research about writing

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Original research article, improving undergraduates’ and postgraduates’ academic writing skills with strategy training and feedback.

• Albert Ludwig University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

To improve text quality in higher education, training writing strategies (i.e., text structure application, summarization, or language use) and provision of feedback for revising (i.e., informative tutoring feedback or try-again feedback) were tested in combination. The aim was to establish whether first, strategy training affects academic writing skills that promote coherence, second, whether undergraduates and postgraduates benefit differently from feedback for revising, and third, whether training text structure application strategy in combination with informative tutoring feedback was most effective for undergraduates’ text quality. Undergraduate and postgraduate students ( N = 212) participated in the 2-h experimental intervention study in a computer-based learning environment. Participants were divided into three groups and supported by a writing strategy training intervention (i.e., text structure knowledge application, summarization, or language use), which was modeled by a peer student in a learning journal. Afterward participants wrote an abstract of an empirical article. Half of each group received in a computer-based learning environment twice either try-again feedback or informative tutoring feedback while revising their drafts. Writing skills and text quality were assessed by items and ratings. Analyses of covariance revealed that, first, text structure knowledge application strategy affected academic writing skills positively; second, feedback related to writing experience resulted in higher text quality: undergraduates benefited from informative tutoring feedback, postgraduates from try-again feedback; and third, the combination of writing strategy and feedback was not significantly related to improved text quality.

Introduction

The writing performance of freshmen and even graduate students reveals a gap between writing skills learned at school and writing skills required at the college or university level ( Kellogg and Whiteford, 2009 ): writers at school are able to transform their knowledge into a text that they can understand and use for their own benefit. Academic writing requires in addition to that presuming the readers’ understanding of the text written so far to establish a highly coherent text ( Kellogg, 2008 ).

Several studies have shown that to improve writing, it is beneficial to train writing strategies and to support the writing process through feedback ( Graham, 2006 ; Nelson and Schunn, 2009 ; Donker et al., 2014 ). This is also true for higher education ( Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick, 2006 ; MacArthur et al., 2015 ; Wischgoll, 2016 ). Writing strategies can help learners to control and modify their efforts to master the writing task ( Bereiter and Scardamalia, 1987 ). Feedback for improving writing provides information about the adequacy of the writing product ( Graham and Perin, 2007 ). On the other hand, feedback that interrupts the writing process might be inhibitive ( Corno and Snow, 1986 ). Feedback that is administered adaptively to the current level of needs, can aim to increase the learner’s efforts to reduce the discrepancy between actual and desired performance ( Hattie and Timperley, 2007 ; Shute, 2008 ).

In terms of writing strategies, research pointed out that writers who use summarization strategies can retrieve information to generate new texts and that writers who use text structure strategies can find and assign information ( Englert, 2009 ; Kellogg and Whiteford, 2009 ). In terms of feedback, research pointed out that feedback should be aligned to writing experience ( Shute, 2008 ). Despite the large body of research on writing strategies ( Graham and Perin, 2007 ; Graham et al., 2013 ) and on feedback ( Hattie and Timperley, 2007 ; Nelson and Schunn, 2009 ), little is known about the specific combination of training to apply text structure knowledge or summarization and feedback with different degree of elaboration in higher education. However, we do know that training to apply text structure knowledge as cognitive writing strategy in combination with training to self-monitor the writing process as metacognitive writing strategy can be beneficial for undergraduates’ writing skills and text quality ( Wischgoll, 2016 ). Furthermore, we know that feedback received from outside the self can induce metacognitive activities ( Butler and Winne, 1995 ). Thus, feedback to monitor the writing process is expected to be another means to foster text quality in combination with training a cognitive writing strategy.

The present study investigated the effects of cognitive writing strategies on academic writing skills and of feedback to foster monitoring the writing process on undergraduates’ and postgraduates’ text quality. The application of academic writing strategies such as summarization strategy and text structure knowledge application strategy help the writer to connect information units to generate a text that is easy to follow. Feedback related to practice aims to support the writer in monitoring the writing process while he or she is applying writing strategies. Accordingly, feedback provided in this study is deemed to be metacognitive in nature. (For an overview please see Table 1 .)

Table 1 . Treatments with expected learning outcome.

Observing and Practicing As Means to Acquire Writing Skills

To train writing skills, Kellogg (2008) recommends both learning by observing and learning by doing. He claims that these two training methods complement each other if they are administered in appropriate proportions.

Learning to write by observing is an often practiced method ( Rosenthal and Zimmerman, 1978 ; Bandura, 1986 , 1997 ; Schunk, 1987 , 1991 ), which can be administered by observing a mastery model or a coping model. Zimmerman and Kitsantas (2002) showed that college students improved strongly by observing a coping model who was struggling to deal with challenges. Furthermore, Braaksma et al. (2004) demonstrated that learners improved through cognitive and metacognitive activities such as observing, evaluating, and reflecting on activities while they were observing the model.

Learning to write by doing follows on from observational learning. To develop writing skills, Kellogg (2008) recommends a combination of observational learning and practice with gradually fading support, such as the model of cognitive apprenticeship ( Collins et al., 1989 ), the sociocognitive model ( Schunk and Zimmerman, 1997 ) and especially for writing development, the Self-Regulated Strategy Development framework ( Graham, 2006 ).

Establishing Coherence Promotes Text Quality

Coherence and cohesion are criteria to estimate text quality ( Witte and Faigley, 1981 ). Coherence refers to the mental representations about the situation presented in the text that readers can form depending on their skills and knowledge and related to surface indicators in the text. It is generated by psychological representations and processes ( Witte and Faigley, 1981 ; Graesser et al., 2004 ). Cohesion as it refers to surface indicators of relations between sentences is a text characteristic ( McNamara et al., 1996 ). Lexical and grammatical relationship supports the reader to find and interpret main ideas and to connect these ideas to higher information units ( Witte and Faigley, 1981 ; Graesser et al., 2004 ). Readers can understand a coherent text that lacks cohesion, as they construct a mental representation for the situation ( Witte and Faigley, 1981 ; Graesser et al., 1994 , 2004 ).

In terms of promoting text quality, writing a text requires the establishment of coherence by relating different information units ( Sanders et al., 1992 ; McNamara et al., 1996 ). Characteristically, the interpretation of the related segments provides more information than is provided by the sum of the information units taken in isolation ( Sanders et al., 1992 ; Sanders and Sanders, 2006 ). Once the information units are related to a coherent text, readers can understand the text’s message ( Van Dijk and Kintsch, 1983 ). The more coherently a text is written, the more easily readers can understand it ( McNamara et al., 1996 ). Therefrom the focus for analyzing text quality in this study is reasoned in coherence.

To establish coherence, Spivey (1990) postulates that academic writing involves strategies of organizing, selecting, and connecting. Training a text structure knowledge application strategy or a summarization strategy seems to be a promising means to achieve this: summarization includes intensively reading, selecting main ideas, and composing sentences to generate a coherent text ( Kellogg and Whiteford, 2009 ). Text structure knowledge fosters systematically reading to find propositions, which facilitate composing a coherent text ( Englert, 2009 ). Furthermore, receiving feedback while revising can facilitate the writing process if it is aligned to writing experience ( Shute, 2008 ) and can, thus, promote text quality in terms of coherence.

Interplay of Cognitive and Metacognitive Support to Become an Academic Writer

Especially in higher education, the interplay of cognitive and metacognitive support is important for mastering complex tasks such as academic writing ( Veenman and Beishuizen, 2004 ; Veenman et al., 2004 ). Research has shown that the combination of cognitive and metacognitive support is a promising means to foster learners’ writing development ( MacArthur et al., 2015 ; Wischgoll, 2016 ). Cognitive support can be administered by modeling writing strategies, enabling the learner to observe when and how a certain activity can be accomplished. Metacognitive support can be administered by giving feedback in the writing process, deliberately accompanying learners while they are monitoring their writing process.

Facilitating the Writing Process through Cognitive Writing Strategy Training

Improving text quality in academic writing can be supported by training a text structure knowledge application strategy or a summarization strategy. The former supports the writer in relating main propositions via a genre-based structure that provides some kind of schema to fill in. The latter supports the writer in relating main propositions by selecting and organizing information units.

Text structure knowledge is closely related to reading comprehension and writing performance ( Hiebert et al., 1983 ). On the one hand, the structure of a text helps readers to easily find what they are looking for; on the other hand, the text structure helps writers to coordinate ideas and intention. Englert (2009) confirmed the importance of text structure knowledge training for writers to organize the writing process. Practice supports writers in using the text structure to find information and in assigning their ideas to the corresponding text sections ( Englert and Thomas, 1987 ). The type of text structure also influences reading and writing performance ( Englert and Hiebert, 1984 ). The empirical research article is a frequently used genre in academic writing, which enables the research community to receive research-relevant information in a concise but elaborated style ( Kintsch and Van Dijk, 1978 ; Swales, 1990 ). As the structure is expected and shared in the scientific community, it helps the main propositions of the empirical research article to be developed and arranged. Hence, the text structure supports the reader in following and understanding a text.

In empirical research articles, information from other texts is typically reproduced, and the selection of this information requires summarization skills. Expert writers select such information from different text sources and use it to invent a new text with derived, new information units ( Spivey, 1990 ). For this purpose, expert writers delete redundant information, generalize connected propositions, and construct topic sentences organize information ( Van Dijk and Kintsch, 1983 ). In a study on paraphrasing expository texts, junior college students were able to delete redundant information but displayed significant deficits in generalization and construction ( Brown and Day, 1983 ). On the other hand, Hidi and Anderson (1986) found that experienced writers when writing summaries selected information in a constructive way, by emphasizing an intended message of the text. Summarizing and developing a main thread makes it easier for readers to follow and to understand their writing ( Graesser et al., 1994 ; Li, 2014 ).

As expert writers are able to use stored writing strategies which novice writers are yet to learn, expert and novice writers revise their texts differently ( Sommers, 1980 ; Hayes, 2004 ; Chanquoy, 2008 ): expert writers detect more problems of a text that are related to content and structure and are able to pay heed to the target audience while revising their text ( Hayes et al., 1987 ). Novice writers detect mainly surface errors and focus primarily on the word and sentence level ( Sommers, 1980 ; Fitzgerald, 1992 ; Cho and MacArthur, 2010 ).

In sum, facilitating writing through training strategies to apply summarization or text structure knowledge should be conducive for less experienced academic writers whereas more experienced writers might already rely on stored writing strategies.

Facilitating the Monitoring of the Writing Process through Feedback

To help writers to improve their texts and to develop their writing skills, besides training writing strategies support can also be provided as feedback aligned to the current level of experience ( Kellogg, 2008 ). Shute (2008) reports several types of feedback that differ in the degree of elaboration, for instance try-again feedback with no elaboration, and informative tutoring feedback with intensive elaboration. Try-again feedback points out that there is a gap between current and desired level of performance and offers him or her a further opportunity to work on the task ( Clariana, 1990 ). Informative tutoring feedback is seen as the most elaborated form of feedback. It encompasses evaluation about the work done so far, points out errors, and offers strategic hints on how to proceed. In this process, the correct answer is usually not provided ( Narciss and Huth, 2004 ).

The type of feedback influences learners differently depending on their writing experience. Hanna (1976) showed that low-ability learners benefited more from elaborated feedback than from feedback that provides information about the correctness of the work produced so far. Similarly, Clariana (1990) found that elaborated feedback produced the highest scores for low-ability students, and try-again feedback the lowest. For high-ability learners, Hanna (1976) found the most benefit from feedback without elaboration, such as verification of the work produced so far. Furthermore, his findings indicate that high-ability learners benefit from working at their own pace; and consequently, feedback should not interrupt the work progress. Hence, feedback for high-ability learners should not be elaborated when it is given during the work process ( Clariana, 1990 ).

The results of the aforementioned studies indicate that high-ability and low-ability as well as novice and experienced learners should be treated in different ways. Whereas low-ability and novice learners benefit from support and explicit guidance during the learning process ( Moreno, 2004 ), high-ability and experienced learners need freedom to work at their own pace ( Hanna, 1976 ). Depending on the level of prior knowledge and experience support might be conducive and not. Hence, support should be demanding but not overdemanding for the learner, and provide guidance that meets the learner’s needs ( Koedinger and Aleven, 2007 ). Support that is effective with unexperienced learners but ineffective with experienced learners is called expertise reversal effect ( Kalyuga et al., 2003 ).

In sum, facilitating writing through feedback should be optimally aligned to writing experience: more experienced writers may need modest feedback while writing, whereas less experienced writers may benefit from feedback that offers some kind of guidance.

Combination of Training a Cognitive Writing Strategy and Receiving Feedback

Several meta-analyses reported about the effectiveness of certain writing activities, such as summarization and monitoring, to improve the acquisition of writing skills and text quality ( Graham and Perin, 2007 ; Kellogg and Whiteford, 2009 ); however, we know little about how the recommended writing activities can be combined effectively for writing development in higher education. In a recent study, Wischgoll (2016) tested the combination of training two writing strategies to improve undergraduates’ text quality. She combined the training of one cognitive writing strategy, i.e., text structure application strategy, with training of another cognitive writing strategy, i.e., summarization strategy, respectively, with training a metacognitive strategy, i.e., self-monitoring strategy. Results revealed that undergraduates benefited from training one cognitive writing strategy and one metacognitive writing strategy in terms of text quality more than those who received training with two cognitive writing strategies. This result indicates that combined training of one cognitive and one metacognitive writing strategy can be effective.

The study described here follows the idea that combining support that induces cognitive writing activities and support that induces metacognitive writing activities results in improved text quality. From the studies mentioned in the sections before, we derive that, first, training writing strategies to apply summarization or text structure knowledge can induce cognitive writing activities; second, providing feedback that supports monitoring the writing process to establish coherence can induce metacognitive writing activities.

The Present Study

The first aim of this study was, first, to analyze whether the training of writing strategies affects academic writing skills; more specifically we analyzed first, whether text structure knowledge application strategy training affects the skill to use genre specific structures to find and assign information, and second, whether summarization strategy training affects the skill to reduce text content while maintaining coherence.

Second, it was assumed that undergraduates benefit from receiving informative tutoring feedback after training to apply text structure knowledge more than from receiving informative tutoring feedback after training summarization or language use; more specifically, that feedback during text revision affects undergraduates’ and postgraduates’ text quality differently. We assumed that undergraduates benefit from informative tutoring feedback because it provides guidance while writing, and that postgraduates benefit from try-again feedback because it does not interrupt the application of already acquired writing skills.

Third, it was assumed that undergraduates benefit more from training to apply text structure knowledge and receiving informative tutoring feedback concerning text quality than undergraduates who trained summarization strategy or language use strategy and received informative tutoring feedback.

We also assessed self-efficacy and motivation to discern whether the intervention was accepted by the participants and whether all treatment groups were equally motivated.

The following hypotheses were tested:

H1a Training the text structure knowledge application strategy or the summarization strategy affects the acquisition of academic writing skills more than training the language use strategy ( cognitive writing strategy hypothesis ).

H1b Training the text structure knowledge application strategy affects the skill of using genre specific structures to find and assign information more than training the summarization strategy or the language use strategy ( text structure strategy hypothesis ).

H1c Training the summarization strategy affects the skill of reducing text content while maintaining coherence more than training the text structure knowledge application strategy or the language use strategy ( summarization strategy hypothesis ).

H2a Undergraduates benefit from receiving informative tutoring feedback more than from receiving try-again feedback in terms of text quality of the abstract. Academic writing skill, coherence skill, text quality of the draft, reducing text while revising, and adding relevant information while revising are assumed to influence the text quality of the abstract ( undergraduates’ hypothesis ).

H2b Undergraduates and postgraduates benefit differently from feedback while revising concerning text quality of the abstract ( level of graduation hypothesis ).

H3 Undergraduates benefit more from receiving informative tutoring feedback after training to apply text structure knowledge concerning text quality of the abstract than from receiving informative tutoring feedback after training the summarization strategy or training the language use strategy. Academic writing skill, coherence skill, text quality of the draft, reducing text while revising, and adding relevant information while revising are assumed to influence the text quality of the abstract ( combination hypothesis ).

Materials and Methods

Participants and design.

Data were analyzed from 212 German-speaking students ( n female = 184, n male = 28). The sample included 179 undergraduate ( n female = 157, n male = 22) and 33 doctoral students (postgraduates; n female = 27, n male = 6) who were majoring in educational sciences ( n = 32), psychology ( n = 74), or teacher education ( n = 96) from the University of Freiburg ( n = 90) and the University of Education of Freiburg ( n = 122) in Germany. The mean age was 24.5 years (SD = 4.5).

The study was advertised with flyers on which the study was offered as a training course on writing academic articles. The course consisted of one session and was not part of participants’ study program. Researchers and participants were not in a relationship of dependency. All participants were aware of taking part in a research project and volunteered to participate. They could either fulfill part of the study program’s requirement to participate in empirical studies or receive 15 Euro per person for participation. The examiner handed out the financial reward in the laboratory after the experiment. Before beginning the experiment, the participants read a standardized explanation about ethical guidelines and provided written informed consent. Participants who declined to provide the informed consent were offered to withdraw from the experiment and still receive the financial reward. None declined or withdrew from the experiment. All data were anonymously collected and analyzed. All participants provided written informed consent for their collected data to be used anonymously for publications. All participants were informed about their results that they could identify via their personalized code. In addition, from references were offered to help them train their specific academic writing deficits.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of the three conditions of our experimental pre–posttest intervention study: all groups were basically instructed about the structure of an empirical article. Following, one experimental group ( N = 71) received a training on how to apply text structure knowledge, the second experimental group ( N = 70) received a training on summarization, the control group ( N = 71) received a training on language use. In addition, half of each group received either informative tutoring feedback or try-again feedback directed at the writing process.

The experiment was conducted in a 2-h session in a university laboratory. Each participant enlisted for one date. In the session, all participants managed their time individually in a computer-based learning environment without interacting with other participants. Via the computer-based learning environment, all instructions were executed in writing, and all participants’ contributions were stored. The participants were randomly assigned to the treatment conditions in nearly equal numbers. Participants were not informed about the nature of their condition. The procedures of the study are presented in Figure 1 .

Figure 1 . Procedures of the study.

The experiment consisted of two phases: modeling phase and deliberate practice phase. Before the modeling phase, demographic data and self-reported prior knowledge about text structure were assessed. The participants were also tested on academic writing skill as well as on self-efficacy. Following the modeling phase, the participants were tested on their current motivation, and retested on self-efficacy and academic writing skill. Before and after the deliberate practice phase, the participants were tested on coherence skill.

In the modeling phase , the participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions of the experimental pre–posttest intervention study. They received basic training on how an empirical article is structured, after which they received writing strategy training according to their condition (i.e., training to apply text structure knowledge application strategy, text summarization strategy, or language use strategy). The training sessions were presented by a peer model in written learning journals, which the participants read at their own pace. The peer model illustrated and exemplified her own writing experience. She demonstrated aspects where she struggled and offered strategies to master the writing process effectively. In this phase, the participants were not allowed to take their own notes for two reasons: (1) control of time consumption and (2) control of elaboration depth.

In the deliberate practice phase , the participants were asked to write an abstract of an empirical research article. To this aim, all participants were presented with a cartoon about advantages and disadvantages of wearing school uniform. To produce the single text sections (theoretical background, research question, methods, results, and implications), the participants received instructions (e.g., ask a critical question that you want to check in your study) and collected their ideas in the computer-based learning environment. Subsequently, for the writing process half of each group was assigned to the try-again feedback condition and half to the informative tutoring feedback condition. After the peer model provided feedback, the text written so far was presented in the computer-based learning environment for revising. Feedback was twice provided by the peer model: first, after the participants collected ideas, and second, after the participants wrote a draft of the abstract.

Learning Journal

All participants read a learning journal that was presented in a computer-based learning environment by a peer model. For each writing strategy (i.e., text structure knowledge application strategy, text summarization strategy, and language use strategy), the peer model described when the strategy is useful and how the strategy can be applied; she then summarized the strategy and offered prompts for each strategy to master the writing challenge as follows.

The learning journal text structure knowledge application strategy focused on the use of text structure knowledge: (1) what the text is about, (2) what is already known about the topic, (3) how the research was done (please see exemplarily Figures 2 – 4 ), (4) which research results were found and how the authors reached them, and (5) what these results mean and which conclusions can be drawn.

Figure 2 . Questions and answers concerning the orientation in the method section presented in the peer model’s learning journal.

Figure 3 . Function of the method section explained in the peer model’s learning journal.

Figure 4 . Examples for detailed information in the method section presented in the peer model’s learning journal.

The learning journal text summarization strategy focused on selecting and assigning text information: (1) how the topic is embedded in the research field, (2) which passages of a text should be selected and how they should be selected, (3) how to reduce information and redundancies, (4) how to choose keywords, and (5) how to write one’s own text.

The learning journal language use strategy focused on the communication in the science community: (1) what is the intention for communicating in a scientific community, (2) how can the writer prevent misunderstandings (i.e., consistency), (3) how can the writer show objectivity, (4) when and how are “I” formulations used, and (5) when and how are “we” formulations used?

