MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2971536207 · doi:10.28945/4168

Developing Academic Identity: A Review of the Literature on Doctoral Writing and Feedback

2019· review· en· W2971536207 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueInternational journal of doctoral studies · 2019
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueDoctoral Education Challenges and Solutions
Établissements canadiensMcGill University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésIdentity (music)Context (archaeology)Academic writingPsychologyPedagogySociology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Aim/Purpose: This systematic review synthesizes the literature on doctoral writing and feedback published in peer-reviewed English-language journals between 1997 and 2017 to provide insight into how these topics have been theorized and approached. The goal was to examine how this literature characterizes the development of academic identity in doctoral students to better understand the conceptual relationships underpinning previous studies, and advance work on writing, feedback, and identity to support budding researchers. Background: Research on doctoral writing and identity development has been a focus of research in higher education over the past two decades, as identity development has been recognized as a key outcome of doctoral study; the PhD program is meant to transform students into independent researchers. As a site of identity development, writing—and feedback on writing—are central to doctoral growth. Methodology: The systematic search resulted in 887 citations, of which 579 abstracts were read reducing the number of relevant citations to 95. These 95 full text papers were reviewed, and 37 studies met our inclusion criteria. Frequently cited papers were identified and 3 were added to the final corpus for a total of 40 articles. (Limitations include the constraint to English-language articles and the exclusion of books, book chapters, and conference papers.) All 40 articles were open coded for definitions of academic identity, theoretical frameworks, research context, and key themes. Contribution: This paper contributes a comprehensive analysis of the theoretical perspectives on identity development underlying recent work on doctoral writing and feedback. It demonstrates that this literature takes a largely sociocultural approach to identity: conceived as shaped largely by social structures and interactions. This review also confirms a complex relationship between writing, feedback, and identity in which doctoral students draw upon feedback on their writing to learn about what it means to be a researcher in practice, and how to communicate like a researcher in their relevant discourse communities, thereby advancing their research thinking and encouraging critical reflection on writing and research practices. Findings: The review revealed that the literature draws primarily on sociocultural perspectives, that is, examining writing and feedback through the lens of the practices of the groups in which the individual engages - with academic identity development, though rarely defined, represented as an iterative process of writing and feedback. We noted two gaps resulting from this perspective, which are highlighted by the very few studies taking different perspectives. The first is the lack of attention to individual variation in agency as regards seeking out and using feedback. The second is the potential influence of feedback on critical thinking, which is seen as central to PhD progress. Future Research: Future research may adopt varying theoretical approaches to identity development to shed light on the role of individual agency in identity construction. Future studies that focus on the process of how students respond to and are influenced (or not) by feedback would be useful in illuminating the connections between feedback, writing, and the development of research thinking—all of which contribute to identity development.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,539
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,952

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,579
Tête enseignante GPT0,645
Écart entre enseignants0,067 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle