What_I_Needed_to_Know_to_Get_Published_Teaching_Frightened_Graduate_Students_to_Write_for_Publication.pdf

27

Mullen, C. A. (1999). What I needed to know to getpublished: Teaching (frightened) graduate students to

write for publication. Journal on Excellence in CollegeTeaching, 10 (2), 27-52.

What I Needed to Know to Get Published:Teaching (Frightened) Graduate Students to

Write for Publication

Carol A. MullenUniversity of South Florida

The author uses mentoring theory to create a curricular modelthat teaches graduate students to produce publishable scholar-ly writing. The writing process and feedback (WPF) modelpresents getting published as an appropriate expectation of allgraduate students. The model includes structured sequentialclassroom assignments, student editorial review boards, guestclassroom appearances by published writers, and extensive feed-back from faculty and peer mentors. Student feedback showsthat those who completed courses using this framework haveclearly benefited.

Background

This approach to academic writing liberated and empoweredme. For the first time I felt that it was not only acceptable butalso preferable to include some of my own insights gainedthrough experience. My training in the past had led me to quote,document, and keep my writing completely impersonal. Thisfresh approach, however, gave my writing a new authority andgave me the confidence to trust my own voice. (Student Ques-tionnaire, 1999)

My education graduate students tell me they feel that their greatestchallenge in academic life is to acquire the necessary skills to create pub-lishable research. This is partially attributable to the structures of theirlivesas adult learners they are pressed for time and must manage a

Journal on Excellence in College Teaching28

number of equally important duties. But it is also due to shortcomings intheir academic programs. Students say that they have had little guid-ance in the writing process and have not been trained adequately to writefor academe. These findings concur with a study of graduate studentsfrom 13 institutions revealing that writing for publication was not partof their training (Engstrom, 1999). As a result, many graduate studentshave a fear of writing and a greater fear of failure. They enter profession-al fields without having mastered a skill that is essential to thedevelopment of their identities and careers.

This article discusses an innovative curricular writing model that Idesigned to meet the needs of such students1 (see the Appendix). Themodel I describe also may help faculty members who do not normallyteach writing to realize that it is something they can do in their class-rooms. The model, which I call the writing process and feedback (WPF)model, helps graduate students become confident and strategic scholar-writers. It was developed on the premise that it is possible to improvegraduate students abilities and self-perceptions as writers and research-ers. By the time students complete a course using this model, they notonly have learned to draft, revise, and polish their writing, they alsohave learned to participate in a collaborative peer group that providesvaluable constructive feedback. Processes that scaffold student writingto ensure success have been found to affect students beliefs and self-image about writing as well as their motivation to write (Bruning & Horn,2000).

The goal of this study was to give students a skill that they needed fortheir personal/professional development and academic success; theywere willing participants on these terms. Also, the opportunities I creat-ed for students to submit anonymous feedback on the writing-for-publication process worked to overcome barriers created by the fac-ulty-student power differential. Finally, on the last day of each course Iprovided students with consent forms, which they had the option to signafter receiving their final grades, giving me permission to quote anony-mously from their papers. Even though I provided them with writingassistance, along with targeted publishing information, I did not seekco-authorship of their work. The discovery that students can learn towrite publishable material, along with the opportunity this study hasgiven me to describe my model and the theory behind it, has been itsown reward.

What I Needed to Know to Get Published 29

The Writing Process and Feedback (WPF) Model

The writing process and feedback model is premised on relatively rapidgeneration of text and quick feedback. Many graduate students are afraidto generate text and are even more afraid of receiving feedback on it.This model addresses those fears and pushes students to work beyondthem. From the outset of the semester, multiple deadlines pop up in quicksuccession, and students are rewarded for their efforts with helpful feed-back from their peers, from the professor, and from other publishedwriters, all of whom take the students work seriously.

The WPF curriculum is my response to the current climate in highereducation, which does not sufficiently assist graduate students in pro-ducing works of publishable quality through pedagogical models ofresearch-based writing. It is based on my assumption and that of others(Dinham & Scott, 1999; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1986) that many gradu-ate students need to learn how to write effectively so that they cancompete successfully in the tight academic job market. Articles in TheChronicle of Higher Education (see, for instance, Cassuto, 1998) constantlyremind us of how increased competition has changed the face of aca-deme for new arrivals. Prospective academics need to learn to workcollaboratively in groups to democratize their working spaces (Valde,1997), communicate with increasingly informed and diverse audiences(Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1986), and develop as reflective citizens and life-long learners (Edwards & Usher, 1998).

Teaching faculty need to facilitate the writing skills and professionaldevelopment of graduate students who range widely in skills and inter-ests. I agree with Kuh (1999) that when high-level performance ismodeled, positive learning can occur. I have struggled to put my beliefsinto action by designing an intervention that I adjust for the topic of eachcourse, with the special needs of each group and individual in mind,and incorporating new insights that I continue to gain from student feed-back and evaluations.

