Description
While Caffarella and Barnett (2000) indicate that critique is the most influential element in helping learners produce a better writing product, critique can be an emotional event. Cameron, Nairn, and Higgins (2009) note that it proved helpful in their workshops to discuss the emotions that emerged as students prepared to give and receive feedback. What is the role of critique in the development of a researcher and scholar? In what ways can it positively contribute to a learner’s academic success? In what ways can it have a negative effect?
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Studies in Higher Education Volume 25, No. 1, 2000
Teaching Doctoral Students to
Become Scholarly Writers: the
importance of giving and receiving
critiques
ROSEMARY S. CAFFARELLA & BRUCE G. BARNETT
University of Northern Colorado, USA
Data were gathered from 45 doctoral students through focus groups, observations, and
written and oral re¯ ections to ascertain their perceptions of a speci® c teaching process (the Scholarly
Writing Project), which was designed to assist these students in learning how to do academic writing.
It was found that preparing and receiving critiques from professors and peers was perceived to be the
most in¯ uential element in helping them to understand the process of scholarly writing and in
producing a better written product. More speci® cally, these students believed that two factors integral
to the critiquing process were responsible for building their con® dence as academic writers: personalized face-to-face feedback; and the iterative or ongoing nature of the critiques they received. In
addition, these students emphasized that although the critiquing process was powerful and useful, it
was also highly emotional and at times frustrating. The ® ndings suggest that, in teaching scholarly
writing, instructors should be very clear about the purposes and bene® ts of a strong and sustained
critiquing process, and assist students in learning how to both receive and give useful feedback.
ABSTRACT
Introduction
University faculty often assume that their doctoral students begin graduate school as
pro® cient writers or that they will develop this skill during their program of studies. What is
shocking to faculty is that many graduate students not only do not write like scholars, but
they also may not think like scholars. This problem is particularly evident in professional
schools in which many doctoral students in the USA are full-time practitioners with very
demanding schedules and precious little time for research and writing. In general, many
faculty observe that teaching the scholarly writing process often comes in the form of `too
little too late’ . In particular, some students may not be exposed to the scholarly writing
process until the dissertation, which may have signi® cant implications for the completion of
their doctoral program. Those of us who assist students in learning the scholarly writing
process ask ourselves the following question: `Is there a better way to teach novice scholars
what we know about the seemingly mysterious process of scholarly writing?’
The purpose of this article is to describe a research study conducted in order to obtain
doctoral students’ perceptions of a speci® c teaching process (the Scholarly Writing Project,
or SWP), which was intended to assist them to improve their scholarly writing skills. From
our perspective, scholarly writing was equated with academic writing, such as the production
of dissertations and journal publications. We were most interested to learn what these
0307-5079/00/010039-14 Ó
2000 Society for Research into Higher Education
40
R. S. Caffarella & B. G. Barnett
students found to be the most helpful processes as they engaged in scholarly writing early in
their doctoral program experience. In particular, our aim was to assist students to develop
and/or enhance the form, style, content and quality of their academic writing during the
initial phase of their doctoral study.
We begin our examination of scholarly writing by exploring the few studies we found that
investigated either the perceptions that graduate students have of scholarly writing or
programs that were developed to teach academic writing to graduate students. We then
describe the SWP and the literature upon which this process was grounded. Next, we review
the methodology used in the study, and follow this with a summary of our ® ndings. We
conclude by discussing these ® ndings and recommending ways to improve how scholarly
writing might be taught in doctoral programs.
Literature on the Scholarly Writing Process
Little attention has been given in the literature to graduate students’ perceptions of the
scholarly writing process or to what they have found useful in programs designed to teach
academic writing. We could only locate a handful of empirical studies which sought students’
opinions on the writing process (Torrance et al., 1992, 1993, 1994; Koncel & Carney, 1992;
Bishop, 1993; Torrance & Thomas, 1994), particularly the perceptions of students regarding
writing in graduate-level programs. For instance, Koncel & Carney (1992) found a discrepancy between graduate students in social work programs and faculty as to what constituted effective scholarly writing, discovering that students wanted to learn how to write more
concisely, follow a prescribed format and use correct terminology. Faculty, on the other
hand, felt that students needed to improve their ability to make solid arguments supported
by empirical evidence and theory.