All participants received a standardized feedback (i.e., try-again feedback or informative tutoring feedback) provided by the peer model for the first and the second revision, that is, before they transformed their ideas into a text, and before they finalized their abstract. Both types of feedback focused on monitoring the writing process: informative tutoring feedback provided concrete advices, whereas try-again feedback intended to rely on stored writing plans.

The informative tutoring feedback focused on giving concrete advice regarding writing deficits that are typical for beginning academic writers: (1) delete all redundancies from the text; (2) add information that makes the text easier to understand; and (3) revise the text to develop a whole unit by connecting sentences. For the second revision, the participants received an additional prompt to consider the readers’ perspective.

The try-again feedback focused on encouraging the participants to proceed. The participants received twice the prompt “Please revise the text you have written so far.”

Academic Writing Items

To assess academic writing skills we used a short-scale of an earlier study ( Wischgoll, 2016 ). The items were selected to assess writing skills, which support the development of a well-structured and informative text (i.e., text structure knowledge, application of text structure knowledge, and reduction of text content). One item captured the knowledge about the structure of an empirical article; the participants were asked to arrange headings. Five items captured the skill of applying text structure knowledge; for instance, the participants were asked to assign typical phrases to text sections such as methods or discussion and to give reasons for their decision. Four items captured the skill of reducing text content; the participants were asked, for instance, to name four keywords to adequately express the message of a text.

Coherence Items

Six items were developed to assess the writing skill coherence, which involves establishing meaning in a short passage. For instance, participants were asked to delete a superfluous sentence in the text or fill a gap in the text according to the provided annotation, such as an argument or an example.

Two experienced researchers who have been publishing and reviewing research articles for several years assigned all academic writing skill items to one of the contexts (text structure knowledge, application of text structure knowledge, and reduction of text content). The interrater reliability was excellent [ ICC (31) = 0.80] ( Fleiss, 2011 ). Four similarly experienced researchers judged the content validity of the coherence skill items, with an excellent interrater reliability [intraclass correlation coefficient ICC (31) > 0.90] ( Fleiss, 2011 ).

For all writing skill items, participants’ written answers were rated as correct or incorrect. To ensure reliability of the rating system, two raters conducted the rating independently, and a high level of interrater agreement was achieved [intraclass correlation coefficient ICC (31) > 0.80] ( Fleiss, 2011 ). Disagreement was resolved by discussion in all cases.

Overall Text Quality

Overall text quality was measured for the text written so far at three time points: first, the text after the participants had collected ideas as prompted according to each text section; second, the text after they had written their draft; and third, the text after they had revised their draft and finalized their abstract. Each time, the text quality was rated on a 7-point scale (1 = disastrous , 7 = excellent ) adapted from Cho et al. (2006) as an overall quality (see Wischgoll, 2016 ). The measurement was conducted after the experiment was completed. A student project assistant received about 10 h of training on the quality rating scale, which included practicing the judgment and discussing 40 cases. The abstracts were rated independently, with the research assistant and project assistant being unaware of the participants’ experimental condition and identity. A further 40 abstracts, 19% of the whole sample, were selected to calculate the interrater reliability. The intraclass correlation coefficient was ICC (21) > 0.80, which can be categorized as excellent ( Fleiss, 2011 ). Disagreement was resolved by discussion in all cases.

Text Content Improvement

Text content improvement was measured in the final abstract in comparison to the draft. We took into account the aspects reducing text while revising and adding relevant information while revising . (1) Reducing text while revising . We compared the draft and the abstract to find out whether irrelevant and secondary information was omitted while revising. Each text section was rated according to whether or not the text had been reduced and whether or not this decision contributed to the readability of the text. (2) Adding relevant information while revising . We compared the draft and the abstract to find out whether information that fosters the understanding of the text was added. Each text section was rated according to whether or not the text had been extended and whether or not this decision contributed to the readability of the text.

Additional Measures

Self-efficacy.

The self-efficacy scale focusing on academic writing was constructed using eight items according to the guide for constructing self-efficacy scales ( Bandura, 2006 ). The main aspects of academic writing skills, that is, application of text structure knowledge and reduction of text content, were taken into account. Participants were asked to rate how certain they were that, for example, they “can find certain information in an empirical research article” or “can find a precise and concise title for my Bachelor thesis.” For each written description, they rated their confidence from 0% ( cannot do it at all ) to 100% ( highly certain I can do it ) in 10% increments. The scale was administered before the modeling phase (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.87) and after the modeling phase (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.88). This scale was used to check the responsiveness to the treatment.

The following three reduced subscales of the Questionnaire on Current Motivation ( Vollmeyer and Rheinberg, 2006 ) were used to measure how motivated the participants were to develop their writing skills: challenge (five items; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.74), probability of success (two items; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.79), and anxiety (three items; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.73). The participants were asked to estimate their current motivation in relation to their academic writing development, rating each written description on a 7-point scale from 1 ( not true ) to 7 ( true ). The scale was administered after the modeling phase to check for differences between the treatment groups with regard to practicing writing.

For all statistical analyses, an alpha level of.05 was used. The effect size measure partial η 2 [0.01 as a small effect, 0.06 as a medium effect, and 0.14 as a large effect ( Cohen, 1988 )] was used. Normal distribution could be assumed for all analyses. To test the hypotheses, analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were calculated. In terms of testing the acquisition of academic writing skill (hypotheses 1a, 1b, and 1c), we controlled prior knowledge (H1a: pretest outcome on academic writing skills , H1b: prior knowledge of text structure knowledge application , H1c: prior knowledge of summarization skills ); in terms of testing text quality (hypotheses 2a and 3), we additionally controlled text quality of the draft and changes in the text ( reducing text while revising and adding relevant information while revising ); in terms of testing the difference between undergraduates’ and postgraduates’ text quality, a two-way ANCOVA with level of graduation and feedback as independent variables was calculated. Planned contrast was calculated with t -tests to gain information about the specific treatment conditions.

Pre-Analysis

Prior knowledge about text structure.

No differences were found across the conditions concerning “knowing the text structure of an empirical article” (item 1), F (2, 209) = 0.64, p = 0.53 and “arranging the headings of the text sections” (item 2), F (2, 209) = 0.18, p = 0.83.

Academic Writing Skills

Academic writing skills were differentiated into text structure knowledge application skills and summarization skills. In the pretest, no significant differences were found across the conditions for academic writing skills, F (2, 209) = 0.35, p = 0.70, text structure knowledge application skills, F (2, 209) = 0.53, p = 0.59, and summarization skills, F (2, 209) = 1.38, p = 0.25. Table 2 shows the means and SDs for the pretest and posttest in each condition. The average pretest percentage for academic writing skills in the three conditions ranged from 45.2 to 47.5%, implying that the participants had some, but not a great deal of knowledge about academic writing skills. With respect to the subscales of the pretest, the average scores ranged from 32.1 to 37.2% for text structure knowledge application skills , and from 53.1 to 58.3% for summarization skills . Table 3 shows the means and SDs for undergraduates and postgraduates. These results indicate that the participants had only sparse knowledge about text structure and its application, but quite good knowledge about text summarization.

Table 2 . Means and SDs of academic writing skills, text structure knowledge application skills, and summarization skills in the strategy treatment groups.

Table 3 . Means and SDs of academic writing skills, text structure knowledge application skills, summarization skills, and overall text quality of undergraduates and postgraduates.

Significant differences in the pretest were found between undergraduates and postgraduates for academic writing skills, t (210) = −12.12, p < 0.001, r = 0.85, text structure application skills, t (210) = −10.88, p < 0.001, r = 0.55, and summarization skills, t (210) = −5.87, p < 0.001, r = 0.63. As postgraduates outperformed undergraduates, the results confirm the expectations about the difference in writing experience between novice and experienced writers.

Coherence Skill

In the pretest, no significant differences were found across the conditions, F (2, 209) = 0.41, p = 0.67. The results showed a significant difference between postgraduates and undergraduates, F (1, 210) = 26.77, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.11 , with the postgraduates (M = 0.62, SD = 0.22) outperforming the undergraduates (M = 0.41, SD = 0.22). See Table 4 for means and SDs.

Table 4 . Means and SDs of text quality measured at three time points, reducing text and adding relevant information while revising text, and coherence in the feedback groups.

Text Quality

In the collection of ideas, postgraduates significantly outperformed the undergraduates in text quality, t (210) = −2.83, p = 0.007, r = 0.40 and in the draft, t (210) = −3.13, p = 0.003, r = 0.42. Table 3 shows the means and SDs for undergraduates and postgraduates.

A MANCOVA was calculated to assess whether there was a difference in motivation between the treatment groups. Using Pillai’s trace, no significant effect of interest, probability of success, and anxiety, V = 0.033, F (6, 416) = 1.17, p = 0.32, was found.

A dependent t -test was calculated to assess the responsiveness to the treatment; a strong, significant effect was found [ t (211) = −9.03, p < 0.001, r = 0.53]. The participants experienced significantly higher self-efficacy after the treatment (M post = 64.79, SD post = 11.63) than before (M pre = 59.58, SD pre = 12.39). This was true for each treatment group: language use group (i.e., control group) [M pre = 60.46, SD pre = 12.55; M post = 63.80, SD post = 13.07; t (70) = −3.70, p < 0.001, r = 0.40], summarization group [M pre = 59.91, SD pre = 12.48; M post = 65.84, SD post = 9.68; t (69) = −6.36, p = 0.001, r = 0.61], and text structure group [M pre = 58.38, SD pre = 12.22; M post = 64.73, SD post = 11.94; t (70) = −5.68, p < 0.001, r = 0.56]. It also applied when looking at the results separately for undergraduates and postgraduates, M pre = 70.27, SD pre = 8.47; M post = 72.09, SD post = 8.86; t (32) = −2.29, p = 0.029, r = 0.37.

Main Analyses

Hypothesis 1a, strategy hypothesis , proposed that training the text structure knowledge application strategy or the summarization strategy affects the acquisition of academic writing skills more than training the language use strategy. An ANCOVA was calculated using pretest outcome on academic writing skills as control variable.

The results show a significant difference between the treatment groups concerning the acquisition of academic writing skills, F (2, 208) = 5.13, p = 0.007, η p 2 = 0.05 . The academic writing skills in the pretest were significantly related to final academic writing skills, F (1, 208) = 232.20, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.53 . Planned contrasts revealed that acquisition of academic writing skills was significantly lower in the language use group (i.e., control group) than in the group that received text structure knowledge application strategy training, t (208) = 3.16, p = 0.002, η p 2 = 0.05 , and the group that received summarization strategy training, t (208) = 2.02, p = 0.045, η p 2 = 0.02 .

Hypothesis 1b, text structure strategy hypothesis , proposed that training the text structure knowledge application strategy affects the skill of using genre specific structures to find and assign information more than training the summarization strategy or the language use strategy. An ANCOVA was calculated using pretest outcome on prior knowledge of text structure knowledge application as control variable.

The results do not show a significant difference between the three groups concerning the acquisition of text structure knowledge application skills, F (2, 208) = 2.47, p = 0.09. Planned contrasts revealed that acquisition of text structure knowledge application skills was significantly higher in the group that received training to apply text structure application knowledge than in the group that received training to apply language use, t (208) = 2.16, p = 0.03, η g r o u p 2 = 0.02 . No significant differences were found between the group that received summarization training and the group that received training in applying text structure knowledge, t (208) = 1.53, p = 0.13. The third variable, prior knowledge of text structure knowledge application [ F (1, 208) = 178.75, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.46 ], was significantly related to acquisition of text structure knowledge application skills.

Hypothesis 1c, summarization strategy hypothesis , proposed that training the summarization strategy affects the skill of reducing text content while maintaining coherence more than training the text structure knowledge application strategy or the language use strategy. An ANCOVA was calculated using pretest outcome on prior knowledge of summarization skills as control variable.

The results do not show a significant difference between the three groups concerning the acquisition of summarization skills, F (2, 208) = 0.13, p = 0.88. Planned contrasts revealed that acquisition of summarization skills was not significantly higher in the group that received summarization strategy training than in the group that received training to apply language use, t (208) = −0.13, p = 0.89. No significant differences were found between the group that received text structure knowledge application strategy training and the group that received summarization strategy training, t (208) = 0.36, p = 0.72. The prior knowledge of summarization skills [ F (1, 208) = 85.04, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.29 ] was significantly related to acquisition of summarization skills.

Hypothesis 2a, undergraduates’ hypothesis , proposed that undergraduates benefit from receiving informative tutoring feedback more than from receiving try-again feedback in terms of text quality of the abstract. Furthermore, it was assumed that academic writing skill, coherence skill, text quality of the draft, reducing text while revising, and adding relevant information while revising influence the text quality of the abstract. An ANCOVA with text quality of the abstract as dependent variable was conducted. Academic writing skill, coherence skill, text quality of the draft, reducing text while revising , and adding relevant information while revising were considered as third variables. See Tables 2 – 4 for means and SDs.

The results show a significant difference between undergraduates who received informative tutoring feedback and undergraduates who received try-again feedback concerning the text quality of the abstract, F (1, 172) = 8.980, p = 0.003, η p 2 = 0.05 . The third variables coherence skill [ F (1, 172) = 2.054, p = 0.154], reducing text while revising [ F (1, 172) = 2.289, p = 0.132], and adding relevant information while revising [ F (1, 172) = 1.215, p = 0.272] were not significantly related to the text quality of the abstract. However, academic writing skills [ F (1, 172) = 8.359, p = 0.004, η p 2 = 0.05 ] and text quality of the draft [ F (1, 172) = 26.984, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.14 ] were significantly related to the text quality of the abstract.

Hypothesis 2b, level of graduation hypothesis , proposed that undergraduates and postgraduates benefit differently from receiving feedback while revising the texts they have written so far. A two-way ANCOVA with level of graduation and feedback as independent variables was conducted. See Tables 2 – 4 for means and SDs.

The main effect of feedback for revising was not significant, F (1, 208) = 0.11, p = 0.74. The main effect of level of graduation emerged as significant, F (1, 208) = 62.58, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.23 . The interaction between feedback for revising and level of graduation was significant, F (1, 208) = 4.22, p = 0.041, η p 2 = 0.02 . The findings are presented in Figure 5 .

Figure 5 . Interaction between level of graduation and feedback for revising.

Hypothesis 3, combination hypothesis , proposed that undergraduates benefit more from receiving informative tutoring feedback after training to apply text structure knowledge concerning text quality of the abstract than from receiving informative tutoring feedback after training summarization or training language use. Furthermore, it was assumed that academic writing skill, coherence skill, text quality of the draft, reducing text while revising, and adding relevant information while revising influence the text quality of the abstract. An ANCOVA with text quality of the abstract as dependent variable was conducted. Academic writing skill, coherence skill, text quality of the draft, reducing text while revising , and adding relevant information while revising were considered as third variables. See Tables 2 – 4 for means and SDs.

The results show no significant difference between the three treatment groups concerning the text quality of the abstract, F (2, 82) = 2.550, p = 0.084. Planned contrasts revealed no significant differences between the group that received informative tutoring feedback after training to apply text structure knowledge compared to the group that received informative tutoring feedback after training summarization, t (82) = −0.685, p = 0.495. However, planned contrasts revealed that text quality of the abstract was significantly lower in the group that received training to apply text structure knowledge compared to the control group that received language use, t (82) = −2.221, p = 0.029, η p 2 = 0.06 . The third variables coherence skill [ F (1, 82) = 0.679, p = 0.412], reducing text while revising [ F (2, 82) = 0.326, p = 0.570], and adding relevant information while revising [ F (2, 82) = 0.259, p = 0.612] were not significantly related to the text quality of the abstract. However, academic writing skills [ F (2, 82) = 4.135, p = 0.045, η p 2 = 0.05 ] and text quality of the draft [ F (2, 82) = 12.523, p = 0.001, η p 2 = 0.13 ] were significantly related to the text quality of the abstract.

This study investigated the effects of training the cognitive writing strategies summarization and application of text structure knowledge on academic writing skills, and of feedback for text revision to foster undergraduates’ and postgraduates’ text quality. Furthermore, it was tested whether training to apply text structure knowledge and receiving feedback for revising fosters undergraduates’ text quality significantly.

Concerning the cognitive writing strategy hypothesis , it was found that the groups that received cognitive strategy writing training outperformed the control group in terms of the acquisition of academic writing skills. This effect was found for the group that received the text structure knowledge application strategy training in the zone of desired effects ( Hattie and Timperley, 2007 ). Furthermore, the finding underlines the importance of prior knowledge in the form of writing experience, as the pretest outcome on academic writing skills explained over 50% of the variance.

More specifically, first, concerning the text structure strategy hypothesis , the group that received training on how to apply text structure knowledge significantly outperformed the control group in terms of using genre specific structures to find and assign information; however, contrary to the assumption, no differences were found between the group that received summarization training and the group that received a text structure knowledge application strategy training. Furthermore, the importance of prior knowledge was confirmed, as it explained around 50% of the variance. Second, concerning the summarization strategy hypothesis , the group that received training on how to summarize a text did not outperform either the control group or the group that received the text structure knowledge application strategy. The importance was confirmed as the pretest outcome on summarization skills explained nearly 30% of the variance. All groups already had high summarization values in the pretest, which increased further in the posttest.

Concerning the undergraduates’ hypothesis , the results confirm the findings by Hanna (1976) and Clariana (1990) that novice writers benefit from feedback that offers guidance through a challenging task, as it revealed that the undergraduates benefit from receiving informative tutoring feedback more than from receiving try-again feedback concerning text quality of the abstract. Furthermore, the result pointed out that deleting text and adding relevant information were not related to text quality. This result is in line with findings by Brown and Day (1983) and Hidi and Anderson (1986) who could show that the low text quality of beginning academic writers can be explained by deleting text. However, the finding underlines the importance of text revising and prior knowledge of academic writing skills for text quality of the abstract, as both together explained nearly 20% of variance.

Concerning the level of graduation hypothesis , the result is in line with the findings of Hanna (1976) and Clariana (1990) . Indeed, we extend their findings, as we found an expertise reversal effect ( Kalyuga et al., 1998 , 2003 ; Kalyuga, 2007 ). According to this effect, there is an interaction between the level of writing experience and the effectiveness of different instructional methods. In this sense, feedback that is effective for undergraduates can lose its effectiveness and even have negative consequences for postgraduates and vice versa . The text quality of the abstracts drafted by undergraduates who received informative tutoring feedback was higher than that of the undergraduates who received try-again feedback. On the other hand, the text quality of the abstracts drafted by postgraduates who received try-again feedback was higher than that of the postgraduates who received informative tutoring feedback. This insight confirms the assumption that support needs to be tailored to the individual learner’s writing experience and skills: undergraduates need support in monitoring the writing process to control and regulate developing coherent texts, whereas postgraduates can rely on stored writing plans and writing experience while revising their texts repeatedly. As a consequence, support for postgraduates might begin with elaborated feedback after writing ( Shute, 2008 ), which is individually aligned and administered ( Zimmerman and Kitsantas, 2002 ), whereas for undergraduates, elaborated feedback with guidance is already helpful while writing. In both cases, administered feedback should be aligned to the writer’s current prerequisites and needs to ensure that the writer is able to apply the feedback.

Concerning the combination hypothesis , the results did show no differences between the three groups. However, in contrast to the group that received a training to apply text structure knowledge text quality of the control group that received a language use strategy training was significantly higher. This result is unexpected. Whereas the combination of training to apply a text structure application strategy and training a self-monitoring strategy was proved as a promising means to foster undergraduates’ text quality ( Wischgoll, 2016 ), the combination of training a text structure application strategy and providing feedback while revising was it not. Rather, the results indicate, first, that feedback for revising is not beneficial for text quality in combination with a cognitive writing strategy such as summarization strategy or text structure application strategy, and second, that feedback for revising might be promising if it is administered in combination with a less complex writing strategy such as language use strategy.

In sum, the results confirm that undergraduates and postgraduates need support in academic writing. According to the findings of this study, support in text structure knowledge application, summarization, and revision should be aligned to the writing experience.

Hence, undergraduates should be prepared to know and apply the text structure of relevant genres. Although most postgraduates in this study were aware of the text structure, they should be encouraged to check their writing in terms of correct application of the text structure. Although both undergraduates and postgraduates reached high values in text summarization skills, the reduction of information in the revision process did not significantly contribute to the text quality. The question arises of what the reasons may be for the lacking efficacy of summarization skills on text quality and how summarization should be trained to be effective for improving text quality.

Generally, first, the results confirm the notion that revision contributes to improving text quality. MacArthur (2012) could define revision as a problem-solving process in which writers detect discrepancies between current and intended level of text quality and consider alternatives. In this study, it became apparent that undergraduates and postgraduates did benefit from feedback that was tailored to their needs in the revision process. Specifically, undergraduates benefited from informative tutoring feedback in terms of higher text quality. The reason for this might be that informative tutoring feedback offered guidance to draw attention on discrepancies between actual and intended level of text quality. Furthermore, from the improved text quality one could conclude that feedback encouraged considering alternatives. Hence, one can see feedback as a suitable means to improve text quality.