Expanded Views of Writing and Research

Academic discourse, it has been argued, is genderedit emphasizesa masculine structure that is less intuitive and intrinsically motivat-ing (Bruning & Horn, 2000). In contrast, the WPF model teaches studentsthat a variety of types of research and writing are valuable. Althoughmany students have been taught to devalue them, personal and profes-sional experiences can be a rich well from which to draw for scholarly


writing. Insights from well-crafted fiction, biography, and autobiogra-phy also are valuable and useful. The WPF model seeks to heal the falseboundaries between life and scholarship. It supports new genres of edu-cational research, such as narrative writing, and the blurring ofboundaries between academic disciplines (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994;Geertz; 1988; Richardson, 1994). 2 This philosophy resonates deeply withadult learners, who grow in confidence as they use their experiences andselves as important sources for generating text.

The model also draws on a variety of communication skills; it seeks toincorporate aspects of graphics design and production, for example. Thisparticular feature permits students to represent data beyond the kindsof conventional matrices that Miles and Huberman (1994) advocate.Graphics softwarefor instance, Adobe Photoshop ( 2000, Adobe Sys-tems, Inc.) and Corel Draw ( 1999-2000, Corel Corp.)simulates theprocesses of a visual artist and allows students to construct circles andirregular shapes (Newby, Stepich, Lehman, & Russell, 1996). Studentswhose communication and learning strengths are visual rather than ver-bal are especially pleased to learn that these skills can contributemeaningfully to their academic writing.

Another strength of the WPF model is that students learn to thinkcritically about their research findings and points-of-view. It teaches stu-dents that the research process is interpretive, which means that studentsdevelop the capacity to understand how they make sense of ideas, events,and information. The students, who increasingly come to identify them-selves as authors, also reflect on how they are invested in a topic andhow they can create a sense of the presence of self and others in the text.

Students in the WPF courses took a number of creative risks in all ofthese directions. For example, they wrote autobiographies in which theystaged themselves as participants in their studies of others. Theyexplored Denzins (1994) notion that The Other who is presented in thetext is always a version of the researchers self (p. 503). As they under-took their formal research studies, they searched for their own metaphorsof inquiry (Edwards & Usher, 1998; Richardson, 1994), specifically thoserelating to identity, relationship, and organization. For example, theirmetaphors for organizational culture included the glass house anddysfunctional family; metaphors for their fellow classmates includedband buddies and phantom mentors; and metaphors for the cre-ative process included peeling an onion and gardening miracles ofgrowth. They also created visual metaphors, often for the first time asadults, and represented deeply personal ways of seeing their organiza-tional cultures in universities and schools, patterns in (or problems with)


their data, and their relationship to other participants. Each class accept-ed the scholarly challenge to learn from the changing field of education,which is far less bounded than ever before and which is constantlyloosening and becoming more permeable (Edwards & Usher, 1998, p.83).

Students framed and reframed their research problems, collected andanalyzed data, questioning what data are and can be, and shared theirfindings as preliminary insights. They submitted manuscript drafts tome for feedback in their early, advanced, and refined stages, with thegoal of producing work of publishable quality with the Educational Re-sources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse. The ERICClearinghouse is a U.S. federally funded national information systemwith 16 subject-specific clearinghouses and a high (60%) acceptance rate.It boasts the worlds largest and most frequently searched educationdatabase (About AskERIC, 1999).

Launching the WPF Model

The WPF model was launched during the first session of each coursein which it was used from 1998 to 2000. The syllabi for the courses fea-tured this statement of intent, which I discussed with each class:

With specialized guidance from the instructor, and with con-structive feedback from classmates combined with your ownserious effort, you will learn how to prepare and write a re-search report that is both acceptable for a conferencepresentation and publishable with an ERIC Clearinghouse. Theoral, written, and cooperative components of professional de-velopment will be emphasized through the writing process andfeedback (WPF) model. Your writing will be submitted in phas-es and then as a final paper, formatted in the AmericanPsychological Association (APA) 4th edition style. You also willbe encouraged to submit your manuscript for review to a re-search journal and, in a modified form, as a proposal for aconference presentation. The instructor will be available be-yond the timeframe of the formal course to assist you in meetingthese goals.

Students then introduced themselves and their areas of professionaland personal interest. This exchange initiated the important process ofidentifying topics for their independent studies. I explained that wewould explore and revisit topics during each class. Each student wouldarticulate his or her independent area of study and carry it out in alter-


nating cycles of reflection and action until it was ready for publication.We would be rethinking the conventional idea of independent studywithin the context of the WPF model to reinforce the importance of feed-back and collaborative decision making. The students would learn thatwe all draw upon the support of others as we craft our writing; there isno such thing as independent scholarly work. Instead, students wouldproduce an interdependent research study within a mentoring context.The use of a co-mentoring structure (which is described later) providedongoing support for making intellectual gains.

Students were introduced to the idea of an interdependent writingeffort by sharing critical aspects of their work for feedback during classsessions. They focused on areas that were unresolved for them, such ashow to discuss a politically sensitive issue without jeopardizing the rep-utation of ones workplace or colleagues; or how and when to useanonymity that simultaneously provides sufficient context and respectsthe privacy of participants.

The phases of the WPF model are as follows (see the Appendix):

paragraph writing

paragraph sharing

phase 1 writing

phase 1 sharing

subsequent writing phases

continued sharing

final writing phase

writing refinement

a new writing cycle

Paragraph Writing and Sharing

I launched the WPF model with a paragraph-writing exercise. This isa highly challenging assignment, requiring that students imagine thescope of their entire paper early on. The paragraph exercise, in effect,works as an actual snapshot of the intended study only for the few stu-dents who already have a clear idea of their research topic; for the rest, itserves as a warmup that motivates them to consider possible directionsfor their research.


During the second class meeting, students read each others para-graphs. Here the tone was set for friendly but rigorous conversationalexchanges. Students asked questions of the writers, who were to respondhonestly and without pretense. Writers took notes based on the feed-back they received and used it as the basis for the first phase of writing.The learning conditions I aimed to establish here modeled cooperativeproblem-solving strategies. For example, students were to become com-fortable with the need for honesty about their research processes (forexample, how many surveys were sent out versus how many actuallywere returned and analyzed). They would learn to talk openly abouttheir research dilemmas and to make suggestions for resolving prob-lems. They also would come to embrace, contrary to traditional learning,the messiness of unexpected field site experiences and the value ofother sources of inquiry as data worth mining (Van Maanen, 1988).

Phase 1 Writing and Sharing

Phase 1 writing is a development of the paragraph exercise. At thispoint in the project, students mapped out how they planned to fill in thedetails of the research snapshot they had initially crafted. They exploredtheir intended research topic, the reasons for their study, inquiryquestion(s), possible methods of data collection, and key sources. Thewriters provided notations directly on their manuscripts of queries theyhad about their study and areas they had not yet developed (for instance,methods of data collection and analysis). Writers were encouraged totalk directly to their intended readers (construed, in Phase 1, as our class,and later as the prospective editors, reviewers, and professionals in theirparticular fields) about their queries. Examples of the notations they madeinclude the following: I cant locate any studies that clarify how coach-ing is a form of mentoring practice. Can you help me? and Do youthink my subject pool is sufficient for this study, or should I solicit morevolunteers?

During phase 1 writing, the literature search was only preliminary.Writers had the task of locating and meaningfully incorporating keysources for their study. Even more challenging, students needed to iden-tify how their study could offer something of value to an academic/professional audience. The literature search was not complete until stu-dents had gone through the initial cycle of writing, consultation withpeers and me, and rewriting. This was an intellectually challenging as-pect of the writing projects, especially for those students who had neverreally grasped that their paper potentially could make a significant con-tribution to a current topic or field.


Subsequent Writing Phases and Continued Sharing

Subsequent writing phases consist of a minimum of three to four sep-arate draft submissionsor more for those who are willing. At this stage,students built on and refined their earlier drafts, addressing areas of con-cern signaled by themselves, their peers, and me. Throughout thesewriting phases, the students continued to ask questions of their readersby pointing to areas of their study that they found to be daunting orconfusing; the writers also supplied placeholders, in their texts, for areasneeding further development. Actual examples of the questions theywrote requesting feedback on complex matters include these: Can I, theresearcher, be considered a participant in my own study? If so, how do Italk about this? Do you think I sound too opinionated in my analysisof what my participant shared? and Why should the reader trust myversion of a conversation that Ive sketched from memory?

The students also learned that they could design variations of the samedata set in order to ensure that enough subjects responded. Students pre-pared questionnaires that subjects could mail, e-mail, fax, or respond toverbally. Students came to appreciate the flexibility that researchers mustdemonstrate in response to the unexpected and to their subjects prefer-ences and schedules. They also learned that persistence and ingenuityare necessary throughout the writing process, especially within a shorttimeframe and a changing research context.

At this point in the project, I devoted classroom time to formal in-struction in writing using APA 4th edition style. My students had notreceived instruction on the use of the APA format in their respective pro-grams, nor had they thought about taking the initiative to learn the format.I soon learned that it was unrealistic to expect students to learn APAconventions on their own because they needed help with the technicali-ties. To provide students with applications of the APA manual, I providedthem samples from my own APA-formatted studies along with materialfrom the Internet on Web-based citations. Our discussion of APA formatincluded practice exercises and follow-up assistance when students en-countered areas of ambiguity. Students responded well to this directinstruction, as was clear from the questions about style they asked whilepreparing each draft. In addition, students comments on the question-naire I administered indicated that they found this technical guidance tobe extremely helpful. Typical student responses were as follows: Theexamples you provided of the APA format were first-rate and they reallyhelped me; I found the APA format to be sensible and demanding inits details; APA is much easier than the Chicago format, and I prefer it


by a long shot; and I like how the APA model gave me the structurethat I needed for the final draft.

