Creating Postgraduate Collaborations › Forums › CPC Supervision Development Course › Module 3 › Module 3: Writing Development and the Provision of Feedback
Tagged: drafting, imaginary conversation, redrafting
-
AuthorPosts
-
Regarding the (very practical) PPT presentation and the questions of how to provide feedback:
I give a lot of feedback on logical structuring of the text, logical connections between texts and missing golden threads. If the argument is not flowing, the student is usually missing key discussion points, or their objectives may not be clear in their head, or not strongly aligned with their results and findings. Focusing on connections in the texts helps a lot with identifying “gaps”. Thus, it is a kind of feedback focus that kills many birds with a single stone. Posing questions, as opposed to comments (as suggested) is undoubtedly helpful (and sometimes difficult to do right), but I do also make a lot of suggestions and give suggested readings, to point students in the right direction. Lastly, pointing out gaps and missing information in a methods and result section is a very good way of quickly finding out whether a student has analytical difficulties. The student might get their feedback, and then make an appointment to talk through the analytical tasks or tools they do not understand. To me the kind of feedback that can prompt the student to start a discussion is incredibly useful for progress and learning. In other words: I feel there should be a conversation between written feedback and verbal problem solving.
Students are encouraged to have a journal which is not only used for readings but has information about meetings and discussions with the supervisor and also used for pre-writings. I also advise students to set aside research days, where they block other work and administration, the focus should be on their research writing. Throughout the year, I also have my research days and I will discuss my progress and challenges with students, this encourages them to also share, in a way we become accountably partners. I do pomodoros but I have not yet introduced this to my students but I would like to try it.
In my School, the students present concepts and then they are allocated their supervisors. At the concepts presentations stage they are advised and guided on the appropriateness of the subject of interest and how to go about searching for a topic that is likely to contribute to knowledge on the their area of interest.
As a supervisor, I build on the student conceptualization by referring them to areas of reading in order to gain in depth understanding of the subject matter. The first step is to advise that they come up with a draft proposal, then we move from introduction, literature review to methodology step by step so that they do not lose focus.
In advisory on the identifying themselves in the work – I use the first party – the thesis, the second party- the writer, the third party- in terms of literature review from other authors. I do guide them to identify with the paper as the second party and this I can sense from grammar (tenses and prepositions) used in writing their work.
I do also take through the process of reading a journal noting on who (author and year of publication), what (the topic of interest), when (the period of the study), how (the methodology), findings (results and discussions) and conclusions (whether theoretical or atheoretical and the practical implications of the writings).As a supervisor I do consider feedback to be an integral part of guiding and mentoring a student in their postgraduate work. After a student has given their first draft, I use formative feedback to gauge their understanding of the subject matter of interest.
Focusing on the structure, form and content. I do advise the student in advance that it would a minimum of 4 meetings and revisions if they work along our agreements within the time frame given. In the first meeting we go through the structure and form – in terms of what should be inn the introduction, literature review, methodology, results and discussion as wells summary of findings and conclusions.Feedback on the form and the flow of thought and the content is given after the structure has been achieved. I do encourage my students to go through reflection and identifying the intuition behind their writing rather than the face value which more hollow.
This approach has helped do foster the enthusiasm in writing on the part of my students. I am happy the feedback mechanism has worked so far.• Do you already use some of these techniques with your students? Let us know which ones or share other suggestions.
I did some of these techniques when I was doing my studies as I don’t have postgraduates presently. What I can say is, developing student’s writing needs patience, discipline and commitment. I like the idea of shut up and just write. The challenge, sometimes as students we want to reach the destiny sooner than we think and not taking steps towards the destiny. Several attempts in writing paves a way to better final product. That is the reason one write the same documents over and over. I also agree that the student’s voice is sometimes silent and overshadowed by the literature read therefore, writing what’s in my head can assist me to make my voice to be louder
• Were there any writing development techniques that were new to you that you might like to try in the future?
Yes, developing student’s writing was an eye opener for me. Most of the time the focus is on finding, whether the English is correct than focusing on what is behind the language.