Second, the results revealed that feedback that accompanies the writer deliberately while revising does not complement training a certain writing strategy such as text structure knowledge application or summarization strategy in terms of improving text quality. This finding is in contrast to Wischgoll (2016) who could show that training one cognitive and one metacognitive writing strategy results in improved text quality, and thus, confirmed that cognitive and metacognitive strategy training complement each other ( Veenman and Beishuizen, 2004 ). However, results revealed that feedback did correspond well with training the language use strategy. One can reason that applying strategies recently learnt and reply to feedback while revising might be overwhelming for beginning academic writers. Writing trainings that are sequenced in this way—training a cognitive writing strategy and receiving feedback while text revision—might lack a phase of consolidation. Thus, one can conclude that feedback should be administered in writing trainings independently to strategy trainings or only in combination with strategies, which are less complex such as the language use strategy.

Third, the study took into account writing performance of undergraduates and postgraduates. Results revealed that depending on the level of writing experience writers benefited from different kinds of elaborated feedback. This finding can be explained by Kellogg’s ( Kellogg, 2008 ) model of cognitive development of writing skill. He distinguished advanced writers into knowledge transformers and knowledge crafters. Whereas knowledge crafters already can rely on stored writing plans and writing experience, knowledge transformers have still to develop and consolidate these skills. Consequently, support has to be tailored according to writing experience. Thus, results confirmed that writing experience is a crucial indicator for aligning writing support.

The conclusion might be derived that undergraduates benefit from support during text revision as they lack the writing experience to be able to rely on stored writing plans. Feedback that provides orientation in terms of juggling processes of planning, translating, and reviewing helps novice writers to master the demands of writing. On the other hand, if postgraduates receive feedback while writing, they might be “disrupted” in applying these stored writing plans. Thus, postgraduates might benefit from individually tailored feedback after finishing the text to their satisfaction.

Fourth, the results confirm Kellogg’s ( Kellogg, 2008 ) notion that observation and practicing is a promising means to improve academic writing skills and text quality. Results pointed out that by observation undergraduates’ academic writing skills increased and by practicing writing and revising text quality improved effectively; that furthermore, the instructional design used in this study is suitable for higher education as learners improved efficiently in an even short-time intervention. The learning environment did allow each individual learner to process in his or her own pace. Observation was operationalized by reading learning journals and practicing by writing and revising the own text; thus, learners could emphasize their learning and writing process according to the individual needs. Therefrom one can derive that e-learning courses that offer support to develop single aspects of academic writing such as text structure knowledge or language use might be an attractive proposition for beginning academic writers.

Limitations

The presented research is limited by several aspects. First, writing is a complex process and training can only apply single aspects at a time. Further strategies in combination with experience-related feedback might also affect writing skills and text quality. Second, academic writing skill, coherence skill are multifaceted and in some ways related, which makes the assessment challenging. To meet these requirements, the instruments need further refinement respectively further instruments need to be developed. Third, as the participants were primarily female and the group of postgraduates was small, the generalizability of the results is limited.

Future Directions

Future research concerning postgraduates’ writing should focus on analyzing the gaps while composing a more complex text such as the theoretical background of an article. This would enable the requirements for supporting academic writing development on a more elaborated level to be determined. Future research concerning undergraduates’ needs should focus on the effectiveness of implementing basic writing courses that impart and train academic writing skills in the curriculum.

Furthermore, research on combining writing strategies and feedback aligned to writing experience is still needed. Indeed, fostering postgraduates’ text quality should be analyzed in more detail. This could be accomplished by contrasting case studies or by including a greater number of postgraduate participants. Establishing coherence of an academic text comprises the same challenges in all genres; thus, the studies could also be designed in a multidisciplinary manner.

Combination studies on academic writing could also include peer support instead of general feedback aligned to writing experience. Peer tutoring ( Slavin, 1990 ; Topping, 1996 , 2005 ) in higher education might be beneficial for postgraduates: they might feel less inhibited to discuss writing-related problems with their peers, who are more in tune with the current challenges in becoming an academic writer. Moreover, co-constructive discussions can promote the writing process. On the other hand, peer mentoring ( Topping, 2005 ) might be supportive for undergraduates. From a more experienced peer, undergraduates can receive consolidated support on how to master basic challenges in academic writing such as structuring the text and revising the text. Furthermore, metacognitive regulation in mentoring and tutoring ( De Backer et al., 2016 ) should also be considered as a crucial factor that contributes to improving writing skills.

The study showed that even short-time practice can promote text quality. In addition, in terms of writing development, the notion of Kellogg and colleagues ( Kellogg and Raulerson, 2007 ; Kellogg, 2008 ; Kellogg and Whiteford, 2009 ) that expertise in writing develops with practice was supported. The results imply that writing strategies such as text structure knowledge application strategy should be trained to achieve skills that promote coherence, and that feedback should be aligned to writing experience to improve text quality.

Ethics Statement

All participants volunteered and provided written informed consent. The study was conducted in accordance with the German Psychological Society (DGPs) ethical guidelines (2004, CIII) as well as APA ethical standards. According to the German Psychological Society’s ethical commission, approval from an institutional research board only needs to be obtained, if funding is subject to ethical approval by an Institutional Review Board. This research was reviewed and approved by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Germany (BMBF), which did not require additional Institutional Review Board approval. All data were collected and analyzed anonymously.

Author Contributions

The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the project “Learning the Science of Education (LeScEd).” LeScEd is a project of the Competence Network Empirical Research on Education and Teaching (KeBU) of the University of Freiburg and the University of Education, Freiburg. LeScEd is part of the BMBF Funding Initiative “Modeling and Measuring Competencies in Higher Education” (grant number 01PK11009B). The article processing charge was funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) and the Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg in the funding programme Open Access Publishing. The author would like to thank the student project assistants E. Ryschka, N. Lobmüller, and A. Prinz for their dedicated contribution.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Google Scholar

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control . New York: Freeman.

Bandura, A. (2006). “Guide for creating self-efficacy scales,” in Self-efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents , eds F. Pajares and T. Urdan (Greenwich, CT: IAP), 307–337.

Bereiter, C., and Scardamalia, M. (1987). The Psychology of Written Composition . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Braaksma, M. A., Rijlaarsdam, G., Van den Bergh, H., and van Hout-Wolters, B. H. M. (2004). Observational learning and its effects on the orchestration of writing processes. Cogn. Instr. 22, 1–36. doi: 10.2307/3233849

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Brown, A. L., and Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: the development of expertise. J. Verbal. Learn. Verbal. Behav. 22, 1–14. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(83)80002-4

Butler, D. L., and Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: a theoretical synthesis. Rev. Educ. Res. 65, 245–281. doi:10.3102/00346543065003245

Chanquoy, L. (2008). “Revision processes,” in The SAGE Handbook of Writing Development , eds R. Beard, D. Myhill, J. Riley, and M. Nystrand (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE), 80–97.

Cho, K., and MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learn. Instr. 20, 328–338. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.006

Cho, K., Schunn, C. D., and Charney, D. (2006). Commenting on writing typology and perceived helpfulness of comments from novice peer reviewers and subject matter experts. Writ. Commun. 23, 260–294. doi:10.1177/0741088306289261

Clariana, R. B. (1990). A comparison of answer until correct feedback and knowledge of correct response feedback under two conditions of contextualization. J. Comput. Based Instr. 17, 125–129.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences . Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., and Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. Know. Learn. Instr. 18, 32–42.

Corno, L., and Snow, R. E. (1986). “Adapting teaching to individual differences among learners,” in Handbook of Research on Teaching , ed. M. C. Wittrock (New York: Macmillan), 605–629.

De Backer, L., Van Keer, H., and Valcke, M. (2016). Eliciting reciprocal peer-tutoring groups’ metacognitive regulation through structuring and problematizing scaffolds. J. Exp. Educ. 84, 804–828. doi:10.1080/00220973.2015.1134419

Donker, A., de Boer, H., Kostons, D., van Ewijk, C. D., and Van der Werf, M. (2014). Effectiveness of learning strategy instruction on academic performance: a meta-analysis. Educ. Res. Rev. 11, 1–26. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2013.11.002

Englert, C. S. (2009). Connecting the dots in a research program to develop, implement, and evaluate strategic literacy interventions for struggling readers and writers. Learn. Disabil. Res. Pract. 24, 104–120. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00284.x

Englert, C. S., and Hiebert, E. H. (1984). Children’s developing awareness of text structures in expository materials. J. Educ. Psychol. 76, 65–74. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.76.1.65

Englert, C. S., and Thomas, C. C. (1987). Sensitivity to text structure in reading and writing: a comparison between learning disabled and non-learning disabled students. Learn. Disabil. Q. 10, 93–105. doi:10.2307/1510216

Fitzgerald, J. (1992). Knowledge in Writing. Illustration from Revision Studies . New York: Springer.

Fleiss, J. L. (2011). Design and Analysis of Clinical Experiments , Vol. 73. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., and Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 36, 193–202. doi:10.3758/BF03195564

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., and Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychol. Rev. 101, 371–395. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.101.3.371

Graham, S. (2006). “Strategy instruction and the teaching of writing: a meta-analysis,” in Handbook of Writing Research , eds C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, and J. Fitzgerald (New York: Guilford Press), 187–207.

Graham, S., Gillespie, A., and McKeown, D. (2013). Writing: importance, development, and instruction. Read. Writ. 26, 1–15. doi:10.1007/s11145-012-9395-2

Graham, S., and Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. J. Educ. Psychol. 99, 445–476. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445

Hanna, G. S. (1976). Effects of total and partial feedback in multiple-choice testing upon learning. J. Educ. Res. 69, 202–205. doi:10.1080/00220671.1976.10884873

Hattie, J., and Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Rev. Educ. Res. 77, 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487

Hayes, J. R. (2004). “What triggers revision?” in Revision: Cognitive and Instructional Processes , Vol. 13, eds L. Allal, L. Chanquoy, and P. Largy (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers), 9–20.

Hayes, J. R., Flower, L., Schriver, K. A., Stratman, J. F., and Carey, L. (1987). “Cognitive processes in revision,” in Reading, Writing, and Language Processing: Advances in Psycholinguistics , Vol. 2, ed. S. Rosenberg (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press), 176–241.

Hidi, S., and Anderson, V. (1986). Producing written summaries: task demands, cognitive operations, and implications for instruction. Rev. Educ. Res. 56, 473–493. doi:10.3102/00346543056004473

Hiebert, E. H., Englert, C. S., and Brennan, S. (1983). Awareness of text structure in recognition and production of expository discourse. J. Literacy Res. 15, 63–79. doi:10.1080/10862968309547497

Kalyuga, S. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 19, 509–539. doi:10.1007/s10648-007-9054-3

Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., and Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educ. Psychol. 38, 23–31. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_4

Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., and Sweller, J. (1998). Levels of expertise and instructional design. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 40, 1–17. doi:10.1518/001872098779480587

Kellogg, R. T. (2008). Training writing skills: a cognitive developmental perspective. J. Writ. Res. 1, 1–26. doi:10.17239/jowr-2008.01.01.1

Kellogg, R. T., and Raulerson, B. A. (2007). Improving the writing skills of college students. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 14, 237–242. doi:10.3758/BF03194058

Kellogg, R. T., and Whiteford, A. P. (2009). Training advanced writing skills: the case for deliberate practice. Educ. Psychol. 44, 250–266. doi:10.1080/00461520903213600

Kintsch, W., and Van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychol. Rev. 85, 363–394. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.85.5.363

Koedinger, K. R., and Aleven, V. (2007). Exploring the assistance dilemma in experiments with cognitive tutors. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 19, 239–264. doi:10.1007/s10648-007-9049-0

Li, J. (2014). Examining genre effects on test takers’ summary writing performance. Assess. Writ. 22, 75–90. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2014.08.003

MacArthur, C. A. (2012). “Evaluation and revision,” in Past, Present, and Future Contributions of Cognitive Writing Research to Cognitive Psychology , ed. V. W. Berninger (New York, NY: Psychology Press), 461–483.

MacArthur, C. A., Philippakos, Z. A., and Ianetta, M. (2015). Self-regulated strategy instruction in college developmental writing. J. Educ. Psychol. 107, 855–867. doi:10.1037/edu0000011

McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., and Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cogn. Instr. 14, 1–43. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1

Moreno, R. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instr. Sci. 32, 99–113. doi:10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021811.66966.1d

Narciss, S., and Huth, K. (2004). “How to design informative tutoring feedback for multimedia learning,” in Instructional Design for Multimedia Learning , eds H. M. Niegermann, D. Leutner, and R. Brunken (Munster: Waxmann), 181–195.

Nelson, M. M., and Schunn, C. D. (2009). The nature of feedback: how different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instr. Sci. 37, 375–401. doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9053-x

Nicol, D. J., and Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Stud. Higher Educ. 31, 199–218. doi:10.1080/03075070600572090

Rosenthal, T. L., and Zimmerman, B. J. (1978). Social Learning and Cognition . New York: Academic Press.

Sanders, T., and Sanders, J. (2006). “Text and text analysis,” in Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics , 2nd Edn, ed. K. Brown (Amsterdam: Elsevier), 597–621.

Sanders, T., Spooren, W., and Noordman, L. (1992). Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Process. 15, 1–35. doi:10.1080/01638539209544800

Schunk, D. H. (1987). Peer models and children’s behavioral change. Rev. Educ. Res. 57, 149–174. doi:10.3102/00346543057002149

Schunk, D. H. (1991). Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective . New York: Merrill.

Schunk, D. H., and Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Social origins of self-regulatory competence. Educ. Psychol. 32, 195–208. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3204_1

Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Rev. Educ. Res. 78, 153–189. doi:10.3102/003465430731379

Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Sommers, N. (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. Coll. Compos. Commun. 31, 378–388. doi:10.2307/356588

Spivey, N. N. (1990). Transforming texts constructive processes in reading and writing. Writ. Commun. 7, 256–287. doi:10.1177/0741088390007002004

Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings . Cambridge: University Press.

Topping, K. J. (1996). The effectiveness of peer tutoring in further and higher education: a typology and review of the literature. Higher Educ. 32, 321–345. doi:10.1007/BF00138870

Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educ. Psychol. 25, 631–645. doi:10.1080/01443410500345172

Van Dijk, T. A., and Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of Discourse Comprehension . New York: Academic Press.

Veenman, M. V., and Beishuizen, J. J. (2004). Intellectual and metacognitive skills of novices while studying texts under conditions of text difficulty and time constraint. Learn. Instr. 14, 621–640. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.09.004

Veenman, M. V., Wilhelm, P., and Beishuizen, J. J. (2004). The relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills from a developmental perspective. Learn. Instr. 14, 89–109. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2003.10.004

Vollmeyer, R., and Rheinberg, F. (2006). Motivational effects on self-regulated learning with different tasks. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 18, 239–253. doi:10.1007/s10648-006-9017-0

Wischgoll, A. (2016). Combined training of one cognitive and one metacognitive strategy improves academic writing skills. Front. Psychol. 7:187. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00187

Witte, S. P., and Faigley, L. (1981). Coherence, cohesion, and writing quality. Coll. Compos. Commun. 32, 189–204. doi:10.2307/356693

Zimmerman, B. J., and Kitsantas, A. (2002). Acquiring writing revision and self-regulatory skill through observation and emulation. J. Educ. Psychol. 94, 660. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.4.660

Keywords: coherence, feedback, higher education, text quality, writing strategies

Citation: Wischgoll A (2017) Improving Undergraduates’ and Postgraduates’ Academic Writing Skills with Strategy Training and Feedback. Front. Educ. 2:33. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2017.00033

Received: 01 March 2017; Accepted: 26 June 2017; Published: 21 July 2017

Reviewed by:

Copyright: © 2017 Wischgoll. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Anke Wischgoll, anke.wischgoll@psychologie.uni-freiburg.de

The Process of Research Writing

(19 reviews)

Steven D. Krause, Eastern Michigan University

Copyright Year: 2007

Publisher: Steven D. Krause

Language: English

Formats Available

Conditions of use.

Learn more about reviews.

Reviewed by Kevin Kennedy, Adjunct Professor, Bridgewater State University on 12/2/22

I think this book would make an excellent supplement to other class material in a class focused on writing and research. It helps a lot with the "why"s of research and gives a high-level overview. read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 3 see less

I think this book would make an excellent supplement to other class material in a class focused on writing and research. It helps a lot with the "why"s of research and gives a high-level overview.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

The book is accurate, and talks a lot about different ways to view academic writing

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

This would be quite relevant for a student early on the college journey who is starting to complete research-based projects.

Clarity rating: 4

The text is clear and concise, though that conciseness sometimes leads to less content than I'd like

Consistency rating: 5

The book is consistent throughout

Modularity rating: 4

I could use the first chapters of this book very easily, but the later ones get into exercises that my classes wouldn't necessarily use

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

The book is organized from the high level (what is academic writing with research) to the more specific (here are some specific exercises)

Interface rating: 3

I don't like the flow from contents to chapters, and they feel distinctly text-based. This is a no-frills text, but that's ok.

Grammatical Errors rating: 3

I didn't note anything glaringly obvious

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

I think that this text stays away from the cultural and focuses mostly on the cognitive. This prevents offensive material, though it may make it less appealing to students.

Reviewed by Julie Sorge Way, Instructional Faculty, James Madison University on 11/23/21

Overall, I think this book’s strongest suits are its organization, clarity, and modularity. It is useful and adaptable for a wide range of courses involving a research component, and as the book itself argues, research is a part of most learning... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

Overall, I think this book’s strongest suits are its organization, clarity, and modularity. It is useful and adaptable for a wide range of courses involving a research component, and as the book itself argues, research is a part of most learning at the university level, whether or not a single traditional “research paper” is the end goal of a course. This is a great book with adaptable and useful content across a range of disciplines, and while it is low on “bells and whistles,” the content it provides seems to be relevant, helpful, and also fill a gap among other OER texts that focus more on rhetoric and less on research.

Because this is a book on research writing rather than cutting edge science, etc. it is unlikely to be made inaccurate by the passing of time.

In a desire to move past the simple “Comp II” textbook, Krause’s work here is relevant to a variety of fields. In creating a course with a major-specific research component, many parts of this text are relevant to what I’m doing, and due to its modularity and organization (see below) I am able to make use of it easily and draw students’ attention to the parts that will help them most with our learning objectives.

Clarity rating: 5

Krause’s writing style is uncomplicated and direct. His examples are ones I think most students could relate to or at least connect with reasonably well.

While the book is internally consistent in its tone, level of detail, and relevance to Krause’s original writing goals, in the process of applying it to different courses (as almost inevitably happens with OER materials) it is inconsistently useful for the course I in particular am planning. This is certainly no fault of the book’s. One example would be that it presents MLA and APA format for citing sources, but not Chicago/Turabian.

Modularity rating: 5

Certainly, its modularity is a real strong suit for Krause’s book overall – individual instructors planning different types of coursework that involve writing and research can easily adapt parts that work, and its Creative Commons license makes this even better.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

Clear and direct organization is another strong suit in Krause’s text. The information is presented in an orderly and easy to navigate way that allows instructors and students alike to hone in on the most useful information for their writing and research task without spending undue amounts of time searching. This is much appreciated especially in an open access text where instructors are more likely to be “picking and choosing” relevant content from multiple texts and resources.

Interface rating: 4

Simple but clear – basic HTML and PDF navigation by chapter and section. Like many OER texts it is a bit short on visual engagement – the colorful infographics and illustrations many people are used to both in printed textbooks and interacting with internet content.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

No errors noted.

Widely relevant (at least in the North American context I have most experience with) but as always, instructors should preview and adapt all material for the needs and context of their own classes and students.

Reviewed by Li-Anne Delavega, Undergraduate Research Experience Coordinator, Kapiolani Community College on 5/1/21

This textbook builds a good foundation for first-year students with topics such as developing a thesis, how to find sources and evaluate them, creating an annotated bibliography, audience, and avoiding plagiarism. While the content is explained... read more

This textbook builds a good foundation for first-year students with topics such as developing a thesis, how to find sources and evaluate them, creating an annotated bibliography, audience, and avoiding plagiarism. While the content is explained well and students are slowly walked through the research process, the textbook ends abruptly ends with a quick overview of the elements of a research essay after students organize their evidence and create an outline. A part two textbook that covers the rest of the writing process, such as structuring paragraphs, how to write an introduction and conclusion, and revising drafts, is needed to help students get to a finished product. As a composition-based textbook, I also felt it could have used a section on building arguments. The true gem of this textbook is its activities/exercises and comprehensive but accessible explanations.

Content Accuracy rating: 4

Aside from outdated citations and technology-related content, the process-based writing instruction is accurate and answers common questions from students about research and basic writing. I feel like the questions, checklists, and activities posed are helpful for students to really think through their writing process, and the author explains things without judgment. While students can benefit, I feel that faculty would also benefit from using this as a teaching manual to plan their classes.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 3

The writing instruction is solid and is still used in many textbooks today. Obviously, the sections on technology and citation are outdated, but some sections still have good reliable advice at their core. For example, search language, unreliable web sources, and collaborating online have evolved, but the concepts remain the same. I would cut those sections out and just take what I needed to give to students. The author has no plans to update this book, and someone would need to rewrite many sections of the book, which is not easy to implement.

The book is largely free of jargon and terms are clearly explained. The author's tone is casual and conversational when compared to other textbooks, which makes it more accessible to students and acts as a guide through the research process. However, it does lend itself to longer sections that could use heavy editing and it does sound like a mini-lecture, but I liked the way he thoroughly explains and sets up concepts. His tone and style are a bit inconsistent as others have noted.