Final Writing Phase

For the final writing phase, students included analytic tables (for ex-ample, data displays and research instruments) and/or imaginativefigures (for example, graphic representations of a critical aspect of theirstudy) that they had developed with input from the class. Students usedthese emerging works as handouts to be discussed during their researchpresentations in the last two weeks of the course.

Near the end of the course, the classes shared and discussed the ERICClearinghouse information (contact information, description of the ERICdatabases, list of multiple Clearinghouses, submission requirements, andreview process) for each writers intended publication venue. Studentsalso were required to contact an ERIC representative to determine the fitof their topic with one of the Clearinghouses. Many students followedup by making final revisions and sharing them with me after the courseended. The majority indicated that, given our discussions, they felt con-fident about preparing their paper for submission.

A New Writing Cycle

I read students final papers as drafts to be revised further for submis-sion for publication. I treated the papers and the entire writing/researchprocess as a pilot study, which has been defined as a preliminary accountcontaining a sample of the population to be investigated later in a largerstudy, such as a dissertation (Brown & Dowling, 1998). Students under-stood that the personal mastery model (Senge, 1990) had undergirded myapproach to the writing/extending/revising process; this model goesbeyond competence and skills, though it is grounded in competence andskills. It goes beyond spiritual unfolding or opening, although it requiresspiritual growth. It means approaching ones life as a creative work (p.141). I viewed the final papers, then, as an opportunity to make com-ments in support of the students further research and ongoing inquiry.

In-Class Student Editorial Review Boards

Another part of the feedback process was in-class student editorialreview boards. This simulated activity exposed students to the profes-sional review process and showed them how it can be used effectively as


a catalyst for growth. The student writers functioned as editorial teamsthat provided constructive feedback to their peers. The students used amanuscript review form that I had created based on actual review formsfrom the editorial boards of journals to guide their giving of feedback.The authors took seriously the feedback they received on the review formsand on their papers.

The editorial boards made themselves available to the authors for fur-ther clarification of feedback and evaluated the revised manuscripts. Thisprocess of giving feedback was personalized, with authors and editorialboards sitting together and discussing the paper in question. Studentslearned that rewriting can be an invigorating processrather than anisolating or humiliating oneand that getting and giving constructivefeedback is an essential communal activity among scholars. I empha-sized that editors often require modifications of even the mostoutstanding papers.

Class Presentations by Successful Student Writers

Presentations by successful student writers, who were either alreadypublished as a result of the WPF model or who had written outstandingpapers that were under review by a publisher, contributed powerfullyto the writing sessions. The student groups considered this kind of visitto be a real treat. They eagerly prepared by reading the guest speak-ers manuscripts and making comments on them. Students engaged thespeakers as a way of seeking clarification on their own emergent writingissues; they also made helpful comments for improving the speakerspapers. Both the speakers and the students made noticeable gains withthis kind of symbiosis. One student captured the spirit of the speakerevent:

Please dont misunderstand me, but I got much more valuefrom the student speakers you brought in, and their writing,than from the published readings. Although you are a rolemodel as a writer, youre too far along for me to relate to. Iidentified strongly with the successful student writers, someof whom are from my own program. I loved reading theirmanuscripts and could relate to what they wrote and how theysee things. This was a unique college experience for me! (Stu-dent Questionnaire, 1998)

Students also held conversations with published faculty members.These faculty, whose work students had read beforehand, were invitedto participate in a seminar, with a designated student as the lead facilita-


tor. By this point in the course, students had learned that writing andrevising is an ongoing process, that the technical requirements of schol-arly writing are rigorous and important, that eliciting feedback andcriticism from a variety of sources helped them to clarify their thoughtsand improve their work, and that creating collaborative networks of schol-ars generated a source of support and expertise. Most important, theyhad learned that they could write and that the topics they had investigat-ed were of interest to others and, hence, potentially publishable.

The Study

Goals and Participants

The goal of this study was for graduate students to produce and dis-seminate a quality piece of scholarly writing for review for publicationand conference presentation. In order to facilitate this goal, I redesignedmy education graduate courses so that they would assist and motivatestudents to develop research-based skills in their areas of academic in-terest. Accordingly, the courses incorporated the WPF model strategiesof multiple, structured writing phases; student editorial review boards;mentoring from seasoned student writers; input and feedback from pub-lished writers; and a co-mentoring classroom structure.