Furthermore, Torrance and his colleagues have completed the most thorough studies of
graduate students’ perceptions of the scholarly writing process. They found that graduate
students’ notions were quite different `from those of novice undergraduate writers, and
approximately similar to those of productive academics. However, a signi® cant minority of
the research students reported writing dif® culties that might hinder their successful completion of their research degrees’ (Torrance et al., 1992, p. 155). They also identi® ed three
distinct strategies students used in approaching their written work: planning, revising, and
mixed strategies. Although these authors acknowledged that planning was important in the
writing process, it was `neither a necessary nor a suf® cient condition for writing success’
(Torrance et al., 1994, p. 379). Instead, `both think-then-write strategies and think-whileyou-write strategies have utility in the context of academic writing’ (Torrance et al., 1994,
p. 390).
As a result of their ® rst study, Torrance et al., (1992) suggested that some form of
writing training be provided to graduate students, but warned that `it is not at all clear what
form this writing instruction should take’ (p. 165). Therefore, in their second investigation,
they evaluated a training program that compared three conceptual orientations to the
teaching of writing (Torrance et al., 1993; Torrance & Thomas, 1994). They concluded that
graduate students bene® ted from short-term term writing courses; however, no one form of
writing instruction was suitable for all students. Rather, they advised that different instructional approaches should be incorporated and that students should be allowed to choose
those which ® tted their needs. Regardless, `whatever form the instruction takes, it should
focus on the production of text, and not solely on the sorting out of ideas prior to putting pen
to paper’ (Torrance & Thomas, 1994, p. 120). We agree with Torrance & Thomas (1994)
that the production of text is critical in teaching academic writing to graduate students.
Teaching Doctoral Students to Become Scholarly Writers
41
Therefore we designed a process, the Scholarly Writing Project, for teaching doctoral
students academic writing, which incorporated the writing and rewriting of text as a key
component of the activity.
The Scholarly Writing Project
The SWP is embedded in the ® rst doctoral core course required of all students in one
educational leadership doctoral program in North America. This writing project is one of the
two major expectations for the course, the second being that students should learn speci® c
content knowledge about leadership. The SWP had three major purposes: (1) to investigate
a speci® c area of interest focusing on the content of the class; (2) to engage in the process of
critiquing a colleague’ s work; and (3) to incorporate feedback from colleagues and instructors
in preparing a formal academic paper. Students were required to produce three versions of
a scholarly paper on a topic related to one of the themes of the course. Two drafts and a ® nal
copy of the paper were produced. A student colleague and a faculty member reviewed the
® rst two drafts and written feedback was provided for each draft in the form of a formal
critique. All faculty members who were involved in the process had had extensive experience
as reviewers for professional journals and had also received numerous critiques of their own
scholarly work; therefore, they had a good sense of what would help students improve their
scholarly products. In addition, faculty reviewed the students’ critiques to ensure that they
were also useful. Following each critique, students prepared a revised draft of their papers
along with a written response addressing the reviewers’ comments. In their response to the
critiques, students indicated how they addressed each of the reviewers’ comments, including
where appropriate their rationale for not incorporating their suggestions. In addition, students were required to meet at least once with one of the instructors in order to discuss their
paper; however, most students chose to meet with an instructor more frequently.
In developing the SWP, we tried to simulate what scholarly writing entails. Three
components were included as part of this assignment: content, process and critique. Content
focused on the ability of scholars to present an argument for a speci® c thesis that was
grounded in literature and/or empirical research (Olson, 1992; Hawley, 1993; Melroy, 1994;
Cryer, 1996). The process element acknowledged that scholarly writing was an ongoing effort
of writing and rewriting (Hartly & Branthwaite, 1989; Richardson, 1990; Dugan, 1991;
Sullivan, 1991; Olson, 1992; Curren, 1993; Lamott, 1994). Finally, critiquing consisted of
being able to receive and use critical feedback and to give helpful feedback as students
developed their ® nal drafts (Richardson, 1990; Wolcott, 1990; Ashton-Jones, 1992; Fiske,
1992; Olson, 1992; Lamott, 1994; Cryer, 1996).
