GRADUATE WRITING GROUPS: AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO WRITING PRODUCTIVITY

Grant Eckstein, Katie Evans, Daniel Moglen, Whitney Whitener

DOI Number
10.22190/JTESAP1701001E
First page
1
Last page
11

Abstract


Graduate students often delay writing tasks and binge write because of the complex nature of their projects. This can lead to poor work, frustration, and feelings of writing anxiety and isolation. We therefore suggest that writing centers facilitate an interdisciplinary, peer-exchange writing model called graduate writing groups. Such groups consist of four graduate students who commit to write daily and provide weekly feedback on each other's writing. By using a writing group, we increased our writing consistency, minutes of writing per week, and pages per quarter. We also increased our amount and quality of feedback to one another. We explain how graduate writing groups function, report on our writing gains, and show that writing groups can help graduate students and the writing center.


Keywords

graduate writing, peer exchange, writing groups, writing center

Full Text:

PDF

References


Boice, R. (1984). Contingency management in writing and the appearance of creative ideas: Implications for the treatment of writing blocks. Behavior Research & Therapy, 21, 537-543.

Boice, R. (1989). Procrastination, busyness and bingeing. Behavior Research Therapy, 27 (6), 605-611.

Bruffee, K. (1984). Collaborative learning and the “conversation of mankind.” College English, 46, 635-652.

Council of Graduate Schools. “Cumulative Ten-Year Completion Rates by Program, Broad Field, STEM vs SSH, and Overall.” Ph.D. Completion Project. Quantitative Data, Dec. 2007. Web. 4 January 2012. Table 1.

Gillespie, P. (2007). Graduate writing consultants for Ph.D. Programs. Part I: Using what we know: networking and planning. Writing Lab Newsletter. 32(2), 1-6.

Gray, T. (2010). Publish & flourish: Become a prolific scholar. NM: Teaching Academy, New Mexico State University.

Gray, T. and Birch, J. (2000). Publish, don’t perish: A program to help scholars flourish. To Improve the Academy. 19, 268-284.

Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 17–29.

Leatherman, C. (2000). A new push for ABD’s to cross the finish line. Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(29), pA18-21.

Lundstrom, K., and Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 30–43. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002

Martin, B. (2009). Research productivity : some paths less travelled. Australian Universities’ Review, 51(1), 14–20.

Mastroieni, A., and Cheung, D. (2011). The few, the proud, the finished: Dissertation boot camp as a model for doctoral student support. NASPA

Knowledge Communities. Fall 2011: 4-6. Retrieved from http://www.universityparent.com/mk/naspa/2012-NASPA-final.pdf

North, S. (1984). The idea of a writing center. College English, 46(5), 433-446.

O’Brian, R. (2001). An overview of the methodological approach of action research. In R. Richardson (Ed.), Theory and practice of action research (English Version). Retrieved from http://www.web.ca/robrien/papers/arfinal.html

Tardy, C. (2006). Researching first and second language genre learning: A comparative review and a look ahead. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 79-101.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Walter, M. (2009). Participatory action research. In M. Walter (Ed.), Social Research Methods (2nd Ed). http://lib.oup.com.au/he/Social%20Science/Sociology/ Part_5_ORC_combined.pdf

Zhu, W. (1995). Effects of training for peer response on students’ comments and interaction. Written Communication, 12(4), 492–528. doi:10.1177/ 0741088395012004004


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


ISSN 2334-9182 (Print)
ISSN 2334-9212 (Online)