I used the WPF model in seven education graduate courses at twodifferent research/teaching land-grant universities in the southern U.S.A total of 102 students took courses with me in leadership and adminis-tration, student affairs, socialization of adult learners, organizationalculture, curriculum development and teacher education, and mentortraining of professionals. The classes each consisted of between 13 and15 masters and doctoral students from diverse ethnic groups, includingCaucasian American, African American, Latino/a, Native American,Asian, and bicultural.

Student Feedback as Data Sources

In order to elicit students understanding of and response to the WPFmodel, I systematically obtained data from them through multiplesources: questionnaires, course and peer evaluations, and spontaneous,unsolicited responses (e-mail and in-person student feedback). The re-sults of these data sources indicated that students can be positivelyinfluenced in their roles as peer collaborators, professionals, research-ers, and writers through supportive writing structures. Specifically,


student feedback showed that training in the various areas of the WPFmodelthe structured writing process, incremental timeliness of thewriting phases, technical formatting based on the APA model, creativeand metaphoric use of language and graphic symbols, peer conversa-tions with professionals about writing and research queries during classsessions, and reading of student works that had been prepared for pub-licationcontributed to their development as professionals. Above all,the students shared that the experience of writing as a group processhad facilitated their knowledge, self-confidence, creativity, and, conse-quently, their academic success.

The feedback I received also indicated that the model helped studentsto combat writing anxiety. They became less self-doubting and more con-fident about their writing. Some students claimed to have embraced aview of themselves as developing writer-researchers who can engage incomplex academic tasks. This claim is consistent with the actual writingdevelopment that occurredfor each student and with varying degreesof successwithin 8 to 12 weeks.

Students described the WPF model in various ways. Each of their per-spectives captures a particular aspect of the model with regard to itspurposes, strategies, and outcomes. The questionnaire that I adminis-tered asked, In your own words, describe the writing process andfeedback model that we used in class. I am interested in how you inter-preted and experienced it. One female student, over 40 years old, wrote:We focused on parts of the research paper, submitting it in phases forfeedback. This process was very effective for clarifying my thoughts andorganization of ideas. The instructors method worked because she con-centrated on the process of writing, which allowed my paper to evolve ina way that was not forced. A 24-year-old male student wrote: The writ-ing and research process in this class was one of constant mentor/menteeexchange of ideas, concepts, hunches, etc. A 55-year-old female wrotethis about her own powerful transformation in association with the WPFmodel:

The writing model we used in class makes me think of an on-ion. First, one peels off the dry scales (gets used to the class,peer group work, and assignments). Then, one finds the moistmeaty sections (writes about each aspect of the research pro-cess, gets feedback from many peers, and then improves theproduct). By the time one reaches the center, s/he has a senseof accomplishment that is about an awakening of the self andits potential to live in the world of publishing.


A 41-year-old male described the WPF model as a paradigm shift fu-eled by creative risk taking:

The writing model could have gone in the direction of being atraditional write/rewrite mechanical process. However, fromthe outset the latitude of subjectivity and of pushing the lim-its on our own development moved the total process fromthe traditional paradigm to the progressive. Interestingly, thevalue placed on my own thinking and processing of ideas thatthe structural guide allowed, let me, for the first time, to ac-knowledge my personal voice and use subjectivity in my work.

This comment about the value of the personal in academic work andprofessional development was particularly powerful.

Students described multiple benefits of the WPF model, each one de-tailing a layer of its onion: a technique for improving thinking andorganizational processes, a form that gives structure to content, a step-by-step process that unfolds organically, a paradigm for personal voiceand subjectivity, a structural guide, and an awakening to ones ownpotential for growth. The WPF model encompasses these apparent con-tradictions in both process and form.

Preliminary Results

This article discusses a new approach to research writing based on aset of hypotheses rather than on an empirical scientific study. Thus, Ihave not focused on examining the final publishing outcomes for thestudents in this discussion. However, I have been tracking the outcomeof my students submissions in terms of their being accepted/rejected/recommended for revisions by ERIC Clearinghouses, professional jour-nals, book publishers, and academic newsletters. Many of my studentshave submitted their manuscripts to ERIC. The most ambitious amongthem also report having submitted their manuscript, in revised form, toa professional journal, conference, book editor, or newsletter.

At this point, all students in the study from the two-year period thatincluded fall, spring, and summer terms (n = 80) have submitted theirmanuscripts for review. A few (n = 10) have had their work published injournals or as book chapters. Those whose manuscripts were rejectedupon first submission have expressed two types of reactions: (a) thatthey are now at least in the publishing game and (b) that while thereviews have proven helpful for making revisions, they have ranged frombeing somewhat favorable to outright critical.