• Do you develop your own writing in the ways suggested in these videos
Yes, particularly on reading the journal and do the writing. It gives a student to have a pool of information and enhances the student’s argument based on various facts.Hi Kefa (and others),
Such a great question! How do we make it a fundamental part of supervision to make overt the norms and values of the discipline (and their related literacy practices)? One of the challenges is that these issues are often opaque and commonsense for supervisors so they do not even realise that what they are expecting are in fact peculiar practices – they just think it’s a matter of ‘good English’.
I do think we need to focus more on this within the disciplines at undergraduate level.
One activity I regularly do is get students to bring two or three articles on the topic they are researching and then we run a workshop where we do a ‘forensic analysis’ of the articles and try to see what the authors have done and why they have done it. Instead of treating these practices as ‘generic’, which they are not, the students start to see exactly how an abstract is put together, why the methods are written as they are and so on.
If anyone would like to see more about this workshop, and you’re all invited to try to run one for yourselves, then you might like to take a look at this recording of one of these workshops online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QurkXfMngMAKefa, I do hope you will be writing about some of this stuff in your assignment. I find it really interesting and think your use of Bernstein’s grammars is very useful.
Kind regards
SiouxDo you already use some of these techniques with your students? Let us know which ones or share other suggestions.
The session was quite useful and I am actually learning new insights into what supervision of postgraduate students should entail. When going through my students’ writings, I not only correct the grammar and spelling, but also provide comments based on the disciplines norms. It is important for supervisors to encourage students to develop the habit of writing continuously. For postgraduate students, this should be encouraged even before they begin their research work. So during course work, they can engage in activities such as writing a brief review on a given topic.
Were there any writing development techniques that were new to you that you might like to try in the future?
Although I do not use a reading journal, I often write down a very brief summary and references of just a few articles that I read. I always write in a notebook, but that note book is also used for other purposes. I am not consistent at doing this and so I end up forgetting some of the important information that I have come across. I need to work towards developing a habit of using a reading journal and even suggest this technique, together with the Pomodoro technique to my students. That was new to me.
I often provide formative feedback, that includes comments on grammar, spelling, and also concepts, structure and organization of ideas with regard to the discipline norms. Mostly, it is the electronic form. When responses to my comments are not satisfactory, I engage my students in an oral conversation (mostly face-to-face and there are times when I have done this on phone) just to clarify some issues in the written feedback. From the illustration given in the video on formative feedback (for supervisors), I just noticed that it is good practice when the student writes responses in the same comment box with the supervisor’s questions. That way, you can follow up on each question and response. Most often students will wait for the supervisors’ feedback to incorporate into their writing and so that feedback should be timely, and also be provided at every stage of writing, right from the research proposal development.
While trying to develop students writing i often face problem of surface level reading by most students and what i normally do is to insist on their voice in every paragraph which helps to promote academic literacies. Thanks for the insights on academic literacies and the three important stages in reading and writing process: Pre-writting- Drafting and finally Editing to become better in writing. I have in the past not been very keen on the pre-writting stage.
I embrace the idea of Formative Feedback since it technically opens conversation between the supervisor and the student. I have encountered students who are so scared to submit their first drafts for fear of large number corrections. I will hence forth embrace this technique to inculcate reflective thinking amongst the students and possibly mentor them to be more effective supervisors in future.
Do you already use some of these techniques with your students? Let us know which ones or share other suggestions.
I variously use the techniques presented but not in the ways they have been shared in the narrative. I have not used them extensively to develop student writing. I have extensively used reading journal with students. However, I now need to use these techniques more consciously and purposefully in my interaction with students.Were there any writing development techniques that were new to you that you might like to try in the future?
The promodoro technique – the way it was presented is new and I hope to try it with students.Do you develop your own writing in the ways suggested in these videos?
Not really. I like the idea shared in the videos and will adopt them.The techniques presented in the videos are very useful in enhancing students’ writing skills.
We experienced situations where some students who were doing very well during coursework, struggle a lot during proposal writing. A few have even dropped out of the program. This has been one of the major points of concern.
The proposed writing techniques will be very useful. To help students to sharpen their thinking and give shape to their work we have always asked them to read widely taking relevant notes. The next step is for them to present concept notes before a panel on the topic of their research. At this point the language may not necessarily be perfect academically. The purpose is to help the students sharpen their understanding of what they are planning to work on.
