This session focuses on the implementation of virtual writing groups as a way to engage and support online doctoral students as a scholarly community. I will discuss the importance of developing relationships between and among students, lessons learned, and how others can align virtual writing communities with individual program goals.
According to Weidman et al., (2001), community is an important consideration in determining and defining a program's culture, and also impacts relationships among students. Research tells us positive peer connections contribute to student persistence (Gardner, 2008; Golde, 2000; Lovitts, 2001). Retention of online students is tied to feelings of community and success in the online learning environment (Bawa, 2016). Students learn more and are better able to construct knowledge in collaborative environments (Richardson & Swan, 2003). And, allowing students to develop relationships with classmates enhances learning and allows students to develop personal and professional networks outside of a school setting. Thus, it is important for online programs to establish avenues in which students can pursue peer to peer connections in order to establish community. A sense of community is particularly important for students in a doctoral program. Starting a doctoral program is a big decision. Completing a program can be an even bigger challenge. According to Nettles & Millett (2006), attrition rates for doctoral education programs average 70%, while they range from 40% to 60% for other doctoral programs, and online programs have an attrition rate of 10% to 20% higher than face-to-face programs. This comes at a high cost, both emotionally and financially, to students. And can make long-term planning for institutions difficult.
Engaging with a scholarly community of practice is one way doctoral students define and can participate in community (Zahl, 2015). Wegner (1998) includes learning in collaboration and sharing ideas related to research and practice as part of his definition of scholarly community. Zahl (2015) also notes students who specifically identified as participants in scholarly discussions with peers also identified themselves as being members of a scholarly community of practice, which is a contributing factor of persistence in an online doctoral program.
Writing groups build better writers, promote writing routines and enhance an “intellectual community” (Durst, 1992, p. 263). Writing in community is also about space for identities to come together, particularly, diverse writers from diverse backgrounds. Most successful writing groups are self-selectd and meet the specific need of the participants, including type of writing group (accountability, write-along or feedback) (Durst, 1992; Silva, 2018). Programs can and should incorporate writing groups as a way to provide opportunities for doctoral students to engage in a scholarly community and in scholarly discourse. In this session, we trace the ways one online doctoral program considers and shifts their facilitation of an environment that encourages a scholarly community of writers.
Level of Participation:
This Discovery session will be a highly interactive, research-based, and practitioner-friendly discussion. The very nature of the Discovery session allows for ongoing discussion with participants who can freely ask questions and share experiences. I will also provide attendees resources/ideas to support the development of communities of scholars in online spaces.
Participants will be able to:
- Discuss the importance of developing relationships between students
- Describe the role and value of Virtual Writing Communities
- Use lessons learned through implementation of Virtual Writing Communities to create communities aligned with individual program goals
References:
Bawa, P. (2016). Retention on online courses: Exploring issues and solutions-a literature review. SAGE Open, January-March 2016, 1-11. https://doi-org.akin.css.edu/10.1177/2158244015621777
Durst, R. (1992). A writer's community: How teachers can form writing groups. In K. Dahl (Ed.), Teacher as writer: Entering the professional conversation. National Council of Teachers of English.
Gardner, S. K. (2008). Fitting the mold of graduate school: A qualitative study of socialization in doctoral education. Innovative Higher Education, 33, 125-138.
Golde, C. M. (2000). Should I stay or should I go? Student descriptions of the doctoral attrition process. Review of Higher Education, 23(2), 199-227.
Lovitts, B. E. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of departure from doctoral study. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Nettles, M. T., & Millett, C. M. (2006). Three magic letters: Getting to Ph.D. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Richardson, J.C. & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, (7) 1, 68-88.
Silva, P. J. (2018). How to write a lot: A practical guide to productive academic writing (2nd ed.). APA Life Tools.
Weidman, J. C., Twale, D. J., & Stein, E. L. (2001). Socialization of graduate and professional students in higher education: A perilous passage? San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press
Zahl, S. B. (2015). The impact of community for part-time doctoral students: How relationships in the academic department affect student persistence. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 10, 301-321. Retrieved from http://ijds.org/Volume10/IJDSv10p301-321Zahl0672.pdf