The two updates from students that follow capture the multifaceted


pursuits many of them are currently engaged in as they disseminate theirwork:

As the result of your encouragement, I submitted my paperMastering the Maze Through Mentoring: Career Advance-ment of Female Superintendents to Equity and Excellence inEducation in June 1999. One month later they replied, We re-gret that we are unable to publish your article at this time. Wefound that your paper is a good preliminary study, but the sam-ple is too small. We encourage you to broaden yourinvestigation by attending conferences for superintendents andthe like. We welcome you to submit any future work for possi-ble publication. I also submitted the paper in proposal formto MSERA, and it was accepted for presentation for November1999. I am currently revising the paper for submission to ERICfor review. At your invitation, I also wrote a modified versionof my paper called Mentoring and Servant Leadership forthe Community of Learners News. I now have the confidence tolook for other venues for my writing, regardless of the out-come of each review process. (Joan, electronic mail, 1999)

This May 1999 I sent my paper to ERIC and to the Oxford Re-view of Education. My topic fits their specifications and addressesone of the major issues they have been recently debating. Thewriting model you used in our class on mentoring was what Ineeded to know to try to get published. Thank you for every-thing you did to help me to learn the APA 4th edition format.(Betty, electronic mail, 1999)

Continuing to write for purposes beyond coursework is an appropri-ate expectation of all graduate students. Submission to a professionalvenue, regardless of the outcome, is arguably not only a source of valu-able experience but also the most important outcome of the coursebecause it shows that the WPF model provides positive reinforcementfor writing. Because the students in these courses have set getting pub-lished as a goal, their success rate should increase over time. I plan todevelop an empirical study based on the hypotheses in this article toshow that the students publication rate in each of the categories of dis-semination can be read as single, independent items. However, I willsuggest that the numbers can be read as clusters revealing a pattern ofhow each individual is tackling the publishing effort. For example, Joansupdate above shows that she first submitted her paper to a journal, whereit was rejected, then to a conference, which accepted it, then to a newslet-ter, which accepted it, and then to ERIC, where it is now under review.

In the courses using the WPF model, before earning an A a stu-


dents research paper needed to be of publishable quality with an ERICClearinghouse, which I determined through an analysis of ERIC docu-ments for their shared elements of strategic writing (for instance, a clearand purposeful abstract containing a statement of the studys signifi-cance and its main finding). Out of my participant population of 102students, only 4 received a B and, thus, underachieved according tomy evaluation criterioneveryone else received an A. To my surprise,the grades that my WPF students received were consistently much high-er than those for my regular students. The WPF participants aregradually reaping the benefits of having produced a work that permitsthem entry into a public conversation with different audiences.

Enlarging the Discussion

Lincoln (1998) argues that teacher-researchers need to enlarge thediscussion of what we do in our classrooms in order to contextualizethe abstract reports found in the educational literature. More idealisti-cally, Van Maanen (1988) writes that the ubiquitous, disembodied voiceof the culture has been dismantled by writers who claim personal au-thority, and in its place is a person who establishes a relationship withreaders (p. 74). I believe that the teaching of scholarly writing has yet tobecome a focus in higher education institutions. Discussion of the cru-cial roles faculty can play with regard to the teaching of writingcreatingopportunities for graduate students to produce research-based writing,helping them find venues for publication, and providing mentoring re-sponses to their workrepresents an emergent area of research. A majorgoal of college educators should be to ground concepts of student writ-ing development in their courses. One solution is to use a mentoringintervention that contributes both to the learning of students and to theliterature.

If the theory-practice gap in higher education with regard to researchand teaching can be addressed through graduate programs, then an over-arching question becomes this: What is important in the professionalworlds we inhabit, and what new directions might curriculum develop-ment facilitate to prepare students better? Graduate students like minein educational leadership and administration programs must demon-strate the capacity to investigate educational phenomena, assess on-siteprograms, and communicate their findings clearly and succinctly. Likemany professionals today, these students experience pressure to conductresearch and writing tasks in their roles as grant and analysis research-ers, curriculum developers, teachers, and administrators.


Like Bolton (1994), Denzin (1994), and Richardson (1994), I consideracademic writing to be an act of interpretation that incorporates narra-tive elements in addition to data. These teacher-researchers describewriting as a form of inquiry that promotes personal/professional devel-opment by exploring ourselves and our topics. Richardson (1994) claimsthat by situating ourselves openly in our writing, we become more ful-ly present in our work, more honest, more engaged (p. 516). Why is theWPF model an innovative approach to graduate student teaching? Be-cause it engages students who do not perceive of themselves as scholarlywriters and who have had little formal training to master the necessaryskills within one semester. The model uses innovations in graduate edu-cation coursesrevolving around multiple opportunities forfeedbackto help students learn about the culture of academic writing.Finally, the model includes a component that teaches students where tofind venues that might publish their work and how to approach them.Students emerge from this training with a great deal of technical knowl-edge about writing and rewriting, eliciting and incorporating feedbackfrom peers, seeking help from a variety of mentors, and finding the rightscholarly niche for their work. They have had an excellent introductionto what Engstrom (1999) calls the norms, expectations, attitudes, andpractices of the scholarly community (p. 265).

