scholarly journals Mapping the Use of Boosters in Academic Writing by Malaysian First-Year Doctoral Students

Author(s):  
Yueh Yea Lo ◽  
Juliana Othman ◽  
Jia Wei Lim

This article details an attempt to understand better how first-year doctoral students construct persuasive arguments in academic writing by exploring the patterns of boosters in drafts of doctoral research proposals. Eight Malaysian first-year ESL doctoral students produced 43 drafts of doctoral research proposals across four areas of study in education during their first year of doctoral studies. These drafts were analysed by coding the various linguistic items used to persuade readers of a text, and the analysis was based on Hyland’s (2005) model of metadiscourse. Results show that the (i) overall frequency of booster markers used is relatively low (n=158), reinforcing the argument that first-year doctoral students lack understanding about the interaction between booster markers and the context in a more complicated discussion in academic writing such as the doctoral research proposal. Then, the (ii) further analysis of booster marker sub-categories indicates that Malaysian first-year doctoral students struggle to make appropriate booster markers with different meanings and strengths in academic writing when used in context. Therefore, our study suggests that direct and explicit teaching of using various booster markers categories should be implemented in postgraduate writing courses to heightened the students’ perceptiveness regarding semantic features associated with creating convincing arguments in academic writing.

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-24
Author(s):  
Anis Handayani ◽  
Nur Arifah Drajati ◽  
N. Ngadiso

This study reports the use of engagement in high-rated and low-rated EFL undergraduate students’ argumentative essays. The engagement here refers to one of the aspects in interacting with the readers, which is called metadiscourse (Hyland, 2005a). The data in this study were ten highest-rated and ten lowest-rated argumentative essays written by first-year undergraduate students. The data were coded manually by two raters to maintain data validity. The results reveal that high-rated essays contain less engagement than low-rated ones. However, it also shows that the engagement in high-rated essays was more varied and grammatically sophisticated than those in low-rated essays. Furthermore, while this study reveals that the higher number of engagement used in argumentative essays does not always coincide with the improved quality of the writing, it implies that the writing quality and score do not depend on the number of engagement expressed but more on the ways students use the engagement effectively. Thus, the explicit teaching on how to use engagement effectively in persuasive writings may be useful for the students to build more persuasive arguments as well as to improve their writing quality.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 271-282
Author(s):  
Yueh Yea Lo ◽  
Juliana Othman ◽  
Jia Wei Lim

Metadiscourse refers to linguistic items, which functions to establish a connection with imagined readers of a text (Hyland, 2004). The use of metadiscourse has received much attention in various contexts, yet, little works are focusing on disciplinary metadiscourse, that has been carried out. To address this gap, this study explored, described, and compared the use of disciplinary metadiscourse by eight Malaysian first-year ESL doctoral students across four areas of study in education. The study reported in this article focuses on development or changes in writing over time. This study is quantitative in nature with a corpus-based approach utilizing AntConc (3.4.4) to examine the frequency of three dimensions of academic discourse in their writing, namely textual, engagement, and evaluative The results of this analysis show that (i) the engagement dimension (3.1%) was the lowest of all three dimensions in written work, reinforcing the argument that first-year ESL doctoral students are less experienced at using textual metadiscourse resources, and (ii) frequency of all three dimensions of academic discourse in their writing differs across time between first written drafts to the final written drafts. These are first-year ESL doctoral students, who are writing in different fields of educational research. The implication is that teaching and learning of disciplinary metadiscourse should involve explicit explanation, demonstration, and practice of its use, and development in the academic writing process.Academic writing; corpus analysis; ESL doctoral students; metadiscourse