Most of the literature supporting what we reviewed as important in the teaching of
academic writing came from scholars in the humanities and the ® eld of composition, who
addressed writing instruction in general or as an element of undergraduate education. In
addition, we used material written speci® cally for graduate research students, which focused
primarily on what components should be included in a research document, or on writing
mechanics or style (Rudestam & Newton, 1992; Creswell, 1994; Melroy, 1994; Bean, 1996;
Cryer, 1996). Although we found these materials useful, we also were aware from the
literature on writing and from our own experience that scholarly writing differed greatly
between graduate and undergraduate students as well as between novice and experienced
academic scholars (Hartley & Branthwaite, 1989; Torrance, et al., 1992). In addition, we
acknowledge our own biases in terms of what we consider `good scholarly writing’ based on
the traditions from our own disciplines and the context in which we write, i.e. higher
education (Baynham, 1995; Berkenkotter & Hucklin, 1995; Bazerman, 1998).
42
R. S. Caffarella & B. G. Barnett
Methodology
·
In designing this study, and similar to Torrance et al. (1992, 1994), we believed that teaching
the scholarly writing process would make a difference to students’ perceptions about academic writing as well as to their actual practice of writing. Where we differed from Torrance
and his colleagues was in how we framed the major components of scholarly writing, and
when and how this material was taught. We chose to highlight three major facets of academic
writing (i.e., content, process, critiquing) and to integrate the teaching of the scholarly
writing process as an integral part of the initial stage of doctoral study. Since we wanted rich
descriptions of students’ perceptions of the writing process, our study was exploratory and
qualitative in nature. Qualitative research methods are appropriate when seeking the reactions and perceptions of individuals who are experiencing a particular phenomenon (Bogdan
& Biklen, 1992; Flinders & Mills, 1993; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Rather than attempting
to test or prove a series of a priori hypotheses or assumptions about the experiences of novice
writers, including the factors they felt were most in¯ uential in their development as writers,
our intent was to allow our students’ voices to emerge, an approach best suited to qualitative
methods (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
The subjects of our investigation included all doctoral students from an educational
leadership program housed at a university in the USA, who had been enrolled within the last
5 years (n 5 47 students in these ® ve cohorts). Two types of data were collected. One data
source consisted of documenting the reactions of one of the ® ve student cohorts as the
students experienced the SWP process during their ® rst semester of graduate study (n 5 10).
Of these 10 individuals, six were males, four were females, one student was of Hispanic
origin, and the rest were Caucasian. Nine of these 10 students were working full-time in
addition to attending graduate school. Throughout the 16-week semester, the two professors
teaching the course periodically gathered students’ written and oral reactions to the scholarly
writing process. Written responses focusing on their thoughts and feelings about the SWP
experience included having students:
·
·
·
provide their initial reactions to writing at the beginning of the semester (i.e. perceived
differences between scholarly writing and other types of writing, perceived strengths and
weaknesses as writers, and the assistance they anticipated needing to become competent
writers);
complete sentence stems about writing (e.g. `Doing the ® rst draft is ¼ ’ , `What I’ ve learned
about writing is ¼ ’ , `Thinking about doing a critique is ¼ );
re¯ ect on their perceptions about writing by keeping a written journal; and
complete a ® nal re¯ ection paper at the conclusion of the semester, summarizing their
overall reactions to the SWP and the course.
Also, throughout the semester, oral comments from the 10 students were solicited and
recorded. Open-ended questions asking what students were perceiving about the writing
process were posed at several points during the course: (a) near the beginning of the semester
prior to completing their ® rst draft of the SWP, (b) midway through the semester after
receiving feedback on their ® rst and second drafts of the SWP, and (c) at the end of the
semester when handing in their ® nal product.
The second type of data collection was a series of focus group interviews with the ® ve
student cohorts which had enrolled in the doctoral program over the past 5 years. Six focus
group sessions were conducted with 28 students. Interview sessions were tape-recorded and
tapes were transcribed. If students lived too far from campus or were unable to attend a focus
Teaching Doctoral Students to Become Scholarly Writers
43
group session, they were asked to complete a written questionnaire addressing the same
questions asked during the focus group interviews (n 5 14). As a result of these procedures,
focus group or questionnaire data were obtained from 42 of the 47 doctoral students (89%)
attending the program over the past 5 years.
The questions posed to students ranged from whether the SWP process in¯ uenced their
perceptions as writers to what was the most important lesson they learned from the
experience (see the Appendix for a list of the interview questions and questionnaire items).
For this group of 42 respondents, there was an almost equal portion of male and female
students, the majority being Caucasian. About one-third had not completed their coursework, one-third had ® nished their courses and were taking their comprehensive examinations
or were preparing their dissertations, and one-third had graduated from the program. All of
the respondents were professional educators, with about 80% being employed full-time when
these data were gathered. Since data were collected from ® ve student cohorts, perceptions
were obtained as early as 6 months after completing the SWP and as long as 4 years later.
