Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Tutoring the end-of-studies dissertation: helping psychology students find their academic voice when revising academic texts

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This intervention study aimed at helping undergraduate students of psychology learn to use the discursive resources useful to make academic voice visible in their texts and to improve their writing practices. The intervention involved tutorial meetings and collaborative revisions in two different learning environments, on-line and face-to face. The final text quality, the students’ knowledge and the amount and the quality of revisions were assessed in both conditions. Results show that the quality of the texts improved for both intervention groups in contrast with for control group, and better texts were related with higher rates of revision and more students’ satisfaction with the intervention.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aitchison, C., & Lee, A. (2006). Research writing: Problems and pedagogies. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 265–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allal, L., Chanquoy, L., & Largy, P. (Eds.). (2004). Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, C., & Russell, D. R. (2003). Writing selves. Writing societies. Colorado: Colorado State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boscolo, P., Arfe, B., & Quarisa, M. (2007). Improving the quality of students’ academic writing: An intervention study. Studies in Higher Education, 32(4), 419–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breetvelt, L., Van den Bergh, H., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (1994). Relations between writing processes and text quality: When and how. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 103–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butterfield, E., Hacker, J., & Albertson, L. (1996). Environmental, cognitive, and metacognitive influences on text revision: Assessing the evidence. Educational Psychology Review, 8(3), 239–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Candlin, C. N., & Hyland, K. (1999). Writing: Texts, processes and practices. London: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castelló, M., Iñesta, A., & González, L. (2010). La regulación de la escritura académica en el doctorado: El impacto de la revisión colaborativa en los textos [The regulation of doctoral academic writing: the impact of socially shared revision in texts]. Revista Española de Pedagogçia, 34, 118–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castelló, M., Iñesta, A. & Monereo, C. (2009). Towards self-regulated academic writing: an exploratory study with graduate students in a situated learning environment. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 9(3), December 2009. http://www.investigacion-psicopedagogica.org/revista/new/english/ContadorArticulo.php?367.

  • Couzijn, M., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2005). Learning to write by reader observation and written feedback. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. Van den Bergh, & M. Couzijn (Eds.), Effective teaching and learning of writing: Currents trends in research (pp. 224–253). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dysthe, O. (1996). The multivoiced classroom: Interaction of writing and classroom discourse. Written Communication, 13(3), 385–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dysthe, O. (2002). The learning potential of web-mediated discussion in a university course. Studies in Higher Education, 27(3), 339–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flowerdew, J., & Peacock, M. (2001). Research perspectives on English for academic purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, A., Russell, M., & Cook, A. (2003). The effect of computers on student learning: A meta-analysis of studies from 1992 to 2002. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 2(1), 1–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S. (2006). Strategy instruction and the teaching of writing: A meta-analysis. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 187–207). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, K., & Graham, S. (1996). Making the writing process work: Strategies for composition and self-regulation. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, K., & Graham, S. (1999). Assessment and intervention in overcoming writing difficulties. An illustration from the self-regulated strategy development model. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 30, 255–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, J. R. (2000). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In R. Indrisano & J. Squire (Eds.), Perspectives on writing: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 6–44). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helms-Park, R., & Stapleton, P. (2003). Questioning the importance of individualized voice in undergraduate L2 argumentative writing: An empirical study with pedagogical implications. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 245–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hidi, S., & Boscolo, P. (2006). Motivation and writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 144–157). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. (2002a). Activity and evaluation: Reporting practices in academic writing. In A. J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse. Harlow: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. (2002b). Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 215–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ivanic, R., & Camps, D. (2001). I am how I sound: Voice as self-representation in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1, 2), 3–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johns, A. (2002). Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005). Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 24(3), 269–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koutsantoni, D. (2006). Rhetorical strategies in engineering research articles and research theses: Advanced academic literacy and relations of power. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(1), 19–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lea, M. R., & Stierer, B. (2000). Student writing in higher education. New contexts. Buckingham: SRHE & Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, A., & Boud, D. (2003). Writing groups, change and academic identity: Research development as local practice. Studies in Higher Education, 28(2), 187–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, C. M., & Ransdell, S. (Eds.). (1996). The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liccardi, I., Davis, H. C., & White, S. (2007). CAWS: A wiki system to improve workspace awareness to advance effectiveness of co-authoring activities. Paper presented at CHI ‘07 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (San Jose, CA, USA, April 28–May 03, 2007). In http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1240866.1241040.

  • Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Pihlajamäki, H. (2003). Can collaborative network environment enhance essay-writing processes? British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(1), 17–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maher, D., Seaton, L., Mc. Mullen, C., Fitzgerald, T., Otsuji, E., & Lee, A. (2008). “Becoming and being writers”: The experiences of doctoral students in writing groups. Studies in Continuing Education, 30(3), 263–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsuda, P. K. (2001). Voice in Japanese written discourse: Implications for second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1–2), 35–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsuda, P. K., & Tardy, C. M. (2007). Voice in academic writing: The rhetorical construction of author identity in blind manuscript review. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 235–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullen, C. (2006). Best writing practices for graduate students: Reducing the discomfort of the blank screen. Connexions module: m 14054. Retrived October 23, 2009, in http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0.

  • Nelson, N. (2001). Writing to learn: One theory, two rationales. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.) & P. Tynjala, L. Mason, & K. Lonka (Volume Eds.), Studies in writing, Vol. 7, Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice, (pp. 23–36). Boston/Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Nelson, N. (2008). The reading-writing nexus in discourse research. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of writing research: History, society, school, individual, text (pp. 435–450). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olive, T., & Piolat, A. (2003). Activation des processus redactionnels et qualite′ des textes [Writing processes activation and texts quality]. Le Langage et L’Homme, 38(2), 191–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pittam, G., Elander, J., Lusher, J., Fox, P., & Payne, N. (2009). Student beliefs and attitudes about authorial identity in academic writing. Studies in Higher Education, 34(2), 153–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prior, P. (2001). Voices in text, mind, and society. Sociohistoric accounts of discourse acquisition and use. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 55–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prior, P. (2004). Tracing process: How texts come into being. In C. Bazerman & P. Prior (Eds.), What writing does and how does it: An introduction to analysing texts and textual practices (pp. 167–200). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prior, P. (2006). A sociocultural theory of writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 54–66). New York & London: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rienecker, L., & Jorgensen, P. (2000). Fewer tutorials and more large-class workshops in the teaching of academic writing. The use of model examples in a workshop pedagogy. Paper presented at the Joint Meeting of the National and East Central Writing Centers Associations (Bloomington, IN, April 15–17, 1999).

  • Rijlaarsdam, G., Van der Bergh, H., & Couzijn, M. (Eds.). (2005). Effective learning and teaching of writing. A handbook of writing in education (2nd ed.). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roussey, J. Y., & Piolat, A. (2005). La révision du texte: une activité de contrôle et de réflexion [Text revision: a control and reflection activity]. Psychologie française, 50, 351–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solé, I., Mateos, M., Miras, M., Martín, E., Cuevas, I., Castells, N., et al. (2005). Lectura, escritura y adquisición de conocimientos en Educación Secundaria y Educación Universitaria [Reading, writing and knowledge acquisition in secondary and higher education]. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 28(3), 329–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spivey, N. (1997). The constructivist methapor: Reading, writing and the meaking of meaning. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swales, J. (2004). Research genres, Exploration and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tynjälä, P., Mason, L., & Lonka, K. (Volume Eds.). (2001). Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice. Studies in writing (Vol. 7). Dordrect, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

  • Weng, C., & Gennari, J. H. (2004). Asynchronous collaborative writing through annotations. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work (Chicago, IL, USA, November 06–10, 2004). In http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1031607.1031705.

  • Zheng, Q., Booth, K., & McGrenere, J. (2006). Co-authoring with structured annotations. Paper presented at proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (Montréal, QC, Canada, April 22–27, 2006). In http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1124772.1124794.

  • Zimmerman, B., & Kitsantas, A. (1999). Acquiring writing revision skill: Shifting from process to outcome self-regulatory goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 241–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The study was funded by the Graduate School of Psychology FPCEE, Blanquerna, Projects on higher education teaching (MQD), Barcelona, Spain.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Psychology, Blanquerna, Ramon Llull University, C/Cister 34, 08022, Barcelona, Spain

    Montserrat Castelló, Anna Iñesta, Marta Pardo & Eva Liesa

  2. School of Educational Sciences, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Campus Bellaterra, Edifici G-6, 08193, Barcelona, Spain

    Reinaldo Martínez-Fernández

Authors
  1. Montserrat Castelló
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anna Iñesta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marta Pardo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Eva Liesa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Reinaldo Martínez-Fernández
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Montserrat Castelló.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

See Table 12.

Table 12 Questionnaire to collect students’ knowledge of the characteristics of academic texts
Full size table

Appendix 2

See Table 13.

Table 13 Questionnaire and survey to collect students’ satisfaction with the intervention
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Castelló, M., Iñesta, A., Pardo, M. et al. Tutoring the end-of-studies dissertation: helping psychology students find their academic voice when revising academic texts. High Educ 63, 97–115 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9428-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9428-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation