Article In:
Australian Review of Applied Linguistics: Online-First Articles

The impact of an online doctoral writing group

Increased confidence, feedback literacy, and wellbeing

ORCID logo | The University of SydneyCamperdown
ORCID logo | Macquarie UniversityNorth Ryde
Challenges with writing have been identified as a key factor in the timely completion of PhD programs. Doctoral writing groups, where students provide peer feedback on drafts, are increasingly being implemented as a potential solution to support and develop student writing. This paper presents an exploration of the impact of an online doctoral writing group program at a large Australian university. The group supports students in writing a research article for publication in an academic journal and includes both facilitator-led instruction and peer feedback. We explored the group’s impact on the participants’ writing ability, feedback literacy, and general well-being. Data were drawn from two doctoral writing groups and derived from several sources: session transcripts, focus groups, anonymous surveys, student drafts, and published samples of students’ academic journal articles. We found that instruction was key to demystifying the writing process and developing feedback literacy. Furthermore, the online delivery mode provided access to support to cohorts traditionally excluded from these opportunities, as well as a safe space that fostered a sense of well-being. This approach suggests a sustainable and effective model for implementation in graduate programs.
Keywords: doctoral writing, academic writing, writing instruction, peer feedback literacy, wellbeing
Article outline
  • Introduction and relevant literature
  • The doctoral writing group
  • Methodology
    • Participants
    • Data collection and analysis
  • Findings
    • Demystifying writing: From process to product
    • The value of giving and receiving feedback
    • Building community and ensuring equity
  • Discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Disclosure statement
  • Declaration of contributions from generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process
  • Author queries
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (37)
References
Aitchison, C. (2009). Writing groups for doctoral education. Studies in Higher Education, 34 (8), 905–916. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Learning from multiple voices: Feedback and authority in doctoral writing groups. In C. Aitchison & C. Guerin (Eds.), Writing Groups for Doctoral Education and Beyond (0 ed., pp. 67–80). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aitchison, C., & Lee, A. (2006). Research writing: Problems and pedagogies. Teaching in Higher Education, 11 (3), 265–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Álvarez, G., Colombo, L. M., & Difabio, H. (2021). Peer Feedback in an Online Dissertation Writing Workshop. Signum: Estudos Da Linguagem, 24 (1), Article 1. DOI logo
Alvarez, I., Espasa, A., & Guasch, T. (2012). The value of feedback in improving collaborative writing assignments in an online learning environment. Studies in Higher Education, 37 (4), 387–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Badenhorst, C., & Guerin, C. (2015). Research Literacies and Writing Pedagogies for Masters and Doctoral Writers. BRILL. [URL]
Bao, J., & Feng, D. (William). (2023). Supervisory feedback and doctoral students’ academic literacy development: The case of writing for publication. Teaching in Higher Education, 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beasy, K., Emery, S., Dyer, L., Coleman, B., Bywaters, D., Garrad, T., Crawford, J., Swarts, K., & Jahangiri, S. (2020). Writing together to foster wellbeing: Doctoral writing groups as spaces of wellbeing. Higher Education Research & Development, 39 (6), 1091–1105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breitenbach, E., Adler, K., & Pazdernik, V. (2022). Writing self-efficacy and performance among students in an online doctoral program: International Journal of Innovative Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 3 (1), 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caffarella, R., & Barnett, B. G. (2000). Teaching doctoral students to become scholarly writers: The importance of giving and receiving critiques.Google Scholar
Calle-Arango, L., & Ávila Reyes, N. (2023). Obstacles, facilitators, and needs in doctoral writing: A systematic review. Studies in Continuing Education, 45 (2), 133–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cannell, C., Silvia, A., McLachlan, K., Othman, S., Morphett, A., Maheepala, V., McCosh, C., Simic, N., & Behrend, M. B. (2023). Developing research-writer identity and wellbeing in a doctoral writing group. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43 (8), 1315–1325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Catterall, J., Ross, P., Aitchison, C., & Burgin, S. (2011). Pedagogical approaches that facilitate writing in postgraduate research candidature in science and technology. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 8 (2), 80–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chakma, U., Li, B., & Kabuhung, G. (2021). Creating online metacognitive spaces: Graduate research writing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Issues in Educational Research, 31 (1), 20.Google Scholar