2021 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Bitzer ◽  
S. Leshem

Although some argue that acknowledgement sections should not form part of doctoral theses, others welcome such sections and are of the opinion that they reflect original and personal contributions, constituting a neglected genre. Previous research on acknowledgement texts have focused more on their linguistic characteristics as related to the academic writing of theses. The present study, however, inquired into acknowledgement sections from a social support perspective. The aim of the study was to bring to light the dimension of the social milieu and its importance in supporting doctoral students in successfully achieving their doctorate. More specifically, the study sought to investigate the role of “significant others” in the academic success of doctoral students as reflected in the genres of acknowledgement in doctoral theses by analysing such texts from 30 completed doctoral theses in South Africa and Israel. Follow-up interviews with graduates assisted to probe deeper into the meaning of the texts. Although limited in nature, the study found that, based on who doctoral graduates acknowledge, several role-players and supporters seem to contribute to doctoral success. This includes family members, friends, colleagues, study supervisors, funders and university administrators. What also became clear was that doctoral candidates rely mainly on psycho-social forms of support and that particular kinds of such support are crucial at different stages of the doctoral journey. Acknowledgement studies confirm the doctoral research process as an activity stream that integrates the personal, the interpersonal and the institutional to reveal the mostly hidden, but very important, influences on the doctorate.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 221
Author(s):  
Alena Kasparkova ◽  
Kamila Etchegoyen Rosolová

Supporting Academic Writing and Publication Practice: PhD Students in Engineering and their Supervisors This poster documents the bottom-up efforts leading to the establishment of an academic writing support program for doctoral students at an engineering university in the Czech Republic (CR). To defend their dissertation, by law Czech doctoral students have to have published their research. Moreover, many faculties require their doctoral students to publish in prestigious English-medium journals, which is a challenge even for the students’ supervisors. Although publication requirements prior to dissertation defence are becoming common in many countries (Kamler and Thompson, 2014; Kelly, 2017), Czech students often face a challenge of writing in the absence of any prior writing support, where insufficient knowledge of English only adds an extra hurdle to the already difficult task of argumentation absent in Czech schooling. CR has a comparatively high number of doctoral students, but also alarmingly high drop-out rates with more than 50% students not finishing their studies (Beneš et al., 2017). In part, this is due to the students’ difficulties to publish (National Training Fund, 2019). This challenge could be addressed with systematic writing development, but Czech educators and dissertation supervisors are not commonly aware of composition being teachable as we learned from our preliminary study on writing support in doctoral programs in several Czech universities (Rosolová & Kasparkova, in press). While supervisors and university leaders tended to see writing development as a responsibility of the students, the doctoral students were calling for systematic support.  We strive to bring attention to the complexity of writing development and introduce a discourse on academic writing that conceives of academic writing as a bundle of analytical and critical thinking skills coupled with knowledge of rhetorical structures and different academic genres. We show how these skills can be taught through a course drawing on the results from a needs analysis survey among engineering doctoral students, the target population for this course (for more information on the survey, see Kasparkova & Rosolová, 2020). In the survey, students expressed a strong interest in a blended-learning format of the course, which we base on a model of a unique academic writing course developed for researchers at the Czech Academy of Sciences, but not common in Czech universities. Our course is work in progress and combines writing development with library modules that frame the whole writing process as a publication journey ranging from library searches, to a selection of a target journal and communication with reviewers. Because we are well aware that a course alone will not trigger a discourse on writing development in Czech higher education, we also plan on involving a broader academic community through workshops for supervisors and a handbook on teaching academic writing and publishing skills for future course instructors. Colleagues at EATAW 2019 conference commented on the poster sharing their difficulties from the engineering context and for instance suggested a computer game to engage engineers. This resonated with our plan to invite our engineers into the course through a geo-caching game – for more, see Kasparkova & Rosolová (2020). References Beneš, J., Kohoutek, J., & Šmídová, M. (2017). Doktorské studium v ČR [Doctoral studies in the CR].  Centre for Higher Education Studies. https://www.csvs.cz/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Doktorandi_final_2018.pdf Rosolová, K. E., & Kasparkova, A. (in press). How do I cook an Impact Factor article if you do not show me what the ingredients are? Educare. https://ojs.mau.se/index.php/educare Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2014). Helping Doctoral Students Write (2nd edition). Routledge. Kasparkova, A., & Rosolová, K. (2020). A geo-caching game ‘Meet your Editor’ as a teaser for writing courses. 2020 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference (ProComm), Kennesaw, GA, USA, 2020, pp. 87-91. https://doi.org/10.1109/ProComm48883.2020.00019 Kelly, F. J. (2017). The idea of the PhD: The doctorate in the twenty-first-century imagination. Routledge. National Training Fund. (2019). Complex study of doctoral studies at Charles University and recommendations to improve the conditions and results. Report for the Charles University Management. Prague.


Author(s):  
Micki M Caskey ◽  
Dannelle D Stevens ◽  
Marie Yeo

With a core identity as working professionals, education doctoral students struggle with seeing themselves as researchers. Because research is essential in a doctoral program, the sooner doctoral students include researcher as an identity, the smoother and more successful their journey will be. To support doctoral student researcher identity development, we focused on scaffolding and embedding academic writing experiences in the first year seminar in a U.S. doctoral program.  The purpose of this study was to describe and explain doctoral students’ development of a researcher identity as measured by the Draw-a-Researcher Test (DART).  In the fall and spring, we collected drawings and narrative reflections about their drawings of researchers from nine students. We created a five-dimension DART scoring guide.  In the fall, the drawings revealed students’ uncertainty about the agency and the research process dimensions; in the spring, however, the drawings showed students’ clearer understanding of these two dimensions.  In the narrative reflections, students noted the influence of writing expectations and experiences on their role identity as researchers.  Implications, as measured by the DART, are that an embedded writing support model seems to assure the development of doctoral students’ core identity as researchers during the first year of the program.


10.28945/4877 ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 737-756
Author(s):  
Walters Doh Nubia ◽  
Shan Simmonds

Aim/Purpose: There is a significant amount of research on supervision, assessment, and socio-economic benefits in South Africa. However, there have been relatively few attempts to analyse the research proposal phase, which remains a critical part of doctoral education in South African. Background: As part of the broader transformation agenda in South Africa, universities are under pressure to produce vastly more high-level doctoral graduates. The aim is to allow South Africa to build its knowledge base so it can address the socio-economic problems inherited from the apartheid regime. In South Africa, quality in doctoral education is mainly understood and measured in terms of throughput rate. The danger is that greatly increasing the number of doctoral graduates will have a deleterious effect on the quality of the studies done. At present, the general view is that the research proposal phase is an administrative requirement or merely a planning phase in doctoral education. However, the research proposal phase is when doctoral students have their first opportunity to show their capacity for high-level intellectual engagement. This article explores what doctoral students and supervisors regard as necessary for a quality research proposal and how they view this phase of the doctoral journey. Methodology: This qualitative research used phenomenology to capture the lived experiences of participants. There were nineteen (19) participants from three South African universities. Eleven (11) of them were supervisors and eight (8) were doctoral students. Semi-structured interviews generated the data that were used to explore how participants experience and construct their understanding of quality at the research proposal phase. Contribution: The study makes three contributions: (i) it increases our understanding of the research proposal phase of doctoral education, (ii) it provides an alternative understanding of quality attributes: those centred on research learning. At present planning to meet administrative requirements dominates notions of quality; and (iii) it positions the doctoral research proposal at an intersection of different views of knowledge production: mode 1 that favours disciplinary knowledge production, mode 2 that favours cross disciplinary knowledge production and mode 3 that favours quadruple helix innovation systems of knowledge production. Findings: The findings indicate that participants understand quality in terms of planning for research, compliance with administrative requirements, confinement of research ideas within disciplinarity boundaries and the calibre of academic support. These understandings inform the common perceptions of the research proposal phase and its quality attributes. Participants’ narrow understanding of the research proposal phase and its quality attributes have, in turn, supported the view that writing of research proposals is a matter of technical compliance. This has deprived the research proposal phase from harnessing the full potential of research learning. It has also restricted the epistemological imagination of students, as econometrics parameters are being used to measure the production of knowledge. Recommendations for Practitioners: The possibility of enhancing the quality of the doctoral research proposal phase could be increased if those directing doctoral education were more aware (i) that the support programmes should encourage significant doctoral research; (ii) of the importance of having courses that are an integral part of the research proposal phase, which enable candidates to develop the ability to sustain a cohesive, coherent, critical and logical academic argument, and (iii) of the necessity for interdisciplinary research at the level of doctoral education. Recommendation for Researchers: Researchers from diverse social and cultural contexts need to improve the quality of their research proposals through engaging in research learning. This would require deeper understandings of social and cultural diversity of the context from which the research proposal phase is being experienced. This requires further research on understanding how students negotiate the transition from different social learning contexts into doctoral education. Impact on Society: Implementation of the recommendations would help to establish a robust standard of doctoral education, which could enhance the personal, professional, social, and economic growth of South African society. Future Research: Future research should explore different approaches to support services to identify the kind of support services that would enable doctoral students to engage in quality interdisciplinary research.


