Artifact Four

Developing an Academic Writing Group for Graduate Students

Authors: András Kocsis & Scott MacPhail

Roundtable Proposal for CASAE, 2018.

This study examines the importance of developing an Academic Writing Group to support Graduate Students as they develop their academic skills. Observing that graduate students often felt isolated when they left class, as they had little point of contact with their university and with fellow aspiring academics, we developed the Mount Saint Vincent University (MSVU) Academic Writing Group. Run by PhD students, this group acts a secondary classroom, providing a meaningful link between students and faculty, as we seek input from both parties. It is a space that allows all graduate students to hone their writing skills and academic skills.

As an informal assemblage of Graduate Students, we meet weekly during the Fall and Winter semesters. While there are no guidelines to govern the operation of the Writing Group, we have found that a level of structure is needed to maintain and entice students to become part of the group. Wenger, McDermott & Snyder (2002) points out, that when a group of people share a concern, or a passion about a topic, in order to deepen their knowledge and expertise in area of interest by interacting on regular basis, community of practice emerges. We find value in our interactions because we apply strategies that improve our academic writing skills. We share information, insight, and advice, help each other solve problems, ponder common issues, and explore ideas. Further, we are scholars who share a concern, and provide guidance to a set of problems/difficulty for our participants while the vortex of our passion is directed toward the topic of the day. Our combined dedication has a certain permanence consistent with the essential premise of our undertaking—academic writing. Wenger et al. (2002) note that communities of practice cannot exist in isolation, their effectiveness is a “matter of how well they connect” (p. 150) with other members of the community. By interacting with our participants in an ongoing basis we managed to deepen our knowledge and expertise, furthermore, we also helped each other solve problems, ponder common issues, and explore ideas. We find value in learning together, in understanding each other`s perspective and belonging to an interesting group of people. 

Focusing on analyzing texts, building effective arguments, using evidence and secondary source material, instructing on the stages of the writing process, prewriting abstracts, rough drafts and revisions form a key part of our approach. We learnt that our writing grows strongest when we treat it as a process. We are interested in everybody`s ideas and we also resist the temptation to consult the Internet as we place great emphasis on peer discussion in this class. Our emergent professionalism results from the informal aspirations of the graduate students present and the passion for writing – one of the best ways to figure out and develop one`s ideas. And so, every session we write. 

This unique perspective is key to our approach. In this regard, we also had the possibility to situate our association between students and faculty. By providing participants with such support and guidance we ensure that their work meets the expectations of the professional discourse community. Generating internal recognition of our efforts we are noticed approvingly by eyes outside the program faculty. Thus, one of the greatest asset we can call on in support of our internal activities is that of external recognition by library staff, and graduate students from other programs. Consequently, our growth and momentum is intentionally supported by the library providing a comfortable space and, therefore, tying our community to university`s tangible scholarship and make the group more visible.

The core group of committed developing academics who are willing to host the meetings on regular basis provide efficient strategies for struggling writers to achieve success in their composition. The high standards of scholarly writing can only be achieved if deliberate practice is applied and ongoing dialog is exercised with professional peers. Effectively, this equates to what Silvia (2007) has so succinctly argued “talking about ideas and finding ways to test your ideas is intellectually gratifying” (p. 4.). Yet, at the same time “writing must be developed through systematic instruction and practice” (p. 5): the very essence of our Academic Writing approach. In many respects, writing is a matter of breaking through barriers— expectation, procrastination, predefinition. To write is to make the happening world evident, to make the underlying trends visible. From this vantage point one can begin to understand the forces at work in the profundity and clarity of academic writing. To write with participants is to write for ourselves, we have similar social experiences. We share and have a commitment to involvement in each other’s work. In embedding their writing—mainly essays, theses and dissertations—in our community of practice, graduate students learn that, as Wenger et al. (2002) stipulate, the value is not merely instrumental, “it also accrues in personal satisfaction of knowing colleagues who understand each other perspectives and of belonging to an interesting group of people” (p. 5).

Fostering the informal Academic Writing group, creating a community, is in fact the fundamental definition of Wenger`s (1998) communities of practice. Ours, is an attempt to develop associations of the social nature of learning inspired by social theory (Bourdieu, 1977; Foucault, 1980). Silvia (2007) notes that we can develop writing if we learn rules and strategies and then practice them. Psychology further informs us that deliberate practice generates skill (Vygotsky, 1978). Thus, academic writing does not become our Achilles’ heel, quite the opposite, it is an exercise devoted to the art of putting pen to paper, when we reward ourselves with the practice of scholarly writing in a productive manner. As Wenger et al. (2002) note the community based social design leverages the value of informed personal approach. Ultimately, the fruit that any writer in the field of social science has to collect is not the subject being written about, but who he or she is. 

Reference

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University 

Press.

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: selected interviews and writings. C. Gordon (Ed.). 

New York: Pantheon Books.

Silvia, P. (2007). How to write a lot: A practical guide to productive academic writing (1st ed.). 

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in society: development of higher psychological processes. Boston, 

MA: Harvard University Press.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity.Cambridge, UK: 

Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R. & Snyder, W. M. (2002). A guide to managing knowledge. 

Cultivating communities of practice. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.