The book is very consistent since research and writing terminology is the same across most disciplines. If you're a composition instructor, you'll find the framework is just common writing pedagogy for academic writing: focus on the writing process, freewriting, peer review, audience, revision, etc.

This book was intended to be modular and chapters are mostly self-contained, so it is easy to use individual chapters or change the sequence. There are unusable hyperlinks in each chapter that refer to other sections, but those are additional resources that could be replaced with a citation guide or other common resources. Sections, activities, examples, and key ideas are clearly labeled and can be used without the rest of the chapter. However, some writing concepts, such as a working thesis, are mentioned again in later chapters.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 3

Parts of the book are easily identifiable and the content within the chapter flows easily from one concept to the next. I felt that some of the chapters should have appeared earlier in the textbook. Students would have to wait until chapter 10 to learn about the research essay. Revising a working thesis comes before categorizing and reviewing your evidence. The peer-review chapter that advises students to read sections of their writing aloud to catch mistakes comes before brainstorming a topic. However, the sequence will depend on the instructor's preference. An index or a complete, searchable text would have helped so you don't need to guess which chapter has the content you need.

The PDF is the more polished and easier to read of the two versions. Overall, the PDF was well laid out, with clear headers and images. I found the colored boxes for the exercises helpful, though a lighter color would make the text easier to see for more students. The text uses different styles to create organization and emphasis, which made some pages (especially in the beginning) hard to read with the bolded and italicized clutter. I would have loved a complied version with all the chapters.

The HTML version is difficult to read as it is one long block of text and the callouts and images are not well spaced. There is, unfortunately, no benefit to reading the web version: no clickable links, dynamic text flow, or navigational links within each page so you will need to go back to the TOC to get the next section.

Grammatical Errors rating: 4

The book has grammatical and mechanical errors throughout but does not impact content comprehension. Other reviewers here identified more notable errors.

Cultural Relevance rating: 2

The language, examples, and references were generally ok, but the overall textbook felt acultural. Some consideration was taken with pronouns (relies on they/them/their) and gender roles. As others pointed out, there are many areas that could have used diversified sources, topics, references, examples, and students. Some of the textbook's activities assume able-bodied students and sections such as peer collaboration would benefit from a more nuanced discussion when he brought up resentment over non-contributing members, being silenced, and access to resources. There are a few red flags, but one glaring example is on page 5 of chapter 10. An excerpt from an article titled “Preparing to Be Colonized: Land Tenure and Legal Strategy in Nineteenth-Century Hawaii”(which includes the sentence, "Why did Hawaiians do this to themselves?") was used to show students when to use "I" in writing.

Overall, this is a good resource for writing instructors. As this book was written in 2007, faculty will need to cut or adapt a fair amount of the text to modernize it. It is not a textbook to assign to students for the semester, but the textbook's core content is solid writing pedagogy and the focus on using activities to reflect and revise is wonderful. Those outside of composition may find the basic exercises and explanations useful as long as students are primarily working out of a more discipline-specific (e.g., sciences) writing guide.

Reviewed by Milena Gueorguieva, Associate Teaching Professor, University of Massachusetts Lowell on 6/28/20

This is a process based research writing textbook, a rarity among composition textbooks. It is often the case that foundational writing courses are supposed to cover process and then, very often, instructors, students and textbook authors all... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 5 see less

This is a process based research writing textbook, a rarity among composition textbooks. It is often the case that foundational writing courses are supposed to cover process and then, very often, instructors, students and textbook authors all forget that process is important when they have to dive into the technical aspects of conducting and writing about and from research, usually in a 'second course' in the first year writing sequence. This is not the case with this book: it is a thoughtful, comprehensive exploration of writing from research as a multi-step recursive process. This approach can help students solidify the knowledge and skills they have acquired in prior courses, especially the multi-step recursive nature of writing as a process while developing a set of strong writing from research skills.

The foundations of research writing are presented in an accessible yet rigorous way. The book does away with the myth of research writing as something you do after you think about and research a topic. The author articulated this idea very well, when he wrote, ”We think about what it is we want to research and write about, but at the same time, we learn what to think based on our research and our writing.”

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

Overall, an excellent handbook (it can be used non-sequentially); however, some of the information on database searches and working with popular internet sources as well as collaborative writing (especially as it relates to the use of technology) needs updating.

The appropriately conversational tone translates complex academic concepts into easy to access ideas that students can relate to. The same is true for the many activities and exercises that demonstrate a variety of real life applications for the research skills presented in the book, which helps students see that research and research based writing happen everywhere, not just on campuses , where students seem to write for an audience of one: the professor who assigned the paper.

The material presented is rigorously and consistently presented in various modes: text, activities and exercises.

It can be used in a variety of ways; it has excellent modular stucture.

Excellently organized: reviews and expands on what students might already know about academic writing as a process; introduces the fundamentals of research and research writing and then uses both of these sets of skills in various research projects.

Although it has some very useful and appropriate visuals , the text could have been more user friendly; it is difficult to follow.

Excellently proof-read,

the book is culturally sensitive and contains appropriate examples and/or references.

An overall excellent composition text that provides useful exercises and assignments (such as the antithesis essay) that can help students build complex and nuanced arguments based on research. Highly recommend!

Reviewed by Valerie Young, Associate Professor, Hanover College on 3/29/20

This text is both general and specific. General enough for use in a variety of courses and disciplines, specific enough to garner interest for faculty who want to teach students the fundamentals and more nuanced aspects of research writing. The... read more

This text is both general and specific. General enough for use in a variety of courses and disciplines, specific enough to garner interest for faculty who want to teach students the fundamentals and more nuanced aspects of research writing. The basics are here. The text could be assigned in specific modules. The text will benefit from an update, especially in regards to references about collaborative writing tools and internet research. The text is missing a chapter on reading research and integrating research into the literature review process. This is a relevant skill for research writing, as student writers often struggle with reading the work of others to understand the body of literature as a foundation for their own assertions.

The content and information seems like it could be helpful for any undergraduate course that has a research writing project. The unique aspects of this book are its features of collaborative and peer review writing practices and all of the exercises embedded in the text. The author gives examples and writing exercises throughout the chapters. These examples could serve inexperienced students quite well. They could also annoy advanced students.

There are some references to the World Wide Web and the Internet, and library research that seem a bit outdated. There isn't much advanced referencing of commonly used internet research options, such as Google Scholar, citation apps, etc.

Clarity rating: 3

Some points are clear and concise. Other pieces go into too much detail for one chapter page. Because the pages are long, and not all content will be relevant to all readers, the author could consider using "collapsible" sections. This could be especially relevant in the APA & MLA sections, offering a side-by-side comparison of each or offering overviews of style basics with sections that open up into more details for some interested readers.

Consistency rating: 4

no issues here

Modularity rating: 3

The chapters are relatively concise and each starts with an overview of content. The web format does not allow for much navigational flow between chapters or sections. It would be great to hyperlink sections of content that are related so that readers can pass through parts of the text to other topics. It does look like the author intended to hyperlink between chapters, but those links (denoted "Hyperlink:" in the text) are not functional.

Overall flow is appropriate for an interdisciplinary lens. Readers can move through as many or as few sections as needed. The chapter topics and subtopics are organized fairly comprehensively, and often by questions that students might ask.

Interface rating: 2

The long blocks of text in each chapter aren't very reader friendly. Also, once the reader gets to the end of the long page / chapter, there is no navigation up to the top of the chapter or laterally to previous or next content. Text doesn't adjust to screen size, so larger screens might have lots of white space.

no issues noticed. Some examples could be updated to be more inclusive, culturally diverse, etc.

This book has some good lessons, questions, and suggestions for topics relevant to research writing. The text could benefit from a more modern take on research writing, as some of the topics and phrases are dated.

Reviewed by Jennifer Wilde, Adjunct instructor, Columbia Gorge Community College on 12/13/18

The text is a wonderful guidebook to the process of writing a research essay. It describes the steps a college writer should take when approaching a research assignment, and I have no doubt that if students followed the steps outlined by the... read more

The text is a wonderful guidebook to the process of writing a research essay. It describes the steps a college writer should take when approaching a research assignment, and I have no doubt that if students followed the steps outlined by the text, they would be sure to succeed in generating a quality thesis statement and locating appropriate sources. It is not comprehensive in that it has very little to say regarding composition, clarity and style. It does not contain an index or glossary.

Sections on MLA and APA format are inaccurate in that they are outdated. It would be preferable for the text to refer students to the online resources that provide up to date information on the latest conventions of APA and MLA.

The bulk of the chapters are timeless and filled with wisdom about using research to write a paper. However, the book should contain links or otherwise refer students to the web sources that would tell them how to use current MLA/APA format. There are some passages that feel anachronistic, as when the author recommends that students consider the advantages of using a computer rather than a word processor or typewriter. The sections on computer research and "netiquette" feel outdated. Finally, the author describes the differences between scholarly sources and periodicals but does not address the newer type of resources, the online journal that is peer-reviewed but open access and not associated with a university.

The writing is strong and clear. Dr. Krause does not indulge in the use of jargon.

The different sections open with an explanation of what will be covered. Then, the author explains the content. Some chapters are rather short while others are long, but generally each topic is addressed comprehensively. In the last several chapters, the author closes with a sample of student work that illustrates the principles the chapter addressed.

The text is divisible into sections. To some extent the content is sequential, but it is not necessary to read the early chapters (such as the section on using computers, which millenials do not need to read) in order to benefit from the wisdom in later chapters. I used this text in a writing 121 course, and I did not assign the entire text. I found some chapters helpful and others not so relevant to my particular needs. Students found the chapters useful and discrete, and they did not feel like they had to go back and read the whole thing. The section on writing an annotated bibliography, for instance, could be used in any writing class.

The topics are presented in the order in which a student approaches a writing assignment. First, the author asks, why write a research essay, and why do research? Next, the author addresses critical thinking and library/data use; quoting, summarizing and paraphrasing; collaboration and writing with others; writing a quality thesis statement; annotating a bibliography; categorizing sources; dealing with counterarguments, and actually writing the research essay. It's quite intuitive and logical. It seems clear that this author has had a lot of experience teaching students how to do these steps.

The interface is straightforward, but I could not locate any hyperlinks that worked. Navigation through the book was no problem.

The book is well written overall. The writer's style is straightforward and clear. There are occasional typos and words that feel misplaced, as in the following sentence: "The reality is though that the possibilities and process of research writing are more complicated and much richer than that." There should be commas around the word "though", and the tone is fairly conversational. These are extremely minor issues.

The examples feel inclusive and I was not aware of any cultural insensitivity in the book overall.

The book is really helpful! I particularly appreciate the sections on how to write an annotated bib and a good thesis statement, and I think the sections on writing a category/evaluation of sources, working thesis statement, and antithesis exercise are unique in the large field of writing textbooks. The book contains no instruction on grammatical conventions, style, clarity, rhetoric, how to emphasize or de-emphasize points, or other writing tips. In that sense, it is not a great text for a composition class. But I think it's extremely useful as a second resource for such a class, especially for classes that teach argumentation or those that require an analytic essay. I feel it is most appropriate for science students - nursing, psychology, medicine, biology, sociology. It is less likely to be useful for a general WR 121 class, or for a bunch of English majors who largely use primary sources.

Reviewed by Jess Magaña, Assistant Teaching Professor, University of Missouri-Kansas City on 6/19/18

This is a comprehensive introduction to planning and writing research papers. The suggested activities seem helpful, and the lack of an index or glossary does not interfere with understanding. read more

This is a comprehensive introduction to planning and writing research papers. The suggested activities seem helpful, and the lack of an index or glossary does not interfere with understanding.

The information is accurate and straightforward.

Some information is out of date, such as the section regarding email, but the main concepts are well explained and relevant. An instructor could easily substitute a lecture or activity with updated information.

The clarity is excellent.

There are no inconsistencies.

The text is organized in a way that lends itself to changing the order of chapters and adding and subtracting topics to suit the needs of each class.

The progression of chapters is logical.

Interface rating: 5

The "hyperlinks" helpfully direct readers to related topics (although these are not actual links in the online version), which contributes to the modularity of the text.

There are a few errors, but none that significantly obscure meaning.

Cultural Relevance rating: 4

This text could use updated examples showing greater diversity in authors and work. I recommend instructors find supplementary examples relevant to their classes.

I intend to use this text in my courses, supplemented with a few activities and more diverse examples to suit my students' needs.

Reviewed by Sheila Packa, Instructor, Lake Superior College on 2/1/18

The text is a comprehensive guide to research for students in College Composition courses. The text is concise and interesting. Critical thinking, research and writing argument are integrated into his suggested assignments. The author covers... read more

The text is a comprehensive guide to research for students in College Composition courses. The text is concise and interesting. Critical thinking, research and writing argument are integrated into his suggested assignments.

The author covers the research question, library resources, how to paraphrase and use quotes, and collaborative writing projects. There are suggested exercises in the process of research, such as a topic proposal, a guide to developing a strong thesis statement, a full exploration of refutation (called the antithesis), the critique or rhetorical analysis, the annotated bibliography, and a guide to help students to accumulate a good assortment of sources. MLA and APA documentation is covered. Note that this text is published in 2007. Therefore, I recommend the use of MLA 8 Handbook for up-to-date guidelines for correct documentation. The Research Paper is full explained. In the chapter, Alternate Ways to Present Research, the author focuses on a Portfolio. He discusses web publication of research and poster sessions.

I value the clarity of ideas. The text is error-free, and I like the example essays written by students that will serve to inspire students.

The content is relevant. The author guides students through the process in a way that is easy to understand and also academically rigorous. The MLA 8 Handbook is a needed supplement (and that is affordable).

The writing is clear and concise. The organization of the chapters is logical and leads the students through steps in the process of research, writing a reasoned argument, and professional presentation of the research.

Terminology is clear and the framework for research is clear and sensible.

The book's modularity is definitely a strength. It's possible to use chapters of the text without using the entire book and to omit chapters that are not a focus of the instructor.

This book has a logical arrangement of chapters and the assignments are valuable.

The interface is great. It's readable online or in pdf form.

No grammatical errors. There is one detail that reflects changing rules of documentation. In MLA, titles of books, magazines, and journals are now italicized instead of underlined. In this text, they are underlined.

The text is free of bias or stereotypes.

Reviewed by Jennie Englund, Instructor, Composition I & II, Rogue Community College, Oregon on 8/15/17

Twelve chapters are broken into multiple parts. On Page 3 of the Introduction, the text emphasizes its purpose as an "introduction to academic writing and research." The following chapters present more than substantial information to give... read more

Twelve chapters are broken into multiple parts.

On Page 3 of the Introduction, the text emphasizes its purpose as an "introduction to academic writing and research." The following chapters present more than substantial information to give introductory (even well into master) research writers a foundation of the basics, as well as some detail. It differentiates itself as "Academic" research writing through thesis, evidence, and citation. Two of these concepts are revisted in the conclusion. The third (thesis) has its own section, which this reviewer will use in class.

I'm grateful to have reviewed an earlier electronic text. This provided the ability to compare/contrast, and note that this particular text was more comprehensive and in-depth than the guide I had previously reviewed (which was more of a framework, good in its own right.)

Had the guide contained a thorough section on revision, I'd give it a perfect score! Thus, the book very very nearly does what it sets out to do; it provides most of The Process of Research Writing.

Retrieval dates are no longer used on the APA References page. This reviewer would have preferred titles italicized instead of underlined.

The text opens with an introduction of the project, by its author. The project began in 2000 as a text for a major publishing house, but eventually landed via author's rights as an electronic text. Therefore, essentially, the book has already been around quite a while. This reviewer concludes that time, thought, and execution went into publishing the material, and predicts its popularity and usability will grow.

Timeless, the guide could have been used with small updates twenty years ago, and could be used with updates twenty years from now.

The guide could be used as the sole text in a composition course, supplemented by more formal (as well as APA) examples.

The text is organized into 12 chapters; it logically begins with "Thinking Critically about Research," and concludes with "Citing Your Research Using MLA or APA Style." The text includes most of what this reviewer uses to teach academic research writing. However, the book omits the editing/revising process.

The guide poses purposeful questions.

On Page 7 of the Introduction, the text reports being "organized in a 'step-by-step' fashion," with an invitation to the reader to use the book in any order, and revisit passages. The reviewer found the organization to be consistent and as systematic as the actual composition of an academic research paper.

The meat of the text begins with the definition and purpose of "Research." Immediately, a nod to working thesis follows, which is revisited in Chapter 5. Sources are examined and classified into a chart of "Scholarly Versus Non-scholarly or Popular Sources." The segment on "Using the Library" would complement a course or class period on library usage.

The Table of Contents is fluid and logical. Within the text, concepts are revisited and built upon, which the reviewer appreciates. Examples and exercises are given.

Chapter 10 contains an outline of a student research paper (which follows). The paper examines the problems with and solutions for university athletics. The paper is in MLA format. Tone is less formal than this reviewer would use as an example of academic research writing. The reviewer would have welcomed an example of an APA paper, as well.

The last chapter fully realizes instruction introduced at the beginning: citation defines academic writing, and academic writers credit their sources, and present evidence to their readers. I wish this last part emphasized thesis again, too, but in all, it is a very structured, reader-friendly guide.

Charts are integrated and understandable, though the majority of the book is text.

This review found some grammatical errors including capitalization. Book/journal/magazine/newspaper titles are underlined in lieu of italicized.

Student examples include Daniel Marvins, Ashley Nelson, Jeremy Stephens, Kelly Ritter, Stuart Banner, and Casey Copeman. Most examples of citations are from male authors. Text would benefit from multi-cultural authors. Examples/topics include The Great Gatsby,African-American Physicians and Drug Advertising, Cyberculture, ADHD, Diabetes, Student-athletes, and Drunk Driving.Examples are culturally appropriate and multi-disciplinary. Consistent pronoun used: he/him/his

Third-person narration is used; the author addresses the reader directly (and informally). While this perhaps makes a connection between the author and the reader, and adds to understanding, it does not reflect academic research writing, and may confuse beginning writers?

Chapter 5, "Writing a Working Thesis," is among the most clear, comprehensive, and straightforward instruction on the topic this reviewer has seen. I will use this section in my Composition I and II courses, as well as Chapters 1, 3, and 12. I wish this form had a place to rate usability. In that case, this guide would score highly. I commend Dr. Krause's execution and composition, and applaud his sharing this at no cost with the academic community.

Reviewed by Marie Lechelt, ESL/English Instructor and Writing Center Co-director, Riverland Community College on 6/20/17

"The Process of Research Writing" is a textbook that includes all of the major topics covered in most college research writing courses. The style of writing makes it easily understood by students. Depending on your focus in your writing class,... read more

"The Process of Research Writing" is a textbook that includes all of the major topics covered in most college research writing courses. The style of writing makes it easily understood by students. Depending on your focus in your writing class, you may want to supplement this text with more about argumentative writing. Other writing models, homework exercises, and classroom activities found by the instructor would also compliment the use of this text. While I would not use this textbook in my course from start to finish, I would jump around and use a variety of sections from it to teach research writing. This text could be used for a beginning writing class or a second semester writing course. Based on my students writing experiences and abilities, I would eliminate or include certain sections. There is no index or glossary included. The hyperlinks to other sections also do not work.

The content is accurate and error-free. I didn't detect any biased information either. The MLA and APA information have changed since this book was published. The peer review work, plagiarism, critiquing sources, and many more of the topics are almost exactly what I teach to my students. This format will work well for them.

While most research writing content does not change over time, there are many parts of this book that could be updated. These include examples (The Great Gatsby), hyperlinks, and references to technology. The technology aspect is especially important. Since technology is constantly changing, most textbooks (print and online) are out of date as soon as they are printed. Because of this, teachers are constantly having to use supplemental material, which is fine. Just like our class websites, we have to update this information every semester or even more often. If you choose to use this textbook, keep in mind that this will be necessary. The MLA/APA information is also out of date, but this is also to be expected.

Clarity is one of the benefits of this textbook. Although the style is somewhat informal, it included appropriate topics and terminology for students learning to write research essays. Students can understand the topics with one or two readings and discuss the topics in class. There were a few places that seemed like common knowledge for students at this level, like the library or using computers. Unfortunately, we do still have students who do not come to us having already learned this information. So, I don't think these sections would have a negative impact on other students. Students can also be given optional sections to read, or as I plan to do, the teacher can skip around and only assign some sections.

The majority of the terminology is common knowledge in research writing teaching. The text is fairly informal in writing style, which I believe is an advantage for students. Many times, students will read a text and then I will need to explain the terminology or ideas in depth in my lectures. Since I prefer to complete activities and work on students' writing in class, instead of lecturing, this book will work well. The chapter on the "Antithesis" was new to me. While I have taught these ideas, I have not used this term before. This is a chapter I may not use and instead include supplemental material of my own.

The chapters are divided clearly and could be separated quite easily to use as individual units in a writing class. If the hyperlinks worked though, they would be helpful. Exercises build upon one another, so one could not assign a later exercise without students first understanding the other sections of the text. I plan to use this text in a research writing class, and I will be skipping around and only using some sections. I do not believe there will be any problem with this. While students may at first feel that starting on Chapter 4 might be strange, they are very adaptive and should have no difficulties with this format.

The Table of Contents is clear and easily understood. Each chapter follows a logical sequence, and students will be able to transition from one topic to another without difficulty. The use of charts, headings, bold, highlighting, and some other visual aids help the reader to understand what is most important to remember. Although, this could be improved upon with the use of color and graphics. While the content is valuable, I would most likely skip around when using this book in the classroom. While the author begin with an introduction and then jumps right into research, I focus on topic selection and thesis writing before research begins. Of course, as the author mentions, students will go back to their thesis and research many times before finishing the writing process.

The text is easily navigated, and students would be able to follow the topics throughout. The lack of graphics and color is noticeable and detracts from the content. In a world of advanced technology where students click on hundreds of websites with amazing content each week, online textbooks need to meet this standard. This textbook is similar to a traditional textbook. Some links are also inactive.

There were some typos and small grammatical errors but no glaring instances. They also did not impact understanding.

This book contained no offensive language or examples. However, we have a lot of diversity in our classrooms, and this is not reflected in the book. Expanding the examples or including links to diverse examples would be helpful.

I will be using this text in a second semester writing class. It has valuable information about research writing. I believe it could also be used for a first semester writing class. As mentioned above, I will use sections of the text and skip around to accommodate the needs of my students. Supplemental materials will also be needed to meet current technology needs.

Reviewed by Betsy Goetz, English Instructor, Riverland Community College on 6/20/17

The text covers all subject areas appropriately. read more

The text covers all subject areas appropriately.

Overall, the text is accurate.

Relevant and current.

I liked the clarity of the text, especially the specific exercises for students to apply the theory they have learned.

This text is consistent -- good terminology!

Clear sections to focus on key points of research writing.

Well organized.

Not confusing

Overall, lacking grammatical errors.

Relevant -- research writing and thesis building are timeless.

Reviewed by Karen Pleasant, Adjunct Instructor, Rogue Community College on 4/11/17

The textbook covered the basics of writing a research paper (the term "essay"is preferred by the author) and would be appropriate for an introductory college writing course, such as WR 121 or WR 122. A table of content is provided, but there is... read more

The textbook covered the basics of writing a research paper (the term "essay"is preferred by the author) and would be appropriate for an introductory college writing course, such as WR 121 or WR 122. A table of content is provided, but there is no glossary. The textbook guides a student from exploring the initial topic selection through the finished product, although I would have liked the use of citations to be covered in more depth. If I chose this as the textbook for my class I would also need to add supplemental materials about thoroughly developing an argument as well as revising a paper.

The author presented the material in an unbiased manner and does so in a way that provides high readability for students with little to no background in writing a research paper. Excellent examples are provided to reinforce concepts and thoughtful, creative collaborative exercises round out each chapter to give practice in skill mastery. Both MLA and APA formatting styles are included, but the APA section needs to be updated. The book was published in 2007 and many of the APA guidelines have changed., including the preference for using italics versus underlining for book and journal titles.

Each chapter is self-contained and stands alone and , therefore, could easily be updated. Most of the information is relevant and could be used indefinitely. I like that Chapter 11 recommended alternate ways to present the research and suggested more contemporary technology based methods. Chapter 12, about APA and MLA citations, is the chapter that currently needs to be updated and would need to be checked for accuracy annually against the latest APA & MLA guidelines. As it reads, I would handout current materials for APA citation sessions and not use this chapter in the book.

The book is well organized and is very user friendly. I think students would enjoy reading it and be able to relate readily to the content. Examples given and exercises provided help to clarify the content and reinforce the concepts for students. The textbook flows well from selection of initial topic ideas to finished product and will help students to work through the process of writing a research paper.

New terms are thoroughly explained and are used consistently throughout the textbook. The knowledge students gain as they progress through the book feels logical and organized in a usable fashion.

The text is organized so that each chapter stands alone and the order the information is presented can be easily modified to fit the needs of an instructor. The book is that rare combination of being equally functional for both student and instructor.

The topics are presented as needed to guide students through the process of writing a research paper, but could be done in another order if desired. Bold and boxed items are used to emphasize key concepts and chapter exercises.

The textbook is visually appealing and easy to read with adequate use of white space and varied font sizes. I explored the textbook via the PDF documents, which were easy to download, although the hyperlinks were not accessible.

There were noticeable grammatical errors.

The textbook is inclusive and accessible to all and didn't have any content that could be deemed offensive. The approachable layout and writing style make the textbook relevant to college students from a variety of backgrounds.

I would definitely adopt this open textbook for my writing classes. The author provided some wonderful ideas for teaching about research papers and I found many chapter exercises that I would be willing to incorporate into my class . I am especially intrigued by the use of writing an antithesis paper as a lead in to adding opposition to the research paper and look forward to getting student input and feedback about some of the alternative ways to present their research. Compared to textbooks I have used or perused in the past, this book seems more inviting and user friendly for students new to writing college level research papers.

Reviewed by VINCENT LASNIK, Adjunct Professor, Rogue Community College on 4/11/17

This comprehensiveness is one of the strengths of The Process of Research Writing. The Table of Contents (TOC) is fine—and each separate chapter also reproduces the contents listing from high-lever through low-level subsections at the beginning... read more

This comprehensiveness is one of the strengths of The Process of Research Writing. The Table of Contents (TOC) is fine—and each separate chapter also reproduces the contents listing from high-lever through low-level subsections at the beginning of each chapter. This duplicate listing feature helps orient students to what is covered (and what is not) for every chapter in-context. Yes—It is a fair evaluation that there can generally be easy-to-fix, quickly recognizable updates, enhancements, and notable improvements to virtually any textbook 10-15 years after its initial publication date (particularly related to changing terminology and nomenclature within the dynamic English lexicon, technology applications (databases, websites, ‘search engines,’ current good ‘help sites’ for students learning the latest iteration of APA style for manuscript formatting, in-text citations, and end references, etc.)—and the Krause text is a prime candidate for such a thorough revision. For example, digital object identifiers (the doi was first introduced circa 2000) did not become widely/pervasively established until well into the first decade of the 21st century; the ‘doi’ is an ubiquitous standard today in 2017. Nevertheless, many of the basic (boilerplate) concepts are clearly noted and credibly, coherently explained. The text could use some effective reorganization (as I note elsewhere in my review)—but that is arguably a subjective/personalized perspective more related to the way we approach writing instruction and student academic development at Rogue Community College—and perhaps less of a global/universal criticism.

See my comments in other sections that impact this issue. Overall, Krause’s text appears, “accurate, error-free and unbiased.” There are no obvious problems with this observation/contention. Some of the ‘out-of-date’ specifics in the text need updating as I note in detail in my other comments.

Most of the text describes research-writing strategies that are fairly well-established if not generic to the undergraduate English composition content area; thus, the overall longevity of the existing text is good. I have suggested, however, that any such ‘how-to’ guide should be updated (as this particular version) after its first decade of publication. The content for online research, for example, reflects an early 2000s perspective of emerging technology terms (e.g., defining blogs as “web-logs” is easily 12-15 years behind the use of the term in 2017), and some of the online websites mentioned are no longer relevant. These types of ‘out-of-date’ past-referents/links, however, can be easily updated to 2017+ accuracy. I have made a few suggestions about such an update—including my offer to assist Steve Krause (gratis and pro bono) in this update should my collaboration be desired. Otherwise, Krause might go the more open ‘peer review’ route and assemble a set of active teachers, instructors, and adjunct professors (such as me) who are on the ‘frontlines’ of current praxis for research-based, critical thinking, problem-oriented writing courses across the 11th-12th grade and through the undergraduate and workforce education community.

The text is written is a clear, credible, and cogent prose throughout. This is one of the particular strengths of Krause’s text—and recursively provides an exemplar for well-written composition. On occasion, the clarity for students might be improved by additional ‘real-world examples’ (i.e., more ‘showing rather than mere abstract telling) explicating some obtuse concepts and numerous rules (e.g., for research strategy, proofreading/editing, using search engines and conducting library research, etc.)—but a similar constructive criticism could easily be made of nearly all similar sources.

The text wording, terminology, framework and process emphasis are highly consistent. There are overlaps and dovetailing (i.e., redundancy) in any/every college textbook—but Krause keeps these to a minimum throughout. Some updating of terminology would be appropriate, useful, and needed as I note throughout my OER review.

The text is superb in this regard. The chapters and exercises are highly modular—which supports the customized reorganization I apply myself in my own courses as noted in my other comments. Numerous subheads and special highlighted ‘key points’ textboxes augment this modularity and improve the narrowing of assigned readings, examples, and exercises for most writing courses. The Process of Research Writing is clearly not, “overly self-referential,” and can easily be, “reorganized and realigned with various subunits of a course without presenting much disruption to the reader” by any instructor.

One of the principal weaknesses of the set of chapters is that the given ‘table of contents’ structure is conceptually disjointed—at least insofar as my research writing course is designed. Therefore, to provide a more coherent, logical sequence congruent to the course organization of my Writing 122 (this is an intermediate/advanced-level English Composition II)—it was necessary to assign a completely different order of The Process of Research Writing (Krause, 2007) high-level chapters/pages for weekly course reading assignments as follows:

Week One: Table of Contents; Introduction: Why Write Research Projects?; and Chapter 1: Thinking Critically About Research; Week Two: Chapter 2: Understanding and Using the Library and the Internet for Research. These three starting chapters were reasonable to introduce in Krause’s original sequence. Continuing into Week Two, I also added Chapter 4: How to Collaborate and Write with Others (but I highlighted limited/specific passages only since WR122 does not emphasize collaborative prose composition activities and extensive group-writing projects using such apps as Google Docs). Week Three: I then assigned Chapter 10: The Research Essay—since it was important to orient students to the intrinsic, namesake umbrella concept of researching and writing the research essay—the essential focus of the course I teach. IMPORTANT NEED TO RESTRUCTURE THE OER as it exists: Viewed from a course rationale and content/skill acquisition conceptual level—I have no idea why Krause did not place ‘Writing The Research Essay’ as high as Chapter 2. It comes far too late in the book as Chapter 10. This is actually where the chapter belongs (in my view); the other topics in the remaining Chapters’ (2—12) would more cogently and effectively proceed after first exploring the high-level nature of the research essay task in the first place. The subsequent skills for conducting Online Library Research; Quoting, Paraphrasing, Avoiding Plagiarism, creating a testable ‘Working Thesis,’ producing an Annotated Bibliography (some courses also use a précis assignment), Evaluating and Categorizing Sources, etc.—are realistically supporting, scaffolding, and corroborating functional/operational skills designed to design, research, and produce the research-based essay project. Therefore—from a project-based and problem-oriented pedagogical strategy/approach—a sound argument could be proffered that putting Chapter 10 second in a reordered book would help students on many levels (not the least being engaging interest and promoting contextual understanding for why learning the content of the remaining chapters makes sense and can be critical/applicable to the research-writing process.

Continuing on my own WR122 course text-sequence customization—in Week Four—we move into the attribution phase of the writing process in Chapter 3: Quoting, Paraphrasing, and Avoiding Plagiarism. Logically, we then move (in Week Five) to Chapter 5: The Working Thesis so students can ask significant/original questions and determine a point of departure into their research essay. This seemed like a good time to add the concept of ‘opposition views’ (i.e., counter-claims, rejoinder and rebuttal) discussed in Chapter 8: The Antithesis. In Week Six—we moved into essay formatting, in-text citation and end references, so Chapter 12: Citing Your Research Using MLA or APA Style {(focusing on reading pp. 1-2 (brief overview), and pp. 18-33 about APA style)} was assigned. In addition, students also perused Chapter 7: The Critique preceding a related argumentative assignment (i.e., a movie review project). For Week Seven (concurrent with an annotated bibliography project for the main term paper—students read Chapter 6: The Annotated Bibliography, and Chapter 9: The Categorization and Evaluation (of sources) that was ostensibly/logically relevant to the annotated bibliography project. Concluding the course for Weeks Eight-Eleven—there were new required readings. Students were instructed to review previous readings in The Process of Research Writing (Krause, 2007)—time permitting. Also Note: Chapter 11: Alternative Ways to Present Your Research is completely optional reading. It is not particularly applicable to this course; there is a student’s self-reflection about the research process on pp. 3-11 that may have some nominal merit, but it notes MLA style (versus my course’s use of APA 6th edition style only) and is in any case not required.

The text is not fancy; standard black and white (high-contrast) font used throughout. For emphasis of key points, Krause does use special ‘highlight boxes’ with gray background, a thick black stroke on the outside of the rectangular textbox. While the gray level might be lowered (in the update) for improved contrast—the true-black, bulleted, bolded key-terms are easy to perceive/read. The only criticism I have is the distracting overuse of quotation mark punctuation for emphasis; this should be corrected in any updated version. Otherwise, most of the book’s interface presentation supports a good user (student) experience, good printability, and good accessibility per ADA and general disability (e.g., visually impaired learners) protocols.

There are no significant/glaring occurrences of grammatical errors in the text. I am not a ‘grammar snob’ in any case. The prose seems clear, cogent, thoughtful, well-written; it generally uses solid grammar, mechanics, and punctuation. The exception is the overuse of a somewhat casual/conversational tone combined with (what is more of a recognizable issue) a distracting overuse of quotation marks—many of which are simply neither needed nor helpful; most could be quickly removed with an immediate improvement to readability.

I do not see significant, relevant, or glaring faux pas pertaining to any biased disrespect for multiculturalism. All persons (e.g., races, ethnicities, genders, sexual orientations, and cultural backgrounds) are equally respected and appreciated. The content area (English composition) is very amenable to a relatively generic, culture-free perspective—and Krause’s examples and prose is well-within any applicable standards of post-modern, scholarly, formal non-fiction in written Standard English.

[1] The Process of Research Writing was ostensibly presented/published to Creative Commons in 2007. No identifiable part/portion of the original edition text appears to have been updated (changed, modified, or improved) since then (i.e., at least 10 years); This is perhaps the single, most apparent flaw/weakness for this textbook. An in-depth revision to 2017 post-rhetorical model essay-writing standards and APA conventions would be invaluable—and quite bluntly—is sorely required. A newly updated Version 2.0 for 2017-18 should be critically planned (and scheduled or already ‘in progress’ if it is not already).

[2] There are many insightful, practical, and high-value approaches to the research writing process; in this regard—the nominal OER title is superbly appropriate for late high-school and beginning college (undergraduate) research essay projects. Even though some of the technical components (e.g., APA style) require updating/revision (which makes basic, reasonable sense after a ‘decade on the shelf’ for any academic research writing source)—Krause’s chapters can effectively replace many expensive, glossy college entry-level textbooks! After presenting the core concepts in a coherent and self-evident manner, Krause supplies a plethora of examples to illustrate those concepts. Then (and this is one of the true strengths of this OER)—each chapter (particularly Chapters 5-10) highlights student-oriented exercises to practice those same core concepts). Because of this latter emphasis—the Krause OER is ‘learner-centered’ (as opposed to ‘content centered’), problem-oriented and performance-oriented as well—providing opportunities for creative, resourceful teachers to adapt/adopt the OER to course assignments.

[3] There does not appear to be a single (standalone) PDF for this OER. This is a notable flaw/weakness for this textbook. Conversely, however, although a single PDF would have some convenient ‘easier downloading’ advantages for students—having separate chapters affords every teacher to create a customized chapter-order (as I have efficiently done to correspond to my course design). The chapters support excellent modularity and the accompanying exercises/examples demonstrate the concepts Krause explicates with a fine degree of granularity for any teacher. Thus—integrating any textbooks or teaching/learning resources (like OERs) always has tradeoffs—plusses and minuses, positives and negatives. The obvious key, therefore, is taking the liberty of using the OER as a supporting scaffold or buttress to an instructor’s original design concept—rather than the foundation around which a course can be designed.

[4] Some minor weaknesses for prose instruction are (a) Krause’s acceptance of passive, sophomoric signal phrasing (i.e., According to X…)—as opposed to strong, active voice such as ‘’X found…’; and (b) a general overuse of quotation marks throughout the book. This is not meant as a harsh criticism—merely an observation that readability could be improved with a newer version that eliminates most quotation marks (Note: In APA style—these punctuation symbols are only used for verbatim quotes. This makes for a cleaner, clearer manuscript).

[5] One of the solid/helpful strengths of the book is a relatively accurate presentation of APA style for in-text citation and end references (Chapter 12). It appears that like many academics—Krause is more familiar and comfortable with the Modern Language Association’s MLA style/formatting. No problem there—I was simply trained on APA beginning in 1984 so it is native to me; I also use the latest version of APA style in all of my writing (college composition) courses. Thus—it should come as no surprise there are a number of obvious APA-associated inaccuracies including (but limited to): (a) meekly accepting ‘n.d.’ (no date) and ‘n.a.’ (no author) sources when a little investigative research by the student (and adherence to the APA rule hierarchy for dates and authors) would easily come up with a sound date and author. Another error (b) seems to be more typographic (formatting) and/or refers to an earlier edition of APA style: the end references in the PDF (and html versions?) use underline in place of italics. The 2011 APA 6th edition style does not use underline in the end references. There are other small (faux pas) errors such as (c) noting generally inaccessible proprietary online databases and servers (again—no longer done in APA). A thorough, meticulous updating of this OER source would probably take care of many of these APA-error issues. I’d be happy to work with Steve on this update at any time.

[6] I use Amy Guptill’s Writing in College: From Competence to Excellence by Amy Guptill of State University of New York (2016) for my English Composition I course that emphasizes general essay writing and a simple research-supported argumentative essay. I teach that course using the following assigned readings: Week One: Chapter 1 (Really? Writing? Again?), pp. 1-7, and Chapter 2 (What Does the Professor Want? Understanding the Assignment), pp. 9-18; Week Two: Chapter 6 (Back to Basics: The Perfect Paragraph), pp. 48-56; Chapter 7 (Intros and Outros), pp. 57-64; Week Four: Chapter 9 (Getting the Mechanics Right), pp. 75-85; Week Five: Chapter 8 (Clarity and Concision), pp. 65-73; Week Six: Chapter 3 (Constructing the Thesis and Argument—From the Ground Up), pp. 19-27; Week Seven: Chapter 4 (Secondary Sources in Their Natural Habitats), pp. 28-37; Week Eight: Chapter 5 (Listening to Sources, Talking to Sources), pp. 38-47. I then switch over to Krause’s OER for my English Composition II course. At Rogue Community College, Writing 122 emphasizes intermediate essay writing and analytical, more rigorous and original research-based essays involving critical thinking. I completely reordered the chapters as described above to fit into my course design. I like Krause’s individual ‘modular’ chapters—but the particular ‘scope and sequence’ he uses are debatable. Overall, however, The Process of Research Writing easily and effectively substitutes/replaces other costly tomes from for-profit academic publishers—even those that offer bundled DVDs and online-access to proprietary tutorial sources. Used in conjunction with other freely available PDF OERs, websites, YouTube videos, tutorial/practice sites from innumerable libraries, blogs (e.g., the APA Blog is particularly helpful)—as well as original/customized sources created by individual instructors for their own courses—the Krause book offers a good, solid baseline for developing research-based writing competencies particularly appropriate for the first two years of college.

Reviewed by Amy Jo Swing, English Instructor, Lake Superior College on 4/11/17

This book covers most of the main concepts of research writing: thesis, research, documenting, and process. It's weak on argument though, which is standard in most research composition texts. The book provides a clear index so finding information... read more

This book covers most of the main concepts of research writing: thesis, research, documenting, and process. It's weak on argument though, which is standard in most research composition texts. The book provides a clear index so finding information is relatively easy. The other weak spot is on evaluation evidence: there is a section on it but not comprehensive examples. Students in general needs lots of practice on how to evaluate and use information.

The information is accurate mostly except for the APA and MLA section. Writing and research writing haven't changed that much in a long time. It's more the technology and tools that change.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 2

The ideas about research and writing in general are fine, However, the references to technology and documentation are very out of date, over 10 years so. Students use technology very differently than described in this text, and the technologies themselves have changed. For example, the author talks about floppy disks and AOL messenger but not about Google Drive, Wikipedia, Prezi, or how to use phones and tablets while researching. Our students are digital natives and need to understand how to use their devices to write and research.

The book is quite readable in general. Concepts are easy to understand. Sometimes, they are almost too simple like the section explaining what a library is. Students might not be sophisticated library users, but they understand in general how they work. The chapters are concise, which is nice for student use too.

Except for pronoun use, the book is consistent in tone and terms. Not all the terms are ones I use in my own teaching, and it would be nice to see explanation of more argument/research frameworks like the Toulmin Model of argument.

The chapters are pretty self-contained and clear as individual units. I can see including certain chapters and leaving out others that aren't as relevant to my teaching style or assignments. One could easily assign the chapters in a different order, but students ask lots of questions when you assign chapter 6 first and then weeks later, assign chapter 2 or 3.

The basic chapters make sense in terms of how they are created and categorized but the order is problematic if an instructor were to assign them in the order presented. For example, the chapter on creating an annotated bibliography comes before the one on documenting (APA/MLA). Students can't complete an annotated bibliography without knowing how to cite sources. Same with evaluating sources. There is so much information on locating sources before any clear mention is made of how to evaluate them. I find that is the weak spot with students. If they learn how to evaluate sources, it's easier to find and locate and research effectively.

Not many images. Students really like info-graphics, pictures, and multi-media. The hyperlinks to other sections of the book do not work in either the PDF or HTML versions. I do like some of the illustrations like mapping and how research is more a web than a linear process. For an online textbook, there aren't a lot of hyperlinks to outside resources (of which there are so many like Purdue's OWL and the Guide to Grammar and Writing).

There were quite a few errors : comma errors, spelling (affect/effect), some pronoun agreement errors, capitalization errors with the title in Chapter Four. The author also uses passive voice quite a bit, which is inconsistent with the general familiar tone. In some chapters, there is constant switching between first, second, and third person. I focus much on point of view consistency in my students' writing, and this would not be a great model for that.

Cultural Relevance rating: 3

There is no cultural offensiveness but not much diversity in examples and students names either. Marginalized students (of color, with disabilities, of different sexuality or gender) would not see themselves reflected much.

This is a good basic reference on the process of writing and research. However, it would not be too useful without updated information on technology and documentation. As a web-based text, it reads more like a traditional physical textbook.

Reviewed by Jocelyn Pihlaja, Instructor, Lake Superior College on 2/8/17

The length and scope of this book are appropriate for a semester-long research writing course, with twelve chapters that move from foundational concepts into more specific skills that are needed for the crafting of a paper incorporating MLA or APA... read more

The length and scope of this book are appropriate for a semester-long research writing course, with twelve chapters that move from foundational concepts into more specific skills that are needed for the crafting of a paper incorporating MLA or APA citation. In particular, I like that the early chapters cover the questions of "Why Write Research Papers?" and how to think critically, the middle chapters provide specific activities in the skills of quoting and paraphrasing, and the later chapters bring in assignments (such as writing an annotated bibliography) that help students practice and build content for their ultimate paper.There is no index or glossary to this book; however, the table of contents provides an overview of the chapters that guides navigation well.

Content Accuracy rating: 3

In terms of the thinking, this book's information is logical and sound. The explanations of concepts and activities read easily and do a fine job of explicating the why and how of research writing. In a few places, however, the word "effected" is used when it should be "affected." Editing also is needed when the author uses phrases such as "in the nutshell" instead of "in a nutshell." As well, in Chapter 4, there is pronoun/antecedent disagreement when the author uses "their" to refer to "each member." Also, each chapter contains at least one "Hyperlink" to supplemental information, yet the hyperlinks are dead. For the most part, the text is clean and well edited, but we English teachers are line-editing sticklers, so even small, occasional errors stand out. Overall: the ideas presented are accurate and free of bias, yet there are a few, niggling errors.

When it comes to relevance and longevity, this book is problematic. In fact, it is so outdated as to be unusable, at least for this instructor. Certainly, the concepts presented are solid; they don't change with passing years. However, typographically, the book is passe, as it uses two spaces after periods. Even more troubling is that it refers to the Internet as "new" and comes from a point of view that sees this thing called "the World Wide Web" as novel while also noting students might want to rely on microfilm and microfiche during their research. In another example, the author suggests to students that a benefit of writing on computers is that they can share their work with each other on disc or through email. Truly, such references make the book unusable for a class in 2017. Another issue is that the Modern Language Association has updated its guidelines several times since this book's publication; ideally, a text used in a research writing class would cover, if not the latest guidelines, at least the previous version of the guidelines. A full rewrite of the book is necessary before it could be adopted. As the book currently stands, students would roll their eyes at the antiquated technological language, and the teacher would need to apologize for asking students to read a text that is so out-of-date.

The writing in this book is both accessible and intelligent. It's eminently readable. Specifically, the inclusion of things like an "Evidence Quality and Credibility Checklist" at the end of Chapter 1 and the continual use of grey boxes that highlight major concepts is very good. Also extremely helpful are the examples of student writing that end nearly every chapter; these models demonstrate to readers what is expected from each assignment. Finally, the explanations of quoting and paraphrasing are superior -- so clear, so easy for students to digest. Were it not outdated in terms of technological references, I would definitely consider using this book in my classes due to the clarity of the prose.

Consistency rating: 3

For the most part, the book is well structured and consistent in its design and layout. Each chapter provides general explanation of a concept, moves into a specific assignment, and ends with an example or two of student responses to that assignment. Very quickly, readers know what to expect from each chapter, and there's something comforting about the predictability of the layout, especially in a book that is being read on a screen, using scrolling. When it comes to the terminology, my only note would be that the book starts out using a relaxed second-person point of view, addressing students as "you," but then, at the end of Chapter 2, the author suddenly begins also using the first-person "I." This first-person point of view continues throughout the book, so it becomes consistent from that point on, but for me as a reader, I never quite adjusted to that level of informality, particularly when all the sentences using "I" could easily be re-written in the third person. Before reading this text, I hadn't really considered what I like in a book, but now I know: because I want the text to model the ideal, I would prefer a more formal (and consistent) point of view. Today's students struggle to create essays that don't include "you" or "I" -- even when they very consciously are trying to avoid those words. Learning to write from the third person POV is surprisingly challenging. Therefore, my personal preference would be a textbook that consistently models this approach.

The chapters in this book are of a perfect length -- long enough to develop the ideas and present comprehensive explanations yet short enough to be ingested and excised. Put another way, I could see grabbing bits and pieces of this text and using them in my classes. For instance, without adopting the entire text, I still could pull the instructions for the Anti-Thesis essay or the Annotated Bibliography, or I could use the explanation of the purpose of collaboration. Indeed, the chapters and exercises in this book are tight "modules" that allow an instructor to pick and choose or to reorganize the chapters to better fit with an individual course structure. For me, although I won't use this entire text, I can envision incorporating pieces of it into my teaching.

The organization of this book is one of its greatest strengths. It starts with a broad overview of research into an exploration of the process behind seeking out reputable sources, weaves in a few shorter essay assignments that serve as building blocks for a longer paper, and culminates with the ideas for a final, capstone research project -- something that naturally grows out of all the previous chapters. Each chapter in the text flows easily out of the chapter before it. One of this text's greatest strengths is how each successive chapter builds on the concepts presented in the previous chapters.

As noted earlier, the hyperlinks in the book don't work. As well, the screenshots included in the book are blurry and add little, except frustration, to the content. Outside of those issues, though, the book is physically easy to read and navigate, largely thanks to the easy clicking between the table of contents and individual chapters.

As suggested earlier, the book, as a whole, reads easily, yet there are some errors with the homonyms "effected" and "affected," along with pronoun/antecedent disagreement. I also noticed a handful of places where there are extra spaces around commas (in addition to the use of two spaces after periods).

This text is definitely not insensitive or offensive; its tone is fair and balanced, free of bias. On the other hand, this book does not really bring in examples that address diversity. Students reading this book will not see acknowledgment of different races, ethnicities, sexual preferences, or personal histories. Thus, in addition to updating the references to technology, if this book were rewritten, it also could more deliberately address this lack. As it is, the content of this book does feel whitewashed and free of cultural relevance.

There is a lot of promise in this text because the explanations and assignments are so good. But unless it is updated, I don’t see it as usable in a current classroom.

Reviewed by Leana Dickerson, Instructor , Linn Benton Community College on 2/8/17

The author certainly outlines and examines elements of research writing, and does so in a very clear, organized, and thoughtful way. There is no glossary or index included in the text, but the chapters and headings in the table of contents and at... read more

The author certainly outlines and examines elements of research writing, and does so in a very clear, organized, and thoughtful way. There is no glossary or index included in the text, but the chapters and headings in the table of contents and at the beginning of each section very clearly outline what is to be expected from the text. Most all of the concepts are very thoroughly explained and examined including topics that typically are glossed over in research writing texts, including the opposition to argument, close reading, and the importance of research writing to a variety of career pathways. Although thorough in what is present, there are some issues that I would want to touch on with my research students including developing effective argument, logical organization, and examples of the revision process.

The information in this text is accurate and adequately explained. It seems readily accessible for any college age student, but doesn’t expect students to come with a background in research or writing. MLA formatting for works cited pages is up to date, and even addresses the fact that the format for citation changes regularly and points to appropriate resources outside of the text. The only formatting issue that I noticed were some in-text citations (examples throughout early chapters) that included a comma which is no longer expected by the MLA. In the works cited section (and throughout, in examples) when referring to book titles, the author does use the underline function instead of an italicized book title; the author also refers to the use of either italic or underlined differentiation, yet MLA suggests italics in text form.

The content of this text is very straight forward and although essentially up to date, may need updates as relevant technology develops. Updates should be simple and clear to implement as needed because of the strict organization of each chapter.

I found the content clarity in this text to be refreshing for college age students. Often, as an instructor, I ask my students to read a text and then I must re-visit the content in lecture format to ensure that my students are not lost on terminology or foundational knowledge. This text does not assume any prior knowledge from the reader, but also does not feel rudimentary. The formatting and highlighted importance of some information also provided clarity and consistency throughout. The author paced information well, building on major concepts from the beginning and returning to them throughout. The final stages of the text bring students to a major essay that easily shows how each concept included throughout the text can weave into a larger project.

This text is consistent, and feels organized with format, terminology, and the building of content from beginning to end.

The sections in this text are easily broken into segments that can be taught or read at any point throughout the writing process. The text does build on exercises from the beginning to the end, but each of these can be taken out of a linear timeline and used for multiple kinds of projects. The author actually refers to this organization in text, making it clear how each element can work alone or for a streamlined project.

Concepts build upon one another, and yet can be returned to (or jumped to) out of order and still be easy to access and utilize. The text is broken up nicely with bolded, bulleted, or boxed items which designate a stopping point, a discussion to consider, or important details or concepts to focus on.

The layout and navigation of this text online is very accessible, organized, and easy to read. The text PDFs often open in a full browser window, other times they open as PDF documents, but either way include a clean, streamlined format. The text does not seem to be able to be downloaded, making it potentially difficult for students to access without internet access. One issue that I did encounter was that in PDF format, or in html, hyperlinks do not function.

The text is clear, free of grammatical errors, and flows well.

This text is relevant to all audiences and very approachable for college age students.

I found this text to be a refreshing change from what is typically find in research textbooks; it’s relevance to more than just the assignment will help students connect research to the broader concept of academia and other facets of their lives. The antithesis section is a useful way for students to really engage with an opposing opinion and how they can then incorporate that into a successful research project. Also, the differing ways of presenting research I found to be useful for students to think about their project beyond a stapled stack of pages, and to expand that to differing modes of communication and presentation. I look forward to being able to use this text with students.

Reviewed by Samuel Kessler, Postdoctoral Fellow, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University on 2/8/17

"The Process of Research Writing" covers most of the areas students need to understand as they begin research writing at a college level. It has explanations of theses, bibliographies, citations, outlines, first paragraphs, etc. There is no index... read more

"The Process of Research Writing" covers most of the areas students need to understand as they begin research writing at a college level. It has explanations of theses, bibliographies, citations, outlines, first paragraphs, etc. There is no index or glossary, the latter especially being something that would have been very helpful and easy to put together. Krause has many useful definitions and quick-help guides throughout the text, but they are so scattered and ineffectively labeled that it can be very difficult to find them without reading through whole chapters in one's search. On the whole, buried inside these pages, is a very effective guides to *teaching* about research writing. In truth, this book is a teacher's introduction to a class (or, more realistically, three or four class sessions) devoted to college-level academic writing. Unfortunately, there are a lot of words that one has to get through to find all these subject, which can make for tough going.

Based on the questions and errors I see my students making, Krause has done a strong job of highlighting the basics of proper academic research. He spends much time on sources, especially on learning to differentiate between scholarly, trade, and journalistic sources, as well as how to steer clear and note the signs of online schlock (i.e. much of the internet). His tips for peer-to-peer editing and self-reflexive assignments are just the sort of things our students needs help working on.

This is a strange book. The portions that are about implementing class assignments or explaining terms like thesis and antithesis, as well as the examples of an outline or a good first paragraph, are all excellent tools for a classroom.

But there are so many instances of irrelevant or outdates explanations. No college student today needs to read about why writing on a computer is a useful thing to do. No student needs to read about how email can be a tool for academic exchange. A section on using computers for research? On how to copy and paste within a word document? (And no-one calls it the "World Wide Web".) These are issues for the late 90s, not for students in the second decade of the twenty-first century.

There is also a fair amount that is personal and peculiar to the author: a discussion of why he uses the term "research essay" instead of "research paper"? That is just wasted space, and actually without the argumentative merits of a research thesis that he had been teaching up to that point.

For students at research universities, or even at second-tier state and private colleges, the information about libraries and library catalogues changes so quickly that I could never assign those passages. Instead, we'll spend class time looking at our specific library interface. And often, so much material is being sent off-site these days that in many humanities fields its not even possible to scan the shelves any longer. And in science, books are almost irrelevant: online access journals are where the latest research is stored. A bound edition of *Science* from the 1970s contains very little that's important for a scientific research paper written in 2016--unless that paper is about the history of some form of experiment.

Krause writes in a folksy, breezy second-person. Now, so does Tom Friedman of the Times, though that is one of the main criticisms of his otherwise insights books. Krause has a tendency to be overly wordy. This book should more closely resemble Hemingway than Knausgaard in order to be practical. For students who have Facebook etc. open while they're reading this book, every sentence that's not directly relevant will make their minds wander. There are so many sentences that simply need to be cut. To use this book, I'd need to cut and paste just the relevant passages. And without an index or glossary, assigning sections to students is very hard.

"The Process of Research Writing" is internally consistent. Krause maintains the same tone throughout, and defines terms as he goes along. The chapters vary considerably in length, with the short chapters always being more useful and focused, with less superfluous verbiage and fewer authorial quirks.

Modularity rating: 2

"The Process of Research Writing" is a very difficult text to use. The HTML and PDF versions are identical, which defeats the unique way the internet functions. I read this book on both Safari and Chrome, and in neither browser do the hyperlinks work. The tables of content at the heads of each chapter do not link to their respective sections. The projects, assignments, and definitions do not appear in different windows, which would make them possible to keep open while continuing on in the book. There are many instances in which moving back and forth between sections would be very helpful, and that is simply not possible without having multiple windows of the same book open and going between them that way--something that is very clumsy. And again, there are so many superfluous words that even assigning specific chapters means getting through a lot of talk before actually encountering the various hints, tricks, and explanations that are important for learning how to do college-level research.

"The Process of Research Writing" reads like a series of lectures that are meant to be give in a large lecture class, with assignments appended throughout and at the ends. The order of the books is, overall, what one would expect and need for teaching the basics. However, there is a good deal in Chapter 10 that should have appeared earlier (outlines, for instance), and that becomes part of one long chapter that is difficult to use and should have been divided into smaller sections.

As mentioned, in neither Safari nor Chrome do the hyperlinks work. And there appears to have been no planning for links from the chapter tables-of-content to their various associated sections. This makes it very difficult to get between sections or to return to where one was after going somewhere else in the book. Further, there are many links on the internet that remain stable over long periods of time. The Library of Congress, for instance, about which there is a section concerning its cataloguing system, should have a link. As should WorldCat, which for many people who do not have access to a major research library is the best place for learning about texts. Many services like LexusNexus, ABC Clio, and the NY Times archive all also maintain stable websites that should be externally linked.

Except for a smattering of typos, the book has fine (though informal) grammar. This is not a text that could also be used to demonstrate high-level academic writing.

There is nothing culturally offensive here in any way.

In many ways, this is a much better book for teachers of first-year students than for the students themselves. There are many sections of this book to pull out and assign, or to read together in class, to help students gain an understanding of college-level research. But this is not a book I'd ever assign to my students in total. The suggestions for in-class and homework assignments are all high quality pedagogy. But students shouldn't read about their own assignments--they should just do them. Departments can give this book to first-year professors to help them create class periods where they teach their students how to write papers. That would be an excellent use for this text. But as a book for students themselves, I cannot recommend it.

Reviewed by Margaret Wood, Instructor, Klamath Community College on 8/21/16

The book thoroughly covers the material that first-year college research writers need to know including an introduction to basic academic research concepts, searches and source evaluation from library and web resources, a thorough discussion of... read more

The book thoroughly covers the material that first-year college research writers need to know including an introduction to basic academic research concepts, searches and source evaluation from library and web resources, a thorough discussion of summary, paraphrase and direct quotation, collaboration and peer review, topic selection, hypothesis and thesis development, annotated bibliography, text analysis and evaluation, engaging seriously with opposing viewpoints, working with evidence and attributes of evidence, the components of a traditional research essay, alternative forms of presentation (web-based project), and finally MLA and APA documentation. There are also hyperlinks to help readers move to relevant information in other chapters.

While concepts like ethos, logos, and pathos are mentioned in passing, they are not deeply developed. Other topics I generally teach alongside research which are not covered include strategies for defining terms, inductive and deductive logic, and logical fallacies.

I did not identify any inaccuracies or biases. There are areas where focus may be a bit different. For example, the model my institution uses for annotated bibliographies uses the rhetorical precis as a summary model, and also encourages a brief evaluative analysis. On the other hand, the emphasis given to the antithesis is new to me, and looks like a very good idea. I did identify a couple of grammatical issues -- two cases of "effect" instead of "affect", and one pronoun agreement problem.

Good writing principles don't tend to change that much. The discussion of the Web-based research project is very timely.

The book is written in a conversational style which should be easy for students to understand. All technical terms are clearly explained. There are also aids for comprehension and review including: a useful bulleted list at the beginning of each chapter outlines material covered in that chapter; highlighted boxes which provide guidance for class discussion on the topic; sample assignments; easy-to-read checklists of key points.

The text is entirely consistent. Hyperlinks help to connect key points to other chapters.

The material is subdivided into clear and appropriate chapters; moreover, the chapters provide clear subheadings. However, I did identify one instance where subheadings indicated material that is not present in chapter four: Three Ideas for Collaborative Projects * Research Idea Groups * Research Writing Partners * Collaborative Research Writing Projects.

Also, as previously mentioned, some material that I would like to include is not covered in this text.

I feel that chapter 3 should be placed later, at a point in the term where students have actually begun the writing process.

Images, though used infrequently, are blurry, and hyperlinks, at least as I was able to access them, did not appear to be active.

Mentioned above -- two "effect"/"affect" issues and one issue of pronoun agreement

I did not identify any culturally insensitive issues. The one essay topic used throughout, a thesis involving The Great Gatsby, I did not find particularly relevant, since my institution excludes literature from its research projects.

Solid and thorough advice on research writing. Quite heavy on text, but advice is useful and frequently innovative.

Reviewed by Laura Sanders, Instructor, Portland Community College on 8/21/16

The text offers a comprehensive discussion of all the elements of writing a research project. The author covers evaluating sources, using library research, incorporating research into essays, collaborative work, creating a thesis, as well as... read more

The text offers a comprehensive discussion of all the elements of writing a research project.

The author covers evaluating sources, using library research, incorporating research into essays, collaborative work, creating a thesis, as well as writing annotated bibliographies, close reading, opposition, alternative project formats, and citing sources.

Although there is no index or glossary, the text is organized in discrete chapters available on the site as HTML or PDF for easy navigation.

Although I found no inaccuracies, both the APA and MLA handbooks have been updated since the versions used in this text.

Most of the content will not be obsolete any time soon, but the citation chapter is not based on recent APA and MLA handbooks.

The section on alternative ways to present research (Chapter 11) could be updated to include YouTube, Prezi, and more recent technology.

The modular format would make it very easy to update.

The text is written at a level that is appropriate for the target audience, college students who need to build research and writing skills.

This text is internally consistent.

I consider the modules to be one of the main strengths of the text. The sections have useful subheadings.

It would be easy to select specific chapters as course readings.

The chapters follow an intuitive sequence of developing a paper from topic to research to draft.

This text is easy to navigate.

I found no grammar errors.

There are ample opportunities here to add cultural diversity to the sample topics and writing tasks.

I am thrilled to offer this text to my students instead of the incredibly expensive alternatives currently available.

I am particularly interested in using this book for online writing courses, so students who desire more thorough discussion of particular stages of writing a research project could build or refresh foundational skills in these areas.

Table of Contents

• Introduction
• Chapter One: Thinking Critically About Research
• Chapter Two: Understanding and Using the Library and the Internet for Research
• Chapter Three: Quoting, Paraphrasing, and Avoiding Plagiarism
• Chapter Four: How to Collaborate and Write With Others
• Chapter Five: The Working Thesis Exercise
• Chapter Six: The Annotated Bibliography Exercise
• Chapter Seven: The Critique Exercise
• Chapter Eight: The Antithesis Exercise
• Chapter Nine: The Categorization and Evaluation Exercise
• Chapter Ten: The Research Essay
• Chapter Eleven: Alternative Ways to Present Your Research
• Chapter Twelve: Citing Your Research Using MLA or APA Style

Ancillary Material

About the book.

The title of this book is The Process of Research Writing , and in the nutshell, that is what the book is about. A lot of times, instructors and students tend to separate “thinking,” “researching,” and “writing” into different categories that aren't necessarily very well connected. First you think, then you research, and then you write. The reality is though that the possibilities and process of research writing are more complicated and much richer than that. We think about what it is we want to research and write about, but at the same time, we learn what to think based on our research and our writing. The goal of this book is to guide you through this process of research writing by emphasizing a series of exercises that touch on different and related parts of the research process.

About the Contributors

Steven D. Krause  grew up in eastern Iowa, earned a BA in English at the University of Iowa, an MFA in Fiction Writing at Virginia Commonwealth University, and a PhD in Rhetoric and Writing at Bowling Green State University. He joined the faculty at Eastern Michigan University in 1998.

Contribute to this Page

Reading and Writing for Understanding

• Posted July 21, 2005
• By Sarah O'Brien Mackey

Secondary school students can benefit enormously when teachers of all subjects integrate reading and writing strategies into their instruction, according to  Harvard Graduate School of Education Lecturer Vicki Jacobs . These strategies, typical of "reading and writing to learn" and "reading and writing across the curriculum," are problem-solving activities designed to help students move from simply knowing a fact to understanding a fact's significance. Helping students make that leap — from knowing to understanding — represents the very heart of the educational enterprise.

This summary is based on Jacobs' article, " Reading, Writing, and Understanding, " which appeared in the November 2002 edition of Educational Leadership .

Reading to Learn

Jacobs explains that students learn and practice beginning reading skills through about the third grade, building their knowledge about language and letter-sound relationships and developing fluency in their reading. Around fourth grade, students must begin to use these developing reading skills to learn — to make meaning, solve problems, and understanding something new. They need to comprehend what they read through a three-stage meaning-making process.

Stage One: Prereading

It's not uncommon for a struggling secondary reader to declare, "I read last night's homework, but I don't remember anything about it (let alone understand it)!" According to Jacobs, "How successfully students remember or understand the text depends, in part, on how explicitly teachers have prepared them to read it for clearly defined purposes."

During the prereading stage, teachers prepare students for their encounter with the text. They help students organize the background knowledge and experience they will use to solve the mystery of the text. To do so, they must understand the cultural and language-based contexts students bring to their reading, their previous successes or failures with the content, and general ability to read a particular kind of text. Based on this assessment, teachers can choose strategies that will serve as effective scaffolds between the students' "given" and the "new" of the text.

Asking such questions as, "What do I already know and what do I need to know before reading?" or "What do I think this passage will be about, given the headings, graphs, or pictures?" helps students anticipate the text, make personal connections with the text, and help to promote engagement and motivation. Brainstorming and graphic organizers also serve to strengthen students' vocabulary knowledge and study skills.

Stage Two: Guided Reading

Students move on to guided reading, during which they familiarize themselves with the surface meaning of the text and then probe it for deeper meaning. Effective guided-reading activities allow students to apply their background knowledge and experience to the "new." They provide students with means to revise predictions; search for tentative answers; gather, organize, analyze, and synthesize evidence; and begin to make assertions about their new understanding. Common guided-reading activities include response journals and collaborative work on open-ended problems. During guided reading, Jacobs recommends that teachers transform the factual questions that typically appear at the end of a chapter into questions that ask how or why the facts are important.

The ability to monitor one's own reading often distinguishes effective and struggling readers. Thus, guided-reading activities should provide students with the opportunity to reflect on the reading process itself — recording in a log how their background knowledge and experience influenced their understanding of text, identifying where they may have gotten lost during reading and why, and asking any questions they have about the text. As with prereading, guided-reading activities not only enhance comprehension but also promote vocabulary knowledge and study skills.

Stage Three: Postreading

During postreading, students test their understanding of the text by comparing it with that of their classmates. In doing so, they help one another revise and strengthen their arguments while reflecting and improving on their own.

Writing to Learn

Writing is often used as a means of evaluating students' understanding of a certain topic, but it is also a powerful tool for engaging students in the act of learning itself. Writing allows students to organize their thoughts and provides a means by which students can form and extend their thinking, thus deepening understanding. Like reading-to-learn, writing can be a meaning-making process.

Research suggests that the most effective way to improve students' writing is a process called inquiry. This process allows students to define and test what they would like to write before drafting. To help students prepare their arguments, teachers guide them through the three stages of writing-based inquiry:

• Stating specific, relevant details from personal experience;
• Proposing observations or interpretations of the text; and
• Testing these assertions by predicting and countering potential opposing arguments. Through inquiry, students discover and refine something worth writing about.

Writing-to-learn activities can include freewriting (writing, without editing, what comes to mind), narrative writing (drawing on personal experience), response writing (writing thoughts on a specific issue); loop writing (writing on one idea from different perspectives) and dialogue writing (for example, with an author or a character.) "Not surprisingly," writes Jacobs, "writing-to learn activities are also known as 'writing-to-read' strategies — means by which students can engage with text in order to understand it."

Reading, writing, and understanding

The relationship among reading, writing, and understanding is clear. Students engaged in reading-to-learn will also be prepared to write well. In turn, students who are engaged in writing-to-learn will become more effective readers. Through both approaches, students will gain a better understanding of material and a greater ability to demonstrate that understanding.

Staff Development

Jacobs recommends that teachers who are considering whether to implement reading-to-learn and writing-to-learn strategies into their classroom first define their own instructional goals. If teachers decide that their goals for students' learning include "understanding," then they might ask themselves such questions as, "What strategies do I use to prepare my students to read a text?" or "How explicitly do I share with students the purpose of an assignment?" As Jacobs sees it, "Only after teachers have examined whether teaching for understanding suits their instructional goals and after they have defined their role in facilitating understanding can they consider how the principles and practices of reading-to-learn and writing-to-learn might support their instruction."

For those teachers who decide that teaching for understanding does indeed suit their instructional goals, the framework offered in Jacobs' article can help them skillfully integrate reading-to-learn and writing-to-learn strategies across their instruction.

Usable Knowledge

Connecting education research to practice — with timely insights for educators, families, and communities

Related Articles

Word Generation at Work

The Bilingual Learner's Journey

A new lens on how teachers can support English-language learners by affirming their identities

The Applied Science of Learning

By aligning instruction with the science of learning, educators can to help their students better absorb lessons in the classroom

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Welcome to the Purdue Online Writing Lab

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

The Online Writing Lab at Purdue University houses writing resources and instructional material, and we provide these as a free service of the Writing Lab at Purdue. Students, members of the community, and users worldwide will find information to assist with many writing projects. Teachers and trainers may use this material for in-class and out-of-class instruction.

The Purdue On-Campus Writing Lab and Purdue Online Writing Lab assist clients in their development as writers—no matter what their skill level—with on-campus consultations, online participation, and community engagement. The Purdue Writing Lab serves the Purdue, West Lafayette, campus and coordinates with local literacy initiatives. The Purdue OWL offers global support through online reference materials and services.

A Message From the Assistant Director of Content Development 

The Purdue OWL® is committed to supporting  students, instructors, and writers by offering a wide range of resources that are developed and revised with them in mind. To do this, the OWL team is always exploring possibilties for a better design, allowing accessibility and user experience to guide our process. As the OWL undergoes some changes, we welcome your feedback and suggestions by email at any time.

Please don't hesitate to contact us via our contact page  if you have any questions or comments.

All the best,

Social Media

Facebook twitter.

The Science of Writing

research-based best practices for writing instruction

Title: The Blueprint of Effective Writing: The Power of Blocks in Your Writing Plan

Writing is an art form, and like any art, it requires a vision and a plan. Good writers don’t just sit down and hope for inspiration to strike; they begin with a plan. This plan is often hidden in plain sight, presented as a visual representation of their thoughts and ideas – these are known…

Embracing Growth Mindset in Writing: The Power of Pressto

Writing is a fundamental skill that goes beyond mere communication; it is a vehicle for self-expression, critical thinking, and personal growth. However, many students often find writing daunting, viewing it as a fixed skill rather than one that can be developed over time. This is where the concept of a growth mindset comes into play….

Mastering the Writing Process with Pressto: Nurturing Confident Writers through Scaffolded Instruction

Writing is more than just putting words on paper; it’s a process that involves careful planning, drafting, revising, and editing. While some individuals might possess a natural talent for crafting coherent and compelling pieces, most writers, whether beginners or experts, benefit from understanding and mastering the writing process. This is where effective instruction becomes essential,…

Inspiring Creativity and Motivation: Igniting the Passion for Writing with Pressto

Writing, at its core, is an art form that allows individuals to express their thoughts, emotions, and imaginations. Yet, motivating students to embrace this art with enthusiasm can sometimes be a challenge. Enter the world of inspiring and engaging writing experiences, where creativity flourishes, and motivation soars. In this blog post, we will delve into…

Unlocking Individualized Writing Instruction with Pressto: Nurturing Unique Student Abilities

In the realm of education, a one-size-fits-all approach seldom yields the best results. Each student is a unique individual with distinct strengths and areas of growth, especially when it comes to the intricate skill of writing. Recognizing and addressing these individual needs is paramount to fostering effective learning experiences. In this blog post, we will…

The Power of Explicit Writing Instruction: Enhancing Student Writing Skills

The Power of Explicit Writing Instruction: Enhancing Student Writing Skills Writing is an essential skill that empowers individuals to communicate effectively, express their ideas, and succeed in various academic and professional endeavors. However, mastering the art of writing requires more than just innate talent; it necessitates proper guidance, practice, and a structured approach. This is…

Writing and Identity: Exploring how writing contributes to the formation and expression of individual and group identities.

Writing is more than just a means of communication; it is a powerful tool that influences the formation and expression of our individual and group identities. As we put pen to paper or fingers to keyboard, we craft a narrative of who we are, where we come from, and what we believe in. In this…

Beyond Words: Unleashing the Power of Multimodality in Writing

In the digital age, writing has transcended the confines of pen and paper, embracing a multitude of communication modes. Multimodality in writing refers to the seamless integration of various media, such as images, audio, video, and interactive elements, to enhance meaning and engage audiences in new and exciting ways. In this blog post, we embark…

Pen and Culture: The Intricate Dance of Writing and Cultural Influence

Writing is more than just a tool for communication; it is a reflection of our culture and identity. Cultural factors play a significant role in shaping writing practices worldwide, influencing language diversity, setting norms, and establishing rich writing traditions. In this blog post, we will embark on a journey through the fascinating interplay between writing…

Title: Unlocking the Mind: The Fascinating Journey of Writing and Cognitive Development

Writing is a fundamental skill that plays a crucial role in communication, expression, and cognitive development. As individuals grow and mature, their writing skills evolve, reflecting the intricate interplay between cognitive processes and the written word. In this blog post, we will delve into the captivating world of writing and cognitive development, exploring how the…

A collection of TED Talks (and more) on the topic of Writing.

Video playlists about Writing

Incredibly soothing TED Talks

Great TED Talks to inspire fiction writing

How language changes over time

12 talks from authors

Talks about writing.

Will the real Fernando please stand up?

Why is William Faulkner so difficult to read?

How poetry unlocked my superpowers

The rise of the "trauma essay" in college applications

One of the most banned books of all time

One of the most "dangerous" men in American history

How to write the perfect crime, according to Agatha Christie

How Phillis Wheatley captured the attention of the world

How to write less but say more

The crime-fighting power of cross-border investigative journalism

The creativity and community behind fanfiction

How to make a sad story funny

How to challenge conventional wisdom -- and change any industry

Cheryl Strayed

Why should you read Toni Morrison's "Beloved"?

What happens when you die? A poetic inquiry

Exclusive articles about writing, how writing about difficult experiences can help you take back your power, 12 delightful, insightful quotes about reading, writing and storytelling, from ted talks, helpful advice for aspiring writers of all ages.

ENGL 2A: Critical Thinking and Writing (Negus)

• Start here: CTW Tutorial
• Find Background
• Find Books/eBooks
• Find Scholarly Articles
• Activity - 05.09.24

Getting Started with Databases

• Database List Here
• Where's the article??? (Find it @SCU)

Click Here to view all Databases

Multidisciplinary 

• Academic Search Complete   A multidisciplinary database providing access to more than 8,500 full-text periodicals, including more than 7,300 peer-reviewed journals. It also offers indexing and abstracts for more than 12,500 journals. Covers a wide range of academic topics including business, education, social sciences, humanities, science, & engineering. Coverage varies, with some publications going back to 1911.

Education & Psychology

Indexes and abstracts over 500 professional and scholarly education journals. Dates of coverage vary by title, but some go back to 1983. For 250 of the journals, full-text of the articles is provided, some back to 1994, but most for only the most recent 5 years.

Education Source  

This database will lead you to articles from more than 3,000 professional and scholarly education journals and magazines as well as some books and conference papers. The vast majority of sources are in English, but other countries and languages are represented. Dates of coverage vary wildly, but you could find something from as far back as 1929.

• APA PsycInfo  

Abstracts professional and scholarly psychology journals and book chapters, plus dissertations and technical reports. The coverage includes over 1300 journals in 27 languages from approximately 50 countries. 1887-present. Updated monthly.

• APA PsycArticles  

Provides access to more than 100 important journals in all subject areas relevant to psychology. Journals published by the American Psychological Association, the Canadian Psychological Association, and English language journals from Hogrefe Publishing are included. Most titles are covered from volume one to the present. Citations in PsycINFO have links to the full-text in PsycARTICLES.

Social Sciences Databases

Contains more than 1,800 full-text articles and over 14,000 abstracts from scholarly journals and dissertations in the social sciences such as criminal justice, education, language behavior, linguistics, political science, sociology, etc.

Indexes and abstracts articles at least one column in length from over 544 different English language periodicals in the social sciences, which includes anthropology, psychology, sociology, ethnic studies, political science, economics, geography, urban studies, and more. Fulltext of articles are available from about 175 of these periodicals. Indexing goes back to 1983. Abstracts began with January 1994. Fulltext availability varies title to title, but may go back to 1995. Updated daily. For indexing of articles appearing prior to 1983, use Humanities & Social Sciences Retrospective.

The most comprehensive resource for scholars studying mass media, communication theory, linguistics, organizational communication, rhetoric & discourse, phonetics, and speech pathology. It includes the full text of more than 600 publications (academic journals, conference papers, magazines, and periodicals). Coverage goes back to 1915.

Women & Gender Studies

GenderWatch enhances gender and women's studies, and gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) research by providing authoritative perspectives from 1970 to present. GenderWatch provides access to over 300 titles, with more than 250 in full-text, from an array of academic, radical, community and independent presses.

Contains all of the content available in LGBT Life as well as full text for more than 140 of the most important and historically significant LGBTQ+ journals, magazines and regional newspapers, plus full text for 150 monographs/books. The database includes comprehensive indexing and abstract coverage as well as a specialized LGBTQ+ Thesaurus containing over 10,000 terms.

The ultimate women's studies resource! Includes over 540,000 records drawn from a variety of essential women's studies databases. 1972-present.

Ethnic Studies

A collection of three full-text databases, namely GenderWatch, Ethnic NewsWatch, and Alt-PressWatch. GenderWatch enhances gender and women's studies, and gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) research by providing authoritative perspectives from 1970 to present. GenderWatch provides access to over 300 titles, with more than 250 in full-text, from an array of academic, radical, community and independent presses. Ethnic NewsWatch is a comprehensive full-text database of the newspapers, magazines, journals and newsletters of the ethnic, minority and native presses as well as many journals concerned with issues of race and ethnicity, with archival material back to 1985. Alt-PressWatch includes over 1.5M articles from more than 300 small sources including unique, independent voices from respected and cited grassroots newspapers, magazines, and journals covering the arts and all viewpoints across the social and political spectrum from 1970 to present.

Political Science and Public Policy

Political Science Complete contains full-text for more than 520 journals and indexing & abstracts for over 2,900 titles, including top-ranked scholarly journals. The database has a worldwide focus, reflecting the globalization of contemporary political discourse. The database also features over 340 full-text reference books and monographs and over 36,000 full-text conference papers. The subject specific thesaurus contains over 17,500 terms to aid researchers.

Contains information on many health topics including the medical sciences, food sciences and nutrition, childcare, sports medicine and general health. Indexing, abstracts and full-text of around 600 journals covering nursing and allied health subjects. 1975-present. Updated daily.

Includes MedLine. The National Library of Medicine's bibliographic database. It includes such topics as microbiology, delivery of health care, nutrition, pharmacology, and environment health. 1966-present. Click  here  for our PubMed Quick Guide.

Computer Science 

O'Reilly for Higher Education

• O'Reilly includes technical and business content from more than 250 publishers. Additionally, videos, case studies, interactive tutorials, audio books, and self-assessments are provided. 

Science 

Applied Science & Technology Source   

• Provides full text for over 1,400 journals. Additionally provides indexing and abstracts for thousands of academic journals, professional publications, and other sources. Has comprehensive coverage for a variety of applied science and technology specialties such as applied mathematics, energy resources & research, biomedical materials, robotics, and other sci-tech applications.

ScienceDirect

• SCU receives 400+ ScienceDirect online journals from the publisher Elsevier. SCU's ScienceDirect journals are marked by green icons. Most are full-text. Dates covered: 1995-present. Elsevier journals focus on science, techno
• JSTOR This link opens in a new window Provides image and full-text online access to back issues of selected scholarly journals in history, economics, political science, demography, mathematics, biology, and other fields of the humanities, social sciences, and life sciences. Consult the online tables of contents for holdings, as coverage varies for each title. Updated monthly.
• GreenFILE This link opens in a new window A multidisciplinary environmental database that includes scholarly, government, and general-interest titles on global warming, sustainable agriculture, renewable energy, recycling, green building, and more. Mostly abstracts with some full text.
• Business Source Complete This link opens in a new window 1,700 full-text, peer-reviewed journals. 1,600 business trade and general business publications. Additional full-text non-journal content includes financial data, books, monographs, major reference works, conference proceedings, case studies, investment research reports, industry reports, market research reports, country reports, company profiles, SWOT analyses, faculty seminars (video) and more

InterLibrary Loan

If you are unable to view the PDF of the article. You can submit an InterLibrary Loan Request. Our staff will find the article (within 3 days) and email you when the PDF is ready to be viewed! 

Click here to learn more 

• << Previous: Find Books/eBooks
• Next: Activity - 05.09.24 >>
• Last Updated: May 9, 2024 9:48 PM
• URL: https://libguides.scu.edu/Negus_sp24

Research and Writing Jumpstart

From Tue May 28–Fri, May 31, enjoy morning (10-noon) and/or afternoon (1-3) sessions dedicated to research and writing, available both in-person and via Zoom. Can’t make all 4 days or stay all day? You are still welcome!

Posted in: Research

Brief breaks to share highlights will increase focus and help us all benefit from the sense of being together in the challenge of research and writing. Our program culminates in a hybrid gathering at the week’s end, with lunch provided for in-person participants, providing a valuable chance for participants to share their progress and insights.

As part of the program, we will invite registrants to complete a brief intention-setting worksheet that we will review; in addition, we will offer short 1-1 coaching sessions. Don’t miss this opportunity to advance your research in a supportive, collaborative environment. Coffee and tea will be available throughout the day in the OFE Office.

Daily schedule: 10-12: Morning writing session

12-1: Lunch break 

1-3: Afternoon writing session

Can’t make all 4 days? You are still welcome! Can’t stay all day? You are still welcome!

• University Statistics
• University Leadership
• Events & Venues
• University Strategic Plan
• Bethlehem & the Lehigh Valley
• Maps & Directions
• Diversity, Inclusion & Equity
• COVID-19 Information Center

• Undergraduate Studies
• Majors & Undergraduate Programs
• Graduate Studies
• Interdisciplinary Studies
• Entrepreneurship and Innovation
• Creative Inquiry
• Continuing Education
• Provost & Academic Affairs
• International
• University Catalog
• Summer Programs

Our Colleges:

• College of Arts and Sciences
• College of Business
• College of Education
• College of Health
• P.C. Rossin College of Engineering and Applied Science

• Research Institutes & Centers
• Student Research Experience
• Office of Research
• Graduate Education & Life

• Undergraduate Admissions
• Apply to Lehigh
• Visits & Tours
• Tuition, Aid & Affording College
• Admission Statistics
• Majors & Programs
• Job Placement Success & Postgraduate Education
• Lehigh Launch
• Contact Us & Admissions Counselors

Information for:

• Transfer Students
• International Students
• School Counselors
• Graduate Admissions

Student Life

• Arts & Athletics
• Clubs & Organizations
• Housing & Dining
• Advocacy Centers
• Student Health & Campus Safety
• Student Support & Transition to College

• Prospective Student Athletes
• Radio & TV Broadcasts
• Camps & Clinics
• Venues & Directions
• Campus Athletics

• GO Beyond: The Campaign for Future Makers
• Ways to Give

• Students, Faculty & Staff

Writing for Lehigh’s Student Newspaper & Online Site

As an incoming first-year student, I knew I wanted to be a journalism major, as my academic strengths have always been in writing, editing and reading. What I didn’t know was that I would be required to write for Lehigh University’s student-run publication,  The Brown & White , for four semesters.

The first semester I registered to be a staff reporter was in the spring of my first year, and I was thrown into the deep end. 

My first assignment after being evaluated and placed on the sports beat was to watch a live-streamed men’s basketball game against Rutgers University and write a “gamer,” or a play-by-play story.  It had to be completed within an hour or two after the game’s conclusion and had to include three interviews. This would have been intimidating even if I attended the game in person and was able to ask questions to people around me, but, with the COVID-19 restrictions still in place in January 2021, no student reporters were allowed at university sporting events. Plus, I’m not even a basketball fan nor did I know the sporty jargon used in other sports articles. I felt I was in over my head.

Luckily, I had a very supportive editor and deputy editor who connected me with a staff member physically at the game who would be able to not only answer my questions and be a source but would speak to certain well-performing players after the game and ask them questions on my behalf, too.

The article was completed, and while it may not have been my best work and required significant editing by the managing editors, seeing my byline for the first time on a printed story was a feeling that still has not gotten old, four semesters and more than 20 published pieces later.

Since then, I have served as associate audience editor and reported bi-weekly story engagement statistics on the online posts to the entire reporting staff, and as the deputy sports editor, working alongside the sports editor and editor-in-chief in proposing, assigning and editing articles for more than 10 reporters and associates. 

Being a deputy editor was my favorite Brown & White experience, and I would recommend working in a position of administration to any reporter who finds pleasure in organizing, delegating and the periodic chasing down of a reporter who did not appropriately attribute information or a quote in a story.

My final semester as a reporter is coming to an end, along with my college career. I find myself reflecting back on my time at Lehigh very frequently. Each time, I wind up ruminating on how important being a writer for our school-run newspaper and website has been to me and how much I’ll cherish the memories, connections, skills and confidence I’ve gained since that January night I was sweating it out in front of a Lehigh vs. Rutgers live stream on my laptop.

• MyAucklandUni
• Student Services Online
• Class search
• Student email
• Change my password
• MyCDES+ (job board)
• Course outlines
• Learning essentials
• Libraries and Learning Services
• Forms, policies and guidelines
• New students
• Enrol in courses
• Campus card
• Postgraduate students
• Summer school
• AskAuckland
• Student Hubs
• Student IT Hub
• Student Health and Counselling
• Harassment, bullying, sexual assault and other violence
• Complaints and incidents
• Career Development and Employability Services (CDES)
• Ratonga Hauātanga Tauira | Student Disability Services (SDS)
• Rainbow support
• Covid-19 information for our community
• Emergency information
• Report concerns, incidents and hazards
• Health and safety topics
• Staff email
• Staff intranet
• ResearchHub
• PeopleSoft HR
• Forms register
• Careers at the University
• Education Office
• Early childhood centres
• University Calendar
• Opportunities
• Update your details
• Make a donation
• Publications
• Photo galleries
• Video and audio
• Career services
• Virtual Book Club
• Library services
• Alumni benefits
• Office contact details
• Alumni and friends on social media
• No events scheduled for today You have no more events scheduled for today
• Next event:
• Show {0} earlier events Show {0} earlier event
• Event_Time Event_Name Event_Description
• My Library Account
• Change Password
• Edit Profile
• My GPA Grade Point Average About your GPA GPA not available Why can't I see my GPA?
• My Progress
• Points Required Completed points My Progress Progress not available All done!
• Student hubs
• Health and counselling
• All support
• Health, safety and well-being

Breadcrumbs List.

• News and opinion

Joining in The Conversation

10 May 2024

Liggins Institute , Auckland Bioengineering Institute , Business School , Auckland Law School , Faculty of Arts , Faculty of Education and Social Work

Wanting to get your research to a mainstream audience in Aotearoa NZ and overseas? There’s a not-for-profit news platform that can help.

The Conversation, a collaboration between academics and journalists to publish research-based news and analysis, is looking for more University of Auckland academics to write for the platform.

Around 50 people attended a workshop this week on how to contribute, with The Conversation's editors urging more academics to join.

The Conversation has a monthly audience of 18 million users and a reach of 42 million through  republication, according to its website.

Established at the University of Melbourne in 2011, it has grown to include local teams in about a dozen countries, from the US and Canada to Brazil, Indonesia, Spain and the UK. The University of Auckland is one of approximately 180 international universities and research institutes affiliated with The Conversation.

There are three editors in New Zealand - journalism and communications expert Debrin Foxcroft, former book publisher and  Listener editor Finlay Macdonald, and microbiologist-turned science journalist (RNZ, the Listener, New Scientist and others) Veronika Meduna.

Finlay and Veronika presented at the recent workshop, a partnership between the School of Population Health and the University's central communications team.

You can’t be misquoted; you have control and that’s particularly important when writing about sensitive and topical issues, or complicated research.

Finlay Macdonald The Conversation

Cut to the chase: Read our eight-step guide for writing for The Conversation at the end of this article.

About half of The Conversation’s New Zealand edition readers are overseas, Veronika told workshop attendees, giving University of Auckland academics the chance to disseminate research – and research-backed news analysis – to an educated but non-specialist audience.

All the articles are free to read and available for republication online or in print.

Finlay says as a journalist, he often rang experts for comment on topics of interest.

“In a way, we are cutting out the middleman and going directly to the expert. One benefit for an academic wanting to write for The Conversation is you are in charge of what is published and able to approve the final version.”

We are guided by a clear purpose: to provide access to the sort of quality explanatory journalism essential for a healthy democracy.

“You can’t be misquoted; you have control and that’s particularly important when writing about sensitive and topical issues, or complicated research.

”On the other hand, academics can find it tough to write for a mainstream audience, using conversational language and avoiding jargon.

“We publish ‘journalism’, not ‘journal - ism’,” Finlay says.

Many news organisations talk about pitching your writing so a 12-year-old can understand, he says; The Conversation is probably targeting someone 16 or over. 

Veronika says the most important thing for academics to consider when thinking about pitching a story idea to The Conversation is that the most impactful and interesting angle needs to be right at the top of the story. Sometimes that can be hard, particularly at first, which is why the publication’s editors work alongside academics.

“If you match university thoughtfulness with seasoned journalists, magic happens.”

Getting started – Our eight-step guide to writing for The Conversation

1) Sign up as an author . You need to be employed as an academic, researcher or be a PhD candidate under supervision by an academic

2) Read other articles on The Conversation site to get familiar with their style

3) Send a pitch for your story, using their template . The template is geared to help you structure your story in a journalistic (rather than an academic) way

4) The editors may accept or reject your initial story idea, or may ask for more information or a different angle. Do not feel dejected if they don’t accept your first draft or your first story idea. Rework your pitch or send another idea. Veronika says she accepts around 70 percent of science/health/environment-related pitches, sometimes after re-working

5) Write your first draft using The Conversation template, then you will work with one of the editors to hone your article

6) Fill out the disclosure form. Disclosing relevant information may not change your eligibility to get published

7) Send any images you have to your editor

8) Once the article is ready, you will be asked to press the button for final approval before publication.

NOTE: The default for comments on articles is OFF because of trolls (abusive users). If you want people to be able to comment on your article, you can choose to open comments.

For more information:

Nikki Mandow | Research communications M: 021 174 3142 E:  nikki.mandow@auckland.ac.nz

Thousands Believe Covid Vaccines Harmed Them. Is Anyone Listening?

All vaccines have at least occasional side effects. But people who say they were injured by Covid vaccines believe their cases have been ignored.

Shaun Barcavage, 54, a nurse practitioner in New York City, said that ever since his first Covid shot, standing up has sent his heart racing. Credit... Hannah Yoon for The New York Times

Supported by

• Share full article

By Apoorva Mandavilli

Apoorva Mandavilli spent more than a year talking to dozens of experts in vaccine science, policymakers and people who said they had experienced serious side effects after receiving a Covid-19 vaccine.

• Published May 3, 2024 Updated May 4, 2024

Within minutes of getting the Johnson & Johnson Covid-19 vaccine, Michelle Zimmerman felt pain racing from her left arm up to her ear and down to her fingertips. Within days, she was unbearably sensitive to light and struggled to remember simple facts.

She was 37, with a Ph.D. in neuroscience, and until then could ride her bicycle 20 miles, teach a dance class and give a lecture on artificial intelligence, all in the same day. Now, more than three years later, she lives with her parents. Eventually diagnosed with brain damage, she cannot work, drive or even stand for long periods of time.

“When I let myself think about the devastation of what this has done to my life, and how much I’ve lost, sometimes it feels even too hard to comprehend,” said Dr. Zimmerman, who believes her injury is due to a contaminated vaccine batch .

The Covid vaccines, a triumph of science and public health, are estimated to have prevented millions of hospitalizations and deaths . Yet even the best vaccines produce rare but serious side effects . And the Covid vaccines have been given to more than 270 million people in the United States, in nearly 677 million doses .

Dr. Zimmerman’s account is among the more harrowing, but thousands of Americans believe they suffered serious side effects following Covid vaccination. As of April, just over 13,000 vaccine-injury compensation claims have been filed with the federal government — but to little avail. Only 19 percent have been reviewed. Only 47 of those were deemed eligible for compensation, and only 12 have been paid out, at an average of about $3,600 .

Some scientists fear that patients with real injuries are being denied help and believe that more needs to be done to clarify the possible risks.

“At least long Covid has been somewhat recognized,” said Akiko Iwasaki, an immunologist and vaccine expert at Yale University. But people who say they have post-vaccination injuries are “just completely ignored and dismissed and gaslighted,” she added.

In interviews and email exchanges conducted over several months, federal health officials insisted that serious side effects were extremely rare and that their surveillance efforts were more than sufficient to detect patterns of adverse events.

“Hundreds of millions of people in the United States have safely received Covid vaccines under the most intense safety monitoring in U.S. history,” Jeff Nesbit, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said in an emailed statement.

But in a recent interview, Dr. Janet Woodcock, a longtime leader of the Food and Drug Administration, who retired in February, said she believed that some recipients had experienced uncommon but “serious” and “life-changing” reactions beyond those described by federal agencies.

“I feel bad for those people,” said Dr. Woodcock, who became the F.D.A.’s acting commissioner in January 2021 as the vaccines were rolling out. “I believe their suffering should be acknowledged, that they have real problems, and they should be taken seriously.”

“I’m disappointed in myself,” she added. “I did a lot of things I feel very good about, but this is one of the few things I feel I just didn’t bring it home.”

Federal officials and independent scientists face a number of challenges in identifying potential vaccine side effects.

The nation’s fragmented health care system complicates detection of very rare side effects, a process that depends on an analysis of huge amounts of data. That’s a difficult task when a patient may be tested for Covid at Walgreens, get vaccinated at CVS, go to a local clinic for minor ailments and seek care at a hospital for serious conditions. Each place may rely on different health record systems.

There is no central repository of vaccine recipients, nor of medical records, and no easy to way to pool these data. Reports to the largest federal database of so-called adverse events can be made by anyone, about anything. It’s not even clear what officials should be looking for.

“I mean, you’re not going to find ‘brain fog’ in the medical record or claims data, and so then you’re not going to find” a signal that it may be linked to vaccination, Dr. Woodcock said. If such a side effect is not acknowledged by federal officials, “it’s because it doesn’t have a good research definition,” she added. “It isn’t, like, malevolence on their part.”

The government’s understaffed compensation fund has paid so little because it officially recognizes few side effects for Covid vaccines. And vaccine supporters, including federal officials, worry that even a whisper of possible side effects feeds into misinformation spread by a vitriolic anti-vaccine movement.

‘I’m Not Real’

Patients who believe they experienced serious side effects say they have received little support or acknowledgment.

Shaun Barcavage, 54, a nurse practitioner in New York City who has worked on clinical trials for H.I.V. and Covid, said that ever since his first Covid shot, merely standing up sent his heart racing — a symptom suggestive of postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome , a neurological disorder that some studies have linked to both Covid and, much less often, vaccination .

He also experienced stinging pain in his eyes, mouth and genitals, which has abated, and tinnitus, which has not.

“I can’t get the government to help me,” Mr. Barcavage said of his fruitless pleas to federal agencies and elected representatives. “I am told I’m not real. I’m told I’m rare. I’m told I’m coincidence.”

Renee France, 49, a physical therapist in Seattle, developed Bell’s palsy — a form of facial paralysis, usually temporary — and a dramatic rash that neatly bisected her face. Bell’s palsy is a known side effect of other vaccines, and it has been linked to Covid vaccination in some studies.

But Dr. France said doctors were dismissive of any connection to the Covid vaccines. The rash, a bout of shingles, debilitated her for three weeks, so Dr. France reported it to federal databases twice.

“I thought for sure someone would reach out, but no one ever did,” she said.

Similar sentiments were echoed in interviews, conducted over more than a year, with 30 people who said they had been harmed by Covid shots. They described a variety of symptoms following vaccination, some neurological, some autoimmune, some cardiovascular.

All said they had been turned away by physicians, told their symptoms were psychosomatic, or labeled anti-vaccine by family and friends — despite the fact that they supported vaccines.

Even leading experts in vaccine science have run up against disbelief and ambivalence.

Dr. Gregory Poland, 68, editor in chief of the journal Vaccine, said that a loud whooshing sound in his ears had accompanied every moment since his first shot, but that his entreaties to colleagues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to explore the phenomenon, tinnitus, had led nowhere.

He received polite responses to his many emails, but “I just don’t get any sense of movement,” he said.

“If they have done studies, those studies should be published,” Dr. Poland added. In despair that he might “never hear silence again,” he has sought solace in meditation and his religious faith.

Dr. Buddy Creech, 50, who led several Covid vaccine trials at Vanderbilt University, said his tinnitus and racing heart lasted about a week after each shot. “It’s very similar to what I experienced during acute Covid, back in March of 2020,” Dr. Creech said.

Research may ultimately find that most reported side effects are unrelated to the vaccine, he acknowledged. Many can be caused by Covid itself.

“Regardless, when our patients experience a side effect that may or may not be related to the vaccine, we owe it to them to investigate that as completely as we can,” Dr. Creech said.

Federal health officials say they do not believe that the Covid vaccines caused the illnesses described by patients like Mr. Barcavage, Dr. Zimmerman and Dr. France. The vaccines may cause transient reactions, such as swelling, fatigue and fever, according to the C.D.C., but the agency has documented only four serious but rare side effects .

Two are associated with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, which is no longer available in the United States: Guillain-Barré syndrome , a known side effect of other vaccines , including the flu shot; and a blood-clotting disorder.

The C.D.C. also links mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna to heart inflammation, or myocarditis, especially in boys and young men. And the agency warns of anaphylaxis, or severe allergic reaction, which can occur after any vaccination.

Listening for Signals

Agency scientists are monitoring large databases containing medical information on millions of Americans for patterns that might suggest a hitherto unknown side effect of vaccination, said Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, director of the C.D.C.’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

“We toe the line by reporting the signals that we think are real signals and reporting them as soon as we identify them as signals,” he said. The agency’s systems for monitoring vaccine safety are “pretty close” to ideal, he said.

Those national surveillance efforts include the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). It is the largest database, but also the least reliable: Reports of side effects can be submitted by anyone and are not vetted, so they may be subject to bias or manipulation.

The system contains roughly one million reports regarding Covid vaccination, the vast majority for mild events, according to the C.D.C.

Federal researchers also comb through databases that combine electronic health records and insurance claims on tens of millions of Americans. The scientists monitor the data for 23 conditions that may occur following Covid vaccination. Officials remain alert to others that may pop up, Dr. Daskalakis said.

But there are gaps, some experts noted. The Covid shots administered at mass vaccination sites were not recorded in insurance claims databases, for example, and medical records in the United States are not centralized.

“It’s harder to see signals when you have so many people, and things are happening in different parts of the country, and they’re not all collected in the same system,” said Rebecca Chandler, a vaccine safety expert at the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations.

An expert panel convened by the National Academies concluded in April that for the vast majority of side effects, there was not enough data to accept or reject a link.

Asked at a recent congressional hearing whether the nation’s vaccine-safety surveillance was sufficient, Dr. Peter Marks, director of the F.D.A.’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said, “I do believe we could do better.”

In some countries with centralized health care systems, officials have actively sought out reports of serious side effects of Covid vaccines and reached conclusions that U.S. health authorities have not.

In Hong Kong, the government analyzed centralized medical records of patients after vaccination and paid people to come forward with problems. The strategy identified “a lot of mild cases that other countries would not otherwise pick up,” said Ian Wong, a researcher at the University of Hong Kong who led the nation’s vaccine safety efforts.

That included the finding that in rare instances — about seven per million doses — the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine triggered a bout of shingles serious enough to require hospitalization.

The European Medicines Agency has linked the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines to facial paralysis, tingling sensations and numbness. The E.M.A. also counts tinnitus as a side effect of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, although the American health agencies do not. There are more than 17,000 reports of tinnitus following Covid vaccination in VAERS.

Are the two linked? It’s not clear. As many as one in four adults has some form of tinnitus. Stress, anxiety, grief and aging can lead to the condition, as can infections like Covid itself and the flu.

There is no test or scan for tinnitus, and scientists cannot easily study it because the inner ear is tiny, delicate and encased in bone, said Dr. Konstantina Stankovic, an otolaryngologist at Stanford University.

Still, an analysis of health records from nearly 2.6 million people in the United States found that about 0.04 percent , or about 1,000, were diagnosed with tinnitus within three weeks of their first mRNA shot. In March, researchers in Australia published a study linking tinnitus and vertigo to the vaccines .

The F.D.A. is monitoring reports of tinnitus, but “at this time, the available evidence does not suggest a causal association with the Covid-19 vaccines,” the agency said in a statement.

Despite surveillance efforts, U.S. officials were not the first to identify a significant Covid vaccine side effect: myocarditis in young people receiving mRNA vaccines. It was Israeli authorities who first raised the alarm in April 2021. Officials in the United States said at the time that they had not seen a link.

On May 22, 2021, news broke that the C.D.C. was investigating a “relatively few” cases of myocarditis. By June 23, the number of myocarditis reports in VAERS had risen to more than 1,200 — a hint that it is important to tell doctors and patients what to look for.

Later analyses showed that the risk for myocarditis and pericarditis, a related condition, is highest after a second dose of an mRNA Covid vaccine in adolescent males aged 12 to 17 years.

In many people, vaccine-related myocarditis is transient. But some patients continue to experience pain, breathlessness and depression, and some show persistent changes on heart scans . The C.D.C. has said there were no confirmed deaths related to myocarditis, but in fact there have been several accounts of deaths reported post-vaccination .

Pervasive Misinformation

The rise of the anti-vaccine movement has made it difficult for scientists, in and out of government, to candidly address potential side effects, some experts said. Much of the narrative on the purported dangers of Covid vaccines is patently false, or at least exaggerated, cooked up by savvy anti-vaccine campaigns.

Questions about Covid vaccine safety are core to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s presidential campaign. Citing debunked theories about altered DNA, Florida’s surgeon general has called for a halt to Covid vaccination in the state.

“The sheer nature of misinformation, the scale of misinformation, is staggering, and anything will be twisted to make it seem like it’s not just a devastating side effect but proof of a massive cover-up,” said Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, a vice dean at Johns Hopkins University.

Among the hundreds of millions of Americans who were immunized for Covid, some number would have had heart attacks or strokes anyway. Some women would have miscarried. How to distinguish those caused by the vaccine from those that are coincidences? The only way to resolve the question is intense research .

But the National Institutes of Health is conducting virtually no studies on Covid vaccine safety, several experts noted. William Murphy, a cancer researcher who worked at the N.I.H. for 12 years, has been prodding federal health officials to initiate these studies since 2021.

The officials each responded with “that very tired mantra: ‘But the virus is worse,’” Dr. Murphy recalled. “Yes, the virus is worse, but that doesn’t obviate doing research to make sure that there may be other options.”

A deeper understanding of possible side effects, and who is at risk for them, could have implications for the design of future vaccines, or may indicate that for some young and healthy people, the benefit of Covid shots may no longer outweigh the risks — as some European countries have determined.

Thorough research might also speed assistance to thousands of Americans who say they were injured.

The federal government has long run the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program , designed to compensate people who suffer injuries after vaccination. Established more than three decades ago, the program sets no limit on the amounts awarded to people found to have been harmed.

But Covid vaccines are not covered by that fund because Congress has not made them subject to the excise tax that pays for it. Some lawmakers have introduced bills to make the change.

Instead, claims regarding Covid vaccines go to the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program . Intended for public health emergencies, this program has narrow criteria to pay out and sets a limit of $50,000, with stringent standards of proof.

It requires applicants to prove within a year of the injury that it was “the direct result” of getting the Covid vaccine, based on “compelling, reliable, valid, medical, and scientific evidence.”

The program had only four staff members at the beginning of the pandemic, and now has 35 people evaluating claims. Still, it has reviewed only a fraction of the 13,000 claims filed, and has paid out only a dozen.

Dr. Ilka Warshawsky, a 58-year-old pathologist, said she lost all hearing in her right ear after a Covid booster shot. But hearing loss is not a recognized side effect of Covid vaccination.

The compensation program for Covid vaccines sets a high bar for proof, she said, yet offers little information on how to meet it: “These adverse events can be debilitating and life-altering, and so it’s very upsetting that they’re not acknowledged or addressed.”

Dr. Zimmerman, the neuroscientist, submitted her application in October 2021 and provided dozens of supporting medical documents. She received a claim number only in January 2023.

In adjudicating her claim for workers’ compensation, Washington State officials accepted that Covid vaccination caused her injury, but she has yet to get a decision from the federal program.

One of her therapists recently told her she might never be able to live independently again.

“That felt like a devastating blow,” Dr. Zimmerman said. “But I’m trying not to lose hope there will someday be a treatment and a way to cover it.”

Apoorva Mandavilli is a reporter focused on science and global health. She was a part of the team that won the 2021 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service for coverage of the pandemic. More about Apoorva Mandavilli

Advertisement