The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Process of Building the Abstract of a Paper in the Context of a Writing Workshop for PhDs
Open accessAbstract
Current studies agree on the need of training university students in various competences. Among them, writing stands out as an essential competence. This study analyzes the abstract produced by Spanish PhD candidates in the context of an academic writing workshop. These abstracts were rewritten as a result of peers’ and supervisors’ reviews. The purpose is to analyze the construction of this type of text in relation to its content categories. The results attest a series of challenges faced by students and help teachers in the design of their teaching instruction.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
There is a pervasive inability among students to provide insightful peer feedback, consistently noted across diverse educational contexts including undergraduate and graduate students.
“This underscores a pervasive inability among students to provide insightful peer feedback, a challenge that has been consistently noted across diverse educational contexts, encompassing undergraduate and graduate students at various stages of their academic journey (Álvarez et al., 2015; Gumusoglu et al., 2022).”
From Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Álvarez et al., 2015
Deficiency in providing constructive feedback can engender a lack of trust among students in receiving constructive feedback from peers, impairing engagement and reducing efficacy of peer feedback.
“This deficiency has the potential to engender a lack of trust among students in receiving constructive feedback from their peers (Jurkowski, 2018; Pugh and Veitch, 2019), ultimately impairing their engagement and reducing the efficacy of the peer feedback practice (Álvarez et al., 2015; Jurkowski, 2018).”
From Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Álvarez et al., 2015
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 14
- Álvarez, M. (2012). La relevancia de las competencias comunicativas en la formación del estudiante universitario y retos que plantea. In M. Acillona, Marcos interpretativos de la realidad social contemporánea (pp. 29-41). Bilbao: Publicaciones de la Universidad de Deusto.
- Bessonnat, D. (2000). Deux ou trois choses que je sais de la réécriture. Pratiques, 105-106, 5-22. · DOI
- Carlino, 2008, Revisión entre pares en la formación de posgrado, Lectura y vida, XXIX, 20
- Castelló, M. (2008). Usos estratégicos de la lengua en la universidad. Tácticas de regulación de la escritura en estudiantes de doctorado. In A. Camps, & M. Milian, Miradas y voces. Investigación sobre la educación lingüística y literaria en entornos plurilingües (pp. 75-90). Barcelona: Graó.
- Corcelles, 2013, Enseñar a escribir textos científico-académicos mediante la revisión colaborativa: El trabajo final de grado en Psicología, REDU: Revista de docencia universitaria, XI, 79, 10.4995/redu.2013.5593 · DOI
- Duo de Brottier, O. (2005). La ponencia y el resumen de ponencia. In L. Cubo de Severino, Los textos de la ciencia (pp. 113-150). Córdoba: Comunicarte.
- Ezeiza, J. (2008). Las competencias comunicativo-lingüísticas de tipo disciplinar: perfiles profesionales y recursos para su desarrollo en el nuevo EEES. Actas del XXXVII Simposio Internacional de la Sociedad Española de Lingüística, (pp. 131-144). Servicio de publicaciones de la Universidad de Navarra. .
- Freedman, 1992, Outside-in and inside-out: Peer response groups in two ninth-grade classes, Research in the Teaching of English, XXVI, 71, 10.58680/rte199215449 · DOI
- García, 2004, Intervención en estrategias de revisión del mensaje escrito, Psicothema, XVI, 194
- Otañi, I. (2005). El resumen o abstract del artículo de investigación en español:características retórico-lingüísticas. In G. Vázquez, Español con fines académicos: de la comprensión a la producción de textos (pp. 45-73). Madrid: Edinumen.
- Prestinoni de Bellora, C. & Girotti, E. (2005). El resumen o abstract. In L. Cubo de Severino, Los textos de la ciencia (pp. 93-111). Córdoba: Comunicarte.
- Sabaj, 2009, Descubriendo algunos problemas en la redacción de Artículos de Investigación Científica (AIC) de alumnos de postgrado, Revista Signos, XXXXII, 107
- Topping, 1998, Peer Assessment between Students in Colleges and Universities, Review of Educational Research, LXVIII, 249, 10.3102/00346543068003249 · DOI · Paper page
- Vargas, 2005, Escribir en la Universidad: reflexiones sobre el proceso de composición escrita en textos académicos, Lenguaje, 33, 97, 10.25100/lenguaje.v33i0.4818 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges
Wei, Y., & Liu, D. (2024) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1506725 · Cited by 26
Metadata
- Authors
- Álvarez, M., Boillos, M. M., & Velasco, E.
- Affiliations
- Universidad de Deusto (ES)
- Corresponding author
- Álvarez, Manuela
- ORCID
- Álvarez, Manuela
- Venue
- Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-04
- Volume
- 178
- Pages
- 2-8
- ISSN
- 1877-0428 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2034352222
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 10.60
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
- Social Sciences › Education › Doctoral Education Challenges and Solutions
- Keywords
- abstract writing, academic writing, doctoral students, writing workshop, peer review, supervisor feedback, text construction, content categories, writing instruction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