Mentoring Maps That Guided This Study

Co-mentoring theory (Bona, Rinehart, & Volbrecht, 1995; Mullen & Lick,1999) suggests that the best way to teach a new skill is to create a collab-orative whose members bring diverse skills and levels of knowledge tothe group. My student groups studied theories that are relevant to thedevelopment of its members, examined different models of writing, pro-duced and reviewed writing, and discussed what they were learning.Accomplishing these tasks required recasting the formal curriculum interms of the WPF model, which includes co-mentoring as one of its com-ponents. For the majority of my students who had not yet developed arelationship with a primary mentor, the co-mentoring structure provedespecially viable and significant. Regardless, the multiple mentoringexperience is one that the literature has shown to be rewarding, particu-larly for women (Mullen, Cox, Boettcher, & Adoue, 2000; Mullen, Whatley,& Kealy, 2000). Scott (1992) reports that Successful people often com-ment they have had up to ten or more mentors, each contributing todifferent areas of need (p. 170).

Members of a co-mentoring collaborative are grouped to work together


on writing skills across differences in ethnicity, gender, age, politics, per-sonality, experience, and skill. This idea of learning across difference isnaturally conducive to this study, given that heterogeneity was a defin-ing characteristic of the seven classes that participated. Each class wasorganized noncompetitively as a co-mentoring team that provided feed-back to peers during every session on research plans, methods, andwriting. Peer-based research relations served as a guiding concept in theseclassrooms.

Co-mentoring, or reciprocal mentoring, works differently from tradi-tional mentoring. Traditional mentoring involves the administration ofprofessional guidance through the pairing of an experienced adult witha young adult or protg for a defined period of time (Anderson & Shan-non, 1988; Levinson, Darrow, Klein, Levinson, & McKee, 1978;Phillips-Jones, 1982). In contrast, co-mentoring is characterized by anonhierarchical arrangement in which everyone shares the roles of men-tor (giving feedback and making suggestions based on experience andintuition) and protg (asking for assistance and input in order to arriveat an insight, strategy, or solution) (Bona et al., 1995; Mullen & Lick, 1999).This reciprocal approach to human development served as an ideal philo-sophical stance in my courses by allowing students to share researchopportunities as equal partners. The students and I worked toward re-constructing our institutional boundaries and our traditional roles aslearner and expert. Co-mentorship provided the basis for a two-waycommunication structure without the trappings of hierarchy, power, andprivilege that inhibit feelings of self-worth (Senge, 1990) and productivechange (Fullan, 1999) within higher education.

The co-mentoring process recognizes the importance of trust, build-ing emotional as well as professional bonds, and personal reflection andgrowth (Bona et al., 1995; Mullen, 2000; Tauer, 1998). This process hasworked very well for this study; previous students who have submittedimpressive works for publication serve as role models for my currentstudents. These student-authors, together with the students who arestruggling to publish for the first time, continue to develop professional-ly after they leave the course. They contact me to obtain advice onpublishing, to update me on their progress, and to talk about the editori-al review process and publishing outlets. Their continued developmentsupports claims that mentor/student collaboration leads to higher or-der thinking, to an increase in academic performance, and to theformation of strong attachments (Gallimore, Tharp, & John-Steiner, 1992;Mullen et al., 1997; Tauer, 1998).

The co-mentoring model has strong potential to support minority stu-


dents who need to overcome significant challenges to their educationalprogress. White majority institutions, like the one that is the setting forthis study, have generally failed to provide mentoring to minorities (es-pecially females) both as doctoral students and as scholars (Mullen etal., 2000; Scott, 1992; Willie, Grady, & Hope, 1991). The co-mentoringmodel is also powerful, although in a different way, for academicallycompetent students who are at-risk of never realizing that they canbecome published writers. Most graduate students can excel in a learn-ing climate that provides them with the chance for rapid intellectual andinterpersonal growth.

Students need to be actively engaged in their courses as both learnersand teachers (Mintz, 1998). My students report that they have experi-enced university courses that build on a process, not of studentempowerment, but of proving a hypothesis that has already been estab-lished for them. Although graduate programs often include advancedcourses that cover components of a research study (for instance, dataanalysis and display), students need to be guided by a complex and ho-listic curriculum with a progression of research activities presented inmanageable pieces (Bruning & Horn, 2000; Nikolova Eddins & Williams,1997). University programs that encourage active learning for studentsresult in increased knowledge and improved reading and writing skills,among other significant gains (Terwel, 1999).

