development
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1