Writing in doctoral programs: examining supervisors’ perspectives

González-Ocampo, Gabriela; Castelló, Montserrat

doi:10.1007/s10734-017-0214-1

Cited by 31 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Doctoral students who self-identify as underprepared in academic writing report that this lack of preparation makes it difficult to be fully independent as novice researchers (36). Furthermore, while this lack of preparation can be overcome by direct instruction (36), many advisors of PhD students report that they lack the time or the skills to instill such knowledge (6,37). Increasing familiarity with scientific writing conventions has been reported to improve writing confidence and self-assessed proficiency among doctoral students (29), and an intense, focused delivery of non-discipline-specific writing instruction to graduate students working on theses or dissertations has been shown to improve writing proficiency and research independence as assessed by before-and-after tests (38).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Writing Workshop Improves Confidence in Critical Writing Skills among Trainees in the Biomedical Sciences

Wortman-Wunder

Wefes

2020

J Microbiol Biol Educ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Written communication is a key research skill, yet the current model of pre-and postdoctoral training in the biomedical sciences lacks consistent formal training in this area, leading to crises of confidence when tackling research writing. A 15-hour non-credit workshop, "Secrets of Successful Scientific Writing," was developed in collaboration with an experienced instructor of scientific writing. The workshop consisted of six 2.5-hour sessions and was offered six times; a total of 126 trainees attended over these six offerings. Topics included strategies to engage the audience, principles of psychological linguistics to maximize sentence effectiveness, conventions of biomedical journal writing, technical writing and the history of scientific publishing, and two sessions on grant writing. Student confidence in and familiarity with targeted writing skills were assessed by self-evaluation questions administered immediately before and after each session. The workshop was determined to be effective at improving the confidence of participants regarding specific writing skills in the biomedical sciences, with all but two of the measures showing that the workshop had a large effect size. We conclude that a short, structured workshop can help improve the confidence and knowledge of pre-and postdoctoral writers, preparing them to better meet the writing challenges of their professional careers.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Writing Workshop Improves Confidence in Critical Writing Skills among Trainees in the Biomedical Sciences

Wortman-Wunder

Wefes

2020

J Microbiol Biol Educ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Odena and Burgess (2017) stress the importance of accessible language, and Basturkmen, East, and Bitchener (2014) highlight that complex comments on content need to be well-worded and thought through, rather than spontaneously put on paper while reading the draft. It is important to give feedback on drafts and work-in-progress, not just on finalised pieces of work, and feedback must highlight students' strengths and weaknesses and help them improve their writing -this can be done through a combination of correcting, revising and editing, as well as more overall comments and collaborative discussions (Baseer, Mahboob, and Degnan 2017;González-Ocampo and Castelló 2018).…”

Section: Suitable Feedback Contentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Written feedback and time to digest it are important, as are opportunities to clarify and discuss (Ali, Ullah, and Sanauddin 2019), thus suggesting that an important strategy is to offer a combination of written and verbal feedback during regular meetings (White and Coetzee 2014;González-Ocampo and Castelló 2018). Grant, Hackney, and Edgar (2014) recommend writing a log at the end of each feedback meeting, while Lonka et al (2019) suggest co-authoring with the student, so they can learn from the supervisor and integrate into the academic community.…”

Section: Suitable and Balanced Ways Of Giving Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Grant, Hackney, and Edgar (2014) recommend writing a log at the end of each feedback meeting, while Lonka et al (2019) suggest co-authoring with the student, so they can learn from the supervisor and integrate into the academic community. The latter can also happen by supervisors organising peer feedback sessions for students (Lindsay 2015;Siltanen et al 2019), which also helps students become increasingly independent (González-Ocampo and Castelló 2018;Lim et al 2019).…”

Section: Suitable and Balanced Ways Of Giving Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Supervisory feedback to postgraduate research students: a literature review

Chugh

Macht

Harreveld

2021

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Feedback is a complex socio-cultural construct, utilising various modalities over the lifespan of a research candidature. This study reports findings from a review of global literature on supervisory feedback to postgraduate research students. Three focus questions guided the review: students' problems in receiving feedback, perceptions of positive feedback strategies, and potential improvements to the feedback process. The review method combined a systematic search process with explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria applied to literature published over the last decade. A detailed content analysis of 43 articles is reported in a thematically ordered narrative. Findings suggested that problems with feedback were found to be caused by the content, processes involved and the expectations of those involved. Second, feedback strategies that positively impacted learning and teaching capabilities of both students and supervisors were identified as most effective. Third, improvements to the feedback process were canvassed through the three key actors of institutions, supervisors and students, providing insights into the synergistic relationship among these actors. Further research is warranted as feedback processes and products are at the mercy of research supervision, which is increasingly operating in online environments spanning different time zones, with professional, cultural and linguistic diversities impacting feedback processes and products.

show abstract

“…A nemzetközi szakirodalom a doktori képzés minőségének kérdéskörén belül kiemelt figyelmet szentel a hallgatók elégedettségének, percepcióinak, elvárásainak (Bollinger-Halupa, 2012;Candy et al, 2019), továbbá a témavezetők és a témavezetés szerepének megismerése (González-Ocampo-Castelló, 2018). Margaret R. Lamar és szerzőtársai (2019) a doktorandusz és a témavezető kapcsolatának problematikáját kitágítva, az egyetemeken belüli környezet hatásait vizsgálja a képzésben részt vevők akadémiai szocializációjának és szakmai identitásának kialakulásában.…”

Section: Magyar Tudomány 182(2021)4unclassified