Using the constant comparative data analysis method (Glaser, 1965), the researchers reviewed the transcriptions of interview tapes and the completed questionnaires, created initial
coding categories, and eventually developed cluster categories and overall themes.
Results
As a result of our analysis of the SWP elements which in¯ uenced novice writers’ impressions
about writing, we found that preparing and receiving critiques from peers and professors
emerged as the most signi® cant factors mentioned by graduate students. Since perceptual
data were collected before, during and after students produced their scholarly writing papers,
we were able to examine developmental trends in students’ perceptions.
We begin by reporting doctoral students’ reactions to preparing critiques for their peer
colleagues, noting their perceptions before beginning the SWP, during the semester when the
SWP was completed, and after the SWP assignment was ® nished. Similarly, their views about
receiving written critiques are examined. Finally, the most in¯ uential elements of the
critiquing process are explored. To highlight our ® ndings, students’ voices concerning the
critiquing process are re¯ ected in representative quotations taken from their written responses, focus group interviews, and questionnaires.
Preparing Critiques
As mentioned earlier, the methodology of the study allowed for the collection of data from
graduate students as they were actually involved in the SWP. To determine the developmental trends in their perceptions, students’ reactions are reported before beginning the SWP,
during the semester in which their scholarly products were being produced, and following the
completion of the project. Reactions before and during the SWP are from the 10 students
from the cohort class; perceptions after completing the project re¯ ect the responses of the 42
students who participated in a focus group interview or who completed a written questionnaire.
Before beginning scholarly writing. Most students remarked that they had little, if any,
experience prior to entering this doctoral program with writing scholarly products or with
providing feedback about their peers’ writing. Not surprisingly, there was some apprehension
about reading a colleague’ s paper and providing direct feedback. This apprehension manifested itself in two ways. First, because of their lack of experience and con® dence, students
44
R. S. Caffarella & B. G. Barnett
questioned their ability to provide meaningful feedback to another person. Their uneasiness
was revealed in these comments:
I do not know enough to help the writer.
What if [the other person] has made a huge mistake and I don’ t see it? Does that
make me a poor writer?
Who am I to judge another [person] when I myself am doing poorly in the process?
Second, although questioning their ability, there was a sense of excitement about the process
and what they would learn. This more curious and enthusiastic viewpoint was clearly
communicated by one student who wrote:
I am excited and optimistic [because] I have seen the title of the paper ¼
I will learn a lot.
and feel
During scholarly writing. As they gained some experience in providing feedback to their
peers, new insights about the critiquing process emerged as well as some continuing
concerns. On one hand, the opportunity to critique a peer’ s work raised the level of concern
about how their feedback would be accepted and provided a way for them to compare their
own work with a peer. These reactions are re¯ ected in students’ own words:
I’ m anxious to see how my feedback was accepted and [if it] made any difference
in my partner’ s paper.
I was unsure of the reaction concerning some of my comments and did not want to
upset my colleague.
I was relieved to read someone’ s paper and compare it to my writing ability.
On the other hand, the initial self-doubt of their capability to provide meaningful feedback
to peer colleagues still lingered. Comments such as `not wanting to give poor advice’ , `not
being able to provide more con® dent help’ and `feeling inadequate’ were expressed repeatedly, indicating a continuing questioning of their ability to critique one another’ s work.
After ® nishing scholarly writing. When students had completed the SWP and had the
opportunity to re¯ ect back on their experience of doing critiques, there was far less emotional
reaction than before beginning the process or when they were engaged in it. Emotionallyladen words such as `nervous’ , `uneasy’ , or `queasy’ were not used to describe the process.
Nevertheless, students continued to express some reservations and concerns about their
contributions and revealed some new insights about their own writing. Their lingering
concerns ranged from the type or level of feedback that they should provide, up to the
continued questioning of the value that their critiques had for their partners, which are
evident in these comments:
It was hard to get [students] to give feedback at a deeper, more substantial level.
I’ m still a little spooked about how much feedback to give a peer.
What level of feedback should I give? There’ s only so much feedback that I think
people can handle at a time.
