From isolation to collaboration: creating an intentional community of practice within the doctoral dissertation proposal writing process
Abstract
The purpose of this retrospective case study was to examine the implementation of peer- review practices in a doctoral dissertation proposal course. Twenty-eight doctoral candidates’ perceptions of peer feedback on the dissertation writing process and themselves as academic writers were explored through our anecdotal notes from class discussions, as well as students’ exit tickets and journal reflections. The doctoral students articulated that the dissertation proposal course dispelled misconceptions about dissertation writing and the peer-review process. Becoming a critical reader of their peers’ writing also made the doctoral students more critical and confident readers and revisers of their own writing. We also examined the social and emotional dimensions of peer-review groups as communities of practice. In addition, the benefits and drawbacks of heterogeneous multidisciplinary grouping in peer groups are discussed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
Insufficient feedback proficiency and domain-specific knowledge often translate into unproductive and unreliable feedback.
“Insufficient feedback proficiency and domain-specific knowledge often translate into unproductive and unreliable feedback (Ciampa and Wolfe, 2023; Colombo and Rodas, 2021; Kostopoulou and O’Dwyer, 2021; López-Pellisa et al., 2021; Xu and Zhang, 2023).”
From Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Ciampa and Wolfe, 2023
The potential for interpersonal friction arising from delivery of critical feedback and the risk of providing inadequate feedback pose obstacles.
“the potential for interpersonal friction arising from the delivery of critical feedback and the risk of providing inadequate feedback pose further obstacles (Cheong et al., 2023; Ciampa and Wolfe, 2023; Rodas and Colombo, 2021; Yu, 2021).”
From Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Ciampa and Wolfe, 2023
Man et al. (2018) observed that autonomous peer feedback practices among postgraduate students catalyze the construction of new academic communities and facilitate introduction into established scholarly networks.
“For example, Man et al. (2018) examined autonomous peer feedback practices among postgraduate students and observed that such feedback not only catalyzes the construction of new academic communities but also facilitates the introduction of graduate students into established scholarly networks, echoing the findings of Ciampa and Wolfe (2023) as well as Zhang et al. (2020).”
From Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Ciampa and Wolfe, 2023
Through reflection subsequent to critical peer feedback, students strengthened their critical thinking ability and developed into critical readers and writers.
“Through reflection subsequent to critical peer feedback, students strengthened their critical thinking ability and developed into critical readers and writers of academic literature (Ciampa and Wolfe, 2023; Yu, 2019).”
From Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Ciampa and Wolfe, 2023
Peer feedback facilitates the introduction of graduate students into established scholarly networks.
“Furthermore, this practice facilitates the introduction of graduate students into established scholarly networks (Ciampa and Wolfe, 2023; Man et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2020).”
From Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Ciampa and Wolfe, 2023
Prior research underscores the positive impact of rubrics in this regard.
“Prior research underscores the positive impact of rubrics in this regard (Ciampa and Wolfe, 2023; Greenberg, 2015; López-Pellisa et al., 2021; Yu, 2021).”
From Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Ciampa and Wolfe, 2023
Ciampa and Wolfe's (2023) study found that doctoral students struggled with perceived inadequacy in expertise and experience, leading to confidence issues.
“Similarly, Ciampa and Wolfe’s (2023) study found that doctoral students, despite being advanced academic writers, struggled with perceived inadequacy in their expertise and experience, leading to similar confidence issues.”
From Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Ciampa and Wolfe, 2023
Rubrics serve as a catalyst for reviewers' engagement in peer feedback, enhance their genre-specific knowledge, and enable them to generate constructive critiques.
“Rubrics serve as a catalyst for reviewers’ engagement in peer feedback (Yu, 2021), enhance their genre-specific knowledge and enable them to generate constructive critiques of their peers’ academic work (Ciampa and Wolfe, 2023; Tai et al., 2018).”
From Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Ciampa and Wolfe, 2023
Cites
(1978) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 53,488 · see citing works
(1990) · Cited by 11,110 · see citing works
Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches
Wilson, R. D., & Creswell, J. W. (1996) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3152153 · Cited by 7,061 · see citing works
The Constant Comparative Method of Qualitative Analysis
Glaser, B. G. (1965) · Social Problems · doi:10.2307/798843 · Cited by 4,937 · see citing works
(2006) · Cited by 2,315 · see citing works
Differing perceptions in the feedback process
Carless, D. (2006) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075070600572132 · Cited by 1,102 · see citing works
To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer's own writing
Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002 · Cited by 843 · see citing works
BIBER, D., GRAY, B., & POONPON, K. (2011) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.5054/tq.2011.244483 · Cited by 804 · see citing works
The Handbook of English for Specific Purposes
(2012) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118339855 · Cited by 790 · see citing works
Ferris, D. R. (2004) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.005 · Cited by 679 · see citing works
Response To Student Writing: Implications for Second Language Students
Ferris, D. R. (2003) · doi:10.4324/9781410607201 · Cited by 657 · see citing works
The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance
Nelson, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2009) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9053-x · Cited by 602 · see citing works
Socio-cognitive Functions of L1 Collaborative Interaction in the L2 Classroom
Antón, M., & DiCamilla, F. J. (1998) · Canadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes · doi:10.3138/cmlr.54.3.314 · Cited by 546 · see citing works
Activating the ZPD: Mutual Scaffolding in L2 Peer Revision
de Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. S. (2000) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/0026-7902.00052 · Cited by 504 · see citing works
‘Peer learning’ as pedagogic discourse for research education 1
Boud, D. J., & Lee, A. (2005) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075070500249138 · Cited by 405 · see citing works
Research writing: problems and pedagogies
Aitchison, C., & Lee, A. (2006) · Teaching in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/13562510600680574 · Cited by 384 · see citing works
Caffarella, R. S., & Barnett, B. G. (2000) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/030750700116000 · Cited by 334 · see citing works