It has been our major concern that supervisors and even examiners have had to do a lot of work of correcting student grammar and even spelling mistakes.
The development of personal writing style comes with much practice as suggested. We have always encouraged students to read relevant materials and reproduce in their own words but acknowledge the source of the materials.I always give formative feedback:
They include:
– comments on grammar,
– spelling,
– concepts, structure, and organization of ideas with regard to the discipline norms.
– I always prefer students sending me assignments electronically. When the students are unsure, I engage them students in an oral conversation (mostly face-to-face and there are times when I have done this on phone) just to clarify some issues in the written feedback. From the illustration given in the video on formative feedback (for supervisors), I just noticed that it is good practice when the student writes responses in the same comment box with the supervisor’s questions. That way, you can follow up on each question and response. Most often students will wait for the supervisors’ feedback to incorporate into their writing and so that feedback should be timely, and be provided at every stage of writing, right from the research proposal development.I tend to emphasise skill in writing–perhaps much more than my other colleagues–so I give students quite detailed feedback on writing, including on grammar, syntax, and diction. Working at an international institution where English is rarely our students’ first language, I find that many of my colleagues use that fact to overlook the writing. I find this baffling. Writing is the mode through which students communicate their ideas, and what we actually assess is in fact a piece of writing. So how is it possible to ‘overlook’ the very mode of communicating ideas?? One cannot effectively overlook the trees for the forest in this instance.
I agree with the approach of using writing as a tool, not just for communicating your ideas but for learning and working through one’s thinking on a topic. If students don’t actually think in English, then they needn’t do initial drafts in English–but once they’ve gotten some thoughts down and translated them, then working on honing English skills can only help them to refine their ideas–across languages as well as the thought processes attached to them.
It is for these reasons that attention to writing can’t remain an afterthought but is actually integral to the student’s learning process throughout the degree course. In fact, I actually start by emphasising skills in reading, because I realised that our students rarely come to graduate school having learned how to critically approach a text. So I first give students instruction in analytical reading skills, showing how later, these skills transfer over into writing skills: the more one reads for structure and argument, the more one learns how to model these strategies in their own writing.
Of course, these ideas about what is adequate or appropriate structure and argumentation also vary across different academic environments. I am reading a PhD thesis right now, and I am struck again by how formulaic theses tend to be across Dutch universities. They tend to be almost prefabricated in structure, all following the same template–one which in my opinion doesn’t really allow for adequate development of an argument. In fact, many (like the one I’m reading now) lack a clear thesis statement. This blows my mind. A thesis must have a POINT. Moreover, a clear argument structures the writing. How can we train young scholars NOT to make a clear point?? Some do synthesise the information and make a point in the end, but that’s terribly boring for the reader. It’s what in the US we’d call an upside down paper. One faculty member at my grad school would say, “Your dissertation is not a mystery novel.” I find myself repeating this all the time–but I don’t think many of my Dutch colleagues agree with me, as they think if fine to leave the main point for the conclusion. For them, it’s much more about guiding the student to jump through the hoops rather than develop their own rhetorical skills and strong ownership of their own work. These expectations can make it hard to push students to focus more on creative analytical articulation of their ideas, let alone the mechanics and technical aspects of writing. By cultivating writing, we give them the tools to develop their own intellectual voice.This session has been very fruitful on how to improve student writing which I have been struggling with. The induction of student into the salient rules of writing is area of specialization is key to building a foundation of good writing. basically it learning the rules of the game literally. once that is sorted then we can look at the grammar and formatting which I tend to look at first.
The writing techniques highlighted (Pomodoros, shut up and write and free writing) have been used though I didn’t know they actually have names especially the Pomodoro’s. Coupled with the reading journal, I find them useful in developing ones own argument without having to quote verbatim and also helps to avoid plagiarism.
Key thing here is practice, practice, practice; which I need to do a lot so that it becomes my second nature for me and my students. -
AuthorPosts
- The topic ‘Module 3: Writing Development and the Provision of Feedback’ is closed to new replies.