This was my fear ¼ I would read over [the paper] two or three times and go `it’ s
perfect’ [and] I can’ t ® nd anything wrong with it. I’ d give it back to them with `great
Teaching Doctoral Students to Become Scholarly Writers
45
job’ written across the top. Then they get it back from one of [the professors] and
it’ s ripped to shreds. And it would just con® rm that I don’ t understand any of this
and I don’ t have a clue as to how to do [critiquing].
Besides these lingering self-doubts, students expressed positive aspects of having conducted
reviews of their peers’ writing. The major advantage of reviewing one another’ s work was the
learning that took place. As the emotional fears of critiquing subsided, the most common
reactions were the opportunity to compare other peoples’ writing with their own work and the
new information they gained about a topic by reading other papers.
Over time, students’ reactions to critiquing one another’ s written products revealed some
changes in their attitudes and some lasting impressions. As they gained experience in
providing written feedback to their peers, graduate students’ anxiety and apprehension
tended to dissipate. Although feelings of comfort with the critiquing process emerged, they
never lost the sense of their lack of ef® cacy as reviewers. Many students commented about
their perceived lack of credibility as reviewers long after completing the process. On a more
positive note, some of these students’ earliest perceptions about the value of the process,
especially as a means for comparing their work with a colleague, grew stronger the longer they
were involved in peer critiquing. In order to contrast these ® ndings on students’ reactions to
preparing critiques, we now turn our attention to the students’ views about receiving critiques
from peers and professors.
Receiving Critiques
Just as for preparing critiques, students’ perceptions about receiving critiques throughout the
semester were obtained. Once again, these data were collected at different points in timeÐ
before, during and after completing the projectÐ in order to determine developmental trends
and patterns.
Before beginning scholarly writing. The novelty of receiving ongoing feedback from peers and
instructors raised initial concerns and excitement among many students. Once again, emotions ran high in anticipation of receiving feedback from several people. In a similar manner
to their early reactions to preparing critiques, students’ feelings ranged from insecurity with
their draft to keen interest in how others saw their work. Their emotions are best captured
in their own words:
I’ m afraid of the feedback and I wonder if the person reading mine would even be
interested in the topic.
[I am] very disappointed about my own writing.
I’ m anxious, but not in a bad way. I am actually interested to see what is said.
[My] feelings are dependent on who the reader is. Somehow, I’ m not as anxious as
I thought I’ d be ¼ Perhaps it’ s the release of letting [the paper] go.
During scholarly writing. As they were receiving their critiques and were having to respond
to feedback provided by peers and professors, students voiced growing comfort with the
process. Comments such as being `genuinely glad to receive suggestions’ and `[my] fear and
anxiety have been reduced by the way we approached critiquing’ surfaced. However, most
students remained apprehensive about responding to feedback, especially when two profes-
46
R. S. Caffarella & B. G. Barnett
sors had different reactions. The following comments re¯ ect the tension and con¯ ict students
felt in reacting to feedback:
I feel awkward responding to a critique. I’ m not sure how much time to spend on
items.
I felt that the paper was really coming together, but after receiving the second
feedback, boy was I wrong. The feelings I had ¼ ® rst [I was] mad, really mad. Then
I met with [the professor] later in the week, I had cooled down. After I met with [the
professor], I knew I had to start all over again.
I detest having to deal with feedback from both professors.
I feel really uncomfortable having to choose [between two professors’ critiques].
As these reactions indicate, the greatest sources of dissonance arose in not knowing how best
to respond to various suggestions, especially con¯ icting feedback from different professors.
Students’ uncertainty regarding the resolution of contradictory messages from faculty seemed
to underscore the lack of con® dence in their writing ability. Without a sense of assurance and
ef® cacy about their writing, students had great dif® culty explaining to professors why they
were reluctant to follow their suggestions.
After ® nishing scholarly writing. Upon completing the scholarly writing project, strong emotions still emerged regarding being critiqued by others. One student commented with a
metaphor, indicating that receiving critiques was `scary ¼ like an intellectual striptease’ .
`Frustration’ is probably the best word to describe some of the students’ feelings, frustration
with a lack of assistance from a peer reviewer and frustration with having to respond to
con¯ icting feedback from different professors. These emotional reactions are evident in the
following comments:
I really disliked the type of feedback I received from my colleague. I felt that the
student colleague was disagreeing with my topic, rather than critiquing my work.
My [peer partner] didn’ t have the con® dence from experience to understand what
I was writing, so it really wasn’ t very helpful.
¼
and that became kind of tough because of being a novice scholarly writer, which
[professor’ s] advice to take.
One of my frustrations was that I felt ¼ if I chose what [one professor] said, then
I was going to have to discount what [the other professor] said. And my ego and
humility said I’ m not going to blow that off. This [professor] has a doctorate who’ s
way up there. I can’ t blow [the professor] off. I felt really uncomfortable having to
choose.
Despite these frustrations, many students were more comfortable with receiving feedback and
more con® dent about their ability to write a worthwhile scholarly piece:
You begin receiving approval from people who really are expert and doing the very
thing they are asking you to do ¼ But I found sharing the paper with both a peer
and faculty members to be really pro® table personally, from the standpoint that I
can say that I submitted this to a pretty high authority on writing skills and research
skills and got some approval. So, I walked away feeling pretty good.
[Receiving critiques] boosted my perception of myself as a scholarly writer. The
Teaching Doctoral Students to Become Scholarly Writers
47
verbal and written feedback I received regarding my thoughts and writing about the
topic added validity to what I perceived to be an issue worth studying.
Contrasting students’ earliest perceptions about receiving critiques with their thoughts
when the process was ® nished revealed some consistent reactions as well as some developmental changes. A strong sense of emotion ran through students’ responses from the
beginning of the scholarly writing process through to the completion of the project. Emotions
that began as apprehension and anxiety about how others would view their written work
turned into frustration and sometimes anger with the quality of the feedback they received
from peer reviewers and/or with the dilemma of how to reconcile different feedback from two
professors. At the two extremes, feedback either lacked quality and substance or it was
contradictory and very dif® cult to resolve. Over time, however, the quality of the feedback
received and the supportive manner in which it was delivered allowed most students to view
their own writing more objectively, leading to increased con® dence in their writing ability.
Most In¯ uential Elements of the Critiquing Process
These reactions of graduate students suggest that their lack of experience with such an
intensive and ongoing writing assignment contributed to their anxieties about how to provide
helpful feedback and how others would critically evaluate their writing. As was noted earlier,
concerns about their critiquing expertise and how to reconcile con¯ icting feedback did not
completely vanish; however, students expressed noticeable growth in their critiquing and
writing ability.
As students spoke about giving and receiving feedback, they felt certain factors were
responsible for building their con® dence as critiquers and writers. Foremost among these
elements were the personalized, face-to-face feedback they received and the iterative or
ongoing nature of feedback. Personalizing the process allowed students to comprehend better
how to improve their written products without feeling personally attacked. Similarly, knowing
that multiple drafts would be completed reduced the pressure to create a perfect product the
® rst time. These two elements are captured in students’ voices:
The piece that helped me the most was sitting down before I started writing and
talking through the outline with one of the instructors.
Face-to-face feedback and not correspondence, not e-mail, not drop me a note
[helped the most]. It was a hammer it out back and forth discussion.
I ® gure the whole concept of a second draft [helped the most] ¼ I’ m used to going
back for a second opinion, but not from the person [from whom] I got the ® rst
opinion.
Discussion and Recommendations for Practice
Before discussing our ® ndings, we should be clear about the limitations of this investigation.
First, this was a limited sample of graduate students from a single doctoral program. As a
result, these ® ndings cannot be generalized to doctoral students in other graduate programs
where scholarly writing is being taught. Second, our methods for collecting data assumed
students were being honest and forthcoming. We have no reason to believe they were not
truthful in responding to their SWP experiences; however, we have little evidence to refute
this potential challenge. With these cautions in mind, we now discuss what students told us
about their scholarly writing experience.
48
R. S. Caffarella & B. G. Barnett
For the graduate students in this research study, the critiquing process was perceived as
the most in¯ uential element in helping them to understand the scholarly writing process and
producing a scholarly product. Yet, for these students, being asked to provide feedback on
their peers’ writing as well as receiving multiple critiques of their own written products were
novel. Despite the power of critiquing evidenced in this study, there is very little literature
describing this process and its importance in developing scholarly works. Rather, what is
stressed about scholarly writing are structural elements, such as the components to incorporate in a scholarly paper and the mechanics of writing. When the critiquing process is
discussed at all, it tends to be addressed in a paragraph or two and as more of an `aside’ ,
claiming that scholars should get someone to review their drafts prior to submission or that
students should receive feedback as part of the dissertation process (e.g. Richardson, 1990;
Rudestam & Newton, 1992; Olson, 1992; Torrance et al., 1993; Cre
