Skip to main content

Home/ Diigo In Education/ Contents contributed and discussions participated by University Graduate School

Contents contributed and discussions participated by University Graduate School

University Graduate School

Taylor & Francis Online :: Supervision and scholarly writing: writing to learn-learning... - 0 views

  • students’ difficulties with the academic genre should be considered to be the norm, rather than the exception.
    • University Graduate School
      Step away from problematising writing and toward it being normal to seek help
  • mechanical errors r
  • errors in the microstructure of writing
  • ...77 more annotations...
  • inconsistencies in writin
  • macrostructure of writing
  • quality and clarity of purpose
  • substantive general writing errors
  • publication, authorship, training and fairness
  • plagiarism
  • formal writing courses and reading lists, writing activities, and peer writing groups
  • Ideally, the supervisor provides a writing role mode
  • fallacious to assume that supervisors are necessarily scholarly writers
    • University Graduate School
      relying on spvrs to be writing mentors does not always work, may have own issues with writing/lack of confidence
  • apprenticeship model can be ineffective
  • a passive role in improving their writing
  • tudents and supervisors need to master a range of writing task
  • benefit of naming what will be attended to and framing its context accrues through the process of planning, action and reflection
  • implicit contractual relationship between my students and me
  • supervisor
  • provide feedback
  • conceptu
  • methodological
  • I conceived postgraduate students’ writing as similar to that of an academic co‐author.
    • University Graduate School
      assumed they were more developed as writers than they actually were
  • initially corrected all errors
  • ttle emphasis to these errors in subsequent interactions
  • explored whether these were careless errors or whether the students had difficulty with particular aspects of writin
  • students assumed some responsibility for proofreading
  • cholarly writing in a thesis involves much more than a set of discrete writing tasks
  • heightened awareness of individual differences in students as writers
  • dependent writer
  • ‘writer’s block’ that could be overcome by breaking writing down into subtasks
  • copious notes
  • detailed note‐taking limited her interaction
  • brief summary of the key points on my written response to her drafts
  • action plan
  • writing block initially posed a major ethical dilemma for me because the ethical guidelines of authorship restrict the writing that should be undertaken by a superviso
  • not writing per se that underpinned Denise’s writing block but a lack of knowledge about the content and organization of a particular writing task.
    • University Graduate School
      Writers block can come from lack of knowledge/confidence in the writing process, rather than lack of subject knowledge
  • confident writer
  • published during his doctoral studies
  • nadvertently engaged in unethical writing behaviour by including me as a co‐author without my permission
  • difficulties with all aspects of the macrostructur
  • epeat sections of writing from earlier chapters
  • replace repeated text with concise summaries or use cross‐referencing
  • tendency to rush through corrections, which often resulted in many issues identified on a previous draft remaining unresolved
  • writing was often submitted and returned electronically using the ‘comments’ and ‘track changes’ tools in Microsoft Word.
    • University Graduate School
      use of technology to produce tracked drafts/version control
  • resistant writer
  • acknowledged herself to be a poor write
  • writing supp
  • oral and written feedback
  • email guidance, sessions where writing was modeled and her writing scaffolded, and handouts on writing style.
  • specialist assistance
  • r lack of commitment to improving the quality of subsequent drafts
  • argumentative stance towards writing feedback
  • my colleague and I decided that we were no longer prepared to supervise Rita.
  • imited writing progress
  • , Rita had failed to adequately demonstrate her writing capability as a doctoral candidat
  • sporadic writer
  • repeatedly failed to meet negotiated deadlines
  • supervisor, it was difficult to maintain interest in and respond to Sherry’s work because of the time lag between each piece of writing
  • enlisted an experienced supervisor to act as my mentor
  • forewarned
  • Sherry’s approach to writing was likely to result in a lengthy completion time and she needed to accept the responsibility for managing her writing tasks.
  • emotional excitement of writing up a thesis and the ensuing motivation
  • lacked
  • This trail of documentation
  • importance of
  • highlighted student‐centred writing issues
  • dentified broader issues that also needed to be accommodated in supervision
  • confidence in writing does not necessarily equate with capability.
  • uture directions
  • upport students
  • ncouraging them to participate in activities designed to support scholarly writing,
  • community of support for each othe
    • University Graduate School
      rationale for peer support groups
  • Technology
  • virtual community of student writers
  • Ethical writing
  • cant attention in postgraduate training to ethical practices in writing
  • explore the ethical standards that are in operation in our local academic community.
  • underpinned by a performance‐orientation
  • ssues of concern related to students’ scholarly writing were identified.
  • eper understanding of the breadth of issues related to the supervision of postgraduate writing
University Graduate School

Emerald | The loneliness of the long distance researcher - 1 views

  • cross a threshold in their understanding
    • University Graduate School
      being part of a writing group may necessitate a change in how the person thinks about their writing or themselves as a writer
  • acilitate a speedy response from a peer audience
  • factors of a CoP or CoW is the development of trust
  • ...17 more annotations...
  • willingness to share knowledg
  • CoW break down the walls of these rooms and provide an open space or arena for collaboration?
  • virtual CoPs need to make good use of internet standard technologies and users need to possess ICT skills.
  • CoW members would need to develop a sense of belonging
  • After initial enthusiasm, where a number of co-authors introduced themselves, things fell quiet, and I myself was as guilty as anybody else in not checking the forum any more after a few weeks of inactivity
  • – the collaborative writing of the final chapter – was moved to Google docs,
  • used a blog and wiki to write a 1,500 word essay in her discipline online and in real time.
  • On the wiki, topic-related material was explored and drafts were constructed
  • In the online environment contributions were overwhelmingly supportive, non-hierarchical and candid.
  • wiki as a framework to create a comprehensive online knowledge base which covers the entire veterinary curriculum.
  • As part of the wiki, students maintain a personal profile which allows them to reflect on the experience
  • How would their writing contributions – often practice based – fit in a CoW inhabited by academics writing for scholarly publications?
  • . Firstly, the need to find a medium for your CoW that works, that is widely used, and with which the would-be participants are familiar and comfortabl
  • ow is a CoW initiated? Can it be self-perpetuating or does it need leaders/mentors to drive it?
  • degree of intervention.
    Development of online writing communities, hosted by libraries. Covers emotional aspects of writing as well as technical
1 - 2 of 2
Showing 20 items per page