Doody, S., McDonnell, M., Reid, E., & Marshall, S. C. (2017). Doctoral Peer Writing Groups as a Means of Promoting Well-Being. LEARNing Landscapes, 10 (2), Article 2. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flowerdew, J. (2015). John Swales’s approach to pedagogy in Genre Analysis: A perspective from 25 years on. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 19 1, 102–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gravett, K., & Carless, D. (2024). Feedback literacy-as-event: Relationality, space and temporality in feedback encounters. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 49 (2), 142–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (Fourth Edition.). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hands, A. S., & Tucker, V. M. (2022). Fostering doctoral student socialization and research expertise through writing pedagogy. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 63 (1), 64–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasan, R., & Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective. Deakin University.Google Scholar
Kozar, O., & Lum, J. F. (2013). Factors likely to impact the effectiveness of research writing groups for off-campus doctoral students. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 7 (2), 18.Google Scholar
(2015). Online doctoral writing groups: Do facilitators or communication modes make a difference? Quality in Higher Education, 21 (1), 38–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Little, T., Dawson, P., Boud, D., & Tai, J. (2024). Can students’ feedback literacy be improved? A scoping review of interventions. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 49 (1), 39–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, F., Du, J., Zhou, D. Q., & Huang, B. (2021). Exploiting the potential of peer feedback: The combined use of face-to-face feedback and e-feedback in doctoral writing groups. Assessing Writing, 47 1, 100482. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lonka, K. (2014). How to measure PhD students’ conceptions of academic writing — and are they related to well-being? Journal of Writing Research, 5 (3), 245–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maher, M., Fallucca, A., & Mulhern Halasz, H. (2013). Write On! Through to the Ph.D.: Using writing groups to facilitate doctoral degree progress. Studies in Continuing Education, 35 (2), 193–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Micciche, L. R., & Carr, A. D. (2011). Toward graduate-level writing instruction. College Composition and Communication, 62 (3), 477–501. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mullen, C. A. (2001). The Need for a Curricular Writing Model for Graduate Students. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 25 (1), 117–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Negretti, R., & McGrath, L. (2020). English for specific playfulness? How doctoral students in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics manipulate genre. English for Specific Purposes, 60 1, 26–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmer, B., & Major, C. H. (2008). Using Reciprocal Peer Review to Help Graduate Students Develop Scholarly Writing Skills. Journal of Faculty Development, 22 (3), 163–169.Google Scholar
Paré, A., Starke-Meyerring, D., & McAlpine, L. (2009). The dissertation as multi-genre: Many readers, many readings. In C. Bazerman, A. Bonini, & D. Figueiredo (Eds.), Genre in a Changing World (pp. 183–197). The WAC Clearinghouse; Parlor Press. DOI logo
Premawardhena, N. C. (2020). Defying learning traditions: From teacher-centred to student-centred foreign language education through digital transformation at Sri Lankan universities. In M. E. Auer & T. Tsiatsos (Eds.), The Challenges of the Digital Transformation in Education (Vol. 9161, pp. 229–238). Springer International Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rose, M., & McClafferty, K. A. (2001). A call for the teaching of writing in graduate education. Educational Researcher, 30 (2), 27–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sverdlik, A. C., Hall, N., McAlpine, L., & Hubbard, K. (2018). The PhD experience: A review of the factors influencing doctoral students’ completion, achievement, and well-Being. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 13 1, 361–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torka, M. (2020). Change and continuity in Australian doctoral education. 62 (2).Google Scholar
Zhang-Wu, Q. (2023). Exploring multilingual students’ feedback literacy in an asynchronous online writing course. Assessing Writing, 56 1, 100718. DOI logoGoogle Scholar