Huisman, B., Saab, N., van Driel, J., & van den Broek, P. (2018) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2018.1424318 · Cited by 318 · see citing works
Biology students’ utilization of tutors’ formative feedback: a qualitative interview study
Orsmond, P., Merry, S. P., & Reiling, K. (2005) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602930500099177 · Cited by 276 · see citing works
Treatment of Error in Second Language Student Writing, Second Edition
Ferris, D. R. (2011) · doi:10.3998/mpub.2173290 · Cited by 215 · see citing works
Price, M., Carroll, J., O’Donovan, B. M., & Rust, C. (2010) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602930903512883 · Cited by 209 · see citing works
Factors Influencing Successful Submission of PhD Theses
Wright, T., & Cochrane, R. (2000) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/713696139 · Cited by 209 · see citing works
‘Becoming and being writers’: the experiences of doctoral students in writing groups
Maher, D., Seaton, L., McMullen, C., Fitzgerald, T., Otsuji, E., & Lee, A. (2008) · Studies in Continuing Education · doi:10.1080/01580370802439870 · Cited by 207 · see citing works
The development of student feedback literacy: the influences of teacher feedback on peer feedback
Han, Y., & Xu, Y. (2019) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2019.1689545 · Cited by 207 · see citing works
Odenå, O., & Burgess, H. (2015) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079.2015.1063598 · Cited by 187 · see citing works
Doctoral Education: Research-Based Strategies for Doctoral Students, Supervisors and Administrators
McAlpine, L., & Amundsen, C. (2011) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-007-0507-4 · Cited by 144 · see citing works
Assessment in the Second Language Writing Classroom
Crusan, D. J. (2010) · doi:10.3998/mpub.770334 · Cited by 134 · see citing works
‘Ignoring me is part of learning’: Supervisory feedback on doctoral writing
Carter, S., & Kumar, V. (2016) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703297.2015.1123104 · Cited by 134 · see citing works
Can, G., & Walker, A. E. (2010) · Research in Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s11162-010-9204-1 · Cited by 124 · see citing works
Sociocultural theory: A framework for understanding the social-cognitive dimensions of peer feedback
Villamil, O. S., & de Guerrero, M. C. M. (2006) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139524742.004 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
From text to corpus – A genre-based approach to academic literacy instruction
Tribble, C., & Wingate, U. (2013) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2013.03.001 · Cited by 104 · see citing works
Exploring Chinese students' strategy use in a cooperative peer feedback writing group
Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2016) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2016.02.005 · Cited by 104 · see citing works
Collective academic supervision: a model for participation and learning in higher education
Nordentoft, H. M., Thomsen, R., & Wichmann-Hansen, G. (2012) · Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s10734-012-9564-x · Cited by 91 · see citing works
Woodward‐Kron, R. E. (2007) · Higher Education Research & Development · doi:10.1080/07294360701494286 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
A reciprocal peer review system to support college students' writing
Yang, Y. (2010) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01059.x · Cited by 82 · see citing works
An investigation of the effects of reciprocal peer tutoring
Cheng, Y., & Ku, H. (2008) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.06.001 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Borrowing brainpower – sharing insecurities. Lessons learned from a doctoral peer writing group
Wegener, C., Meier, N., & Ingerslev, K. (2014) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079.2014.966671 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Relative second language proficiency and the giving and receiving of written peer feedback
Allen, D., & Katayama, A. (2016) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2015.12.002 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Student or scholar? Transforming identities through a research writing group
Lassig, C. J., Dillon, L., & Diezmann, C. M. (2012) · Studies in Continuing Education · doi:10.1080/0158037x.2012.746226 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Peer facilitated writing groups: a programmatic approach to doctoral student writing
Kumar, V., & Aitchison, C. (2017) · Teaching in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/13562517.2017.1391200 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Zamani, M. (2016) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2016.1149959 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Post/Graduate Research Literacies and Writing Pedagogies
Badenhorst, C., & Guerin, C. (2015) · BRILL eBooks · doi:10.1163/9789004304338_002 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Teaching Critical Thinking in EAP Courses in Australia
Thompson, C. H. (2002) · TESOL Journal · doi:10.1002/j.1949-3533.2002.tb00104.x · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2012) · The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher · doi:10.1007/s40299-012-0046-9 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Man, D., Xu, Y., & O’Toole, J. M. (2018) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2017.1376310 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
WARWICK, P. V., & Maloch, B. (2003) · Reading · doi:10.1111/1467-9345.3702003 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Guerin, C., Walker, R., Aitchison, C., et al. (2017) · Journal of academic language and learning · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Preparing for dissertation writing: doctoral education students’ perceptions
Ciampa, K., & Wolfe, Z. M. (2019) · Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education · doi:10.1108/sgpe-03-2019-0039 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Self-citation(2017) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315541983 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Rethinking doctoral writing as text work and identity work
Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2005) · Deakin Research Online (Deakin University) · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
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 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ciampa, K., & Wolfe, Z. M.
- Affiliations
- Widener University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ciampa, Katia
- Venue
- Teaching in Higher Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2020-09-18
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 487-503
- ISSN
- 1356-2517 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-1294
- OpenAlex
- W3087459261
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 50
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 2.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Teaching in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Doctoral Education Challenges and Solutions
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
- Keywords
- peer review, peer feedback, communities of practice, doctoral students, academic writing, writing revision, student perceptions
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