Author(s):  
Amirhossein Khosrojerdi ◽  
Shabnam Rezapour ◽  
Janet K. Allen ◽  
Farrokh Mistree

Doctoral students are required to prepare and defend a research proposal. In this paper, we present five steps for doctoral students to identify the questions that are worthy of investigation and thence to develop a research plan and proposal. Our method involves five steps, namely, Step 1: Frame the problem Step 2: Develop a research plan Step 3: Verification and validation Step 4: Proposal template Step 5: Proposal outline We illustrate the method using the sustainable design of plug-in-electric vehicle charging stations as an example.


2011 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristy Buccieri ◽  
Campbell McDermid ◽  
Joy Mannette

Without a magic mirror on the wall, Ph.D. students have to look elsewhere for answers. In this paper, we pose the question, “What does it mean to be a Ph.D. in the 21st century?” We explore this issue through our respective social locations, as two first year Ph.D. students from differing backgrounds and as a tenured professor in a Faculty of Education. Our interest lies beyond a critique of the current model and a dualistic consideration of what should or should not be. Instead, we engage auto-ethnography with an analytic-induction approach to consider what postmodern doctoral studies might entail. The discussion is informed by a range of theorists, allowing us to consider multiple voices in the process of inculcation within the canon. Central to our discussion is the motivation of doctoral students and the means by which we can find our place within existing research communities. We examine the responsibility of students in animating knowledge and disseminating it outside the walls of the established academy. With a Ph.D. comes considerable power. The time has come for us to re-think the way we pass the wand from sorcerer to apprentice, and perhaps, even what is the wand.


2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
pp. 1552-1563
Author(s):  
Denise A. Tucker ◽  
Mary V. Compton ◽  
Sarah J. Allen ◽  
Robert Mayo ◽  
Celia Hooper ◽  
...  

Purpose The intended purpose of this research note is to share the findings of a needs assessment online survey of speech and hearing professionals practicing in North Carolina to explore their interest in pursuing a research-focused PhD in Communication Sciences and Disorders (CSD) and to document their perceptions of barriers to pursing a PhD in CSD. In view of the well-documented shortage of doctor of philosophy (PhD) faculty to attract, retain, and mentor doctoral students to advance research and to prepare future speech and hearing professionals, CSD faculty must assess the needs, perceptions, and barriers prospective students encounter when considering pursuing a doctoral research degree in CSD. Method The article describes the results of a survey of 242 speech and hearing professionals to investigate their interest in obtaining an academic research-focused PhD in CSD and to solicit their perceived barriers to pursuing a research doctoral degree in CSD. Results Two thirds of the respondents (63.6%) reported that they had considered pursuing a PhD in CSD. Desire for knowledge, desire to teach, and work advancement were the top reasons given for pursuing a PhD in CSD. Eighty-two percent of respondents had no interest in traditional full-time study. Forty-two percent of respondents indicated that they would be interested in part-time and distance doctoral study. The barriers of time, distance, and money emerged as those most frequently identified barriers by respondents. Conclusion The implications inform higher education faculty on how they can best address the needs of an untapped pool of prospective doctoral students in CSD.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document