Conclusions

Questions that have arisen through this study about higher educationcompel me to ask, Do we as members of the academic community un-derestimate the ability of our graduate students to learn how to write forpublication or, possibly, our own ability to engage them in this challeng-ing process? Do we value writing-for-publication as empowerment forthe student members of our communities of scholars? Or could it be thatwe somehow expect graduate students to learn about the academic cul-ture, including its values and practices, by trial and error?

New learning conditions are needed in higher education that will helpprepare students for the demands of tomorrows professions and insti-tutions. Faculty members can help prepare students as leaders by usingtheir courses to teach writing skills and related academic material, suchas publishing formats and expectations. We also can help students bysponsoring such opportunities as academic mentoring roundtables atconferences, whereby doctoral students receive feedback from scholarson work they intend to submit for publication. Although many higher


education programs offer one or more courses on the dissertation as aresearch process, this is insufficient training for most students. The chal-lenge of academic writing for publication involves additional rigorouslearning; guidance needs to be provided to adult learners at much earli-er developmental stages.

Many more courses and programs in higher education need to incor-porate a research/writing curriculum that promotes opportunities fordiscussion, application, and publication for the purpose of furtheringthe development of our students. Both colleges of education and profes-sional associations need to support this goal. A problem that collegeshave yet to resolve is the shortage of faculty to teach qualitative writingand research skills (Stallings, 1995) and to offer focused attention to stu-dents during and beyond formal coursework. This kind of transformativeproject is about the need to create a more accountable and empoweringrelationship among students, instructors, and institutions. We invite othereducators whose writing and research programs have made a differenceto share their insights with the rest of us.

Footnotes

1Three domains of the literature are relevant to this study of the im-portance of student writing and research skills. One major domain iscollege student writing (specifically composition/experiential and tech-nical writing) (Anson, 1999; Bolling, 1994; Bolton, 1994; Carpenter, 1996;Lincoln, 1998; Prior, 1991; Richardson, 1994; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1986;Smith, 1997; Straub & Lunsford, 1995; Valde, 1997). A second area is thesocialization and liberation of adult learners (through such vehicles asdissertation cohort groups and publishing activities) (Cassuto, 1998; Cole& Hunt, 1994; Dinham & Scott, 1999; Henson, 1999; Witte & James, 1998).A third area is the mentoring of college students in a culture of effectiveleadership and collaboration (through such outlets as faculty-student andpeer mentoring) (Bona et al., 1995; Bova & Phillips, 1984; Kochan & Sabo,1995; Mullen et al., 2000; Mullen & Lick, 1999; Nikolova Eddins & Will-iams, 1997).

2The educational field of scholarly writing can be categorized into fourmodels. The first model is ideologically driven from cultural studies,ethnic models, feminist theory, and narrative/fiction/life history (Den-zin, 1994). The second model involves information gathering about therole of graduate schools in socializing doctoral students to become pub-lished scholars. For example, Dinham and Scotts (1999) survey measuresthe success of those with doctorates by considering two factors: whether


the subjects had been socialized in graduate school to disseminate theirworks and the degree of success in their current lives. Engstroms (1999)case study also investigates the socializing influences during graduateschool of those with doctorates, but through the lenses of prolific schol-ars. The third writing model is grounded in the practice ofteacher-researchers who share pedagogical strategies that have workedwell with their students (Bolton, 1994; Mintz, 1998; Richardson, 1994;Valde, 1997). A fourth model appears to be missing in the literature, onethat combines theory with practice through an experientially developed,holistic curriculum. This is the contribution that the WPF model seeks tomake, by asking, How can the formal curriculum be used to prepare graduatestudents to become published writers who recognize their own potential to de-velop?

References

About askERIC. (1999). Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)Clearinghouses. [Online]. Available: http://www.askeric.org/About/

Anderson, E. M., & Shannon, S. L. (1988). Toward a conceptualization ofmentoring. Journal of Teacher Education, 39 (1), 38-42.

Anson, C. M. (1999). Distant voices: Teaching and writing in a culture oftechnology. College English, 61 (3), 261-280.

Bolling, A. L. (1994). Using group journals to improve writing and com-prehension. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 5 (1), 47-55.

Bolton, G. (1994). Stories at work: Fictional-critical writing as a means ofprofessional development. British Educational Research Journal, 20 (1),55-68.

Bona, M. J., Rinehart, J., & Volbrecht, R. M. (1995). Show me how to dolike you: Co-mentoring as feminist pedagogy. Feminist Teacher, 9 (3),116-124.

Bova, B., & Phillips, R. (1984). Mentoring as a learning experience foradults. Journal of Teacher Education, 35 (3), 16-25.

Brown, A., & Dowling, P. (1998). Doing research/reading research: A modelof interrogation for education. London: Falmer Press.

Bruning, R., & Horn, C. (2000). Developing motivation to write. Educa-tional Psychologist, 35 (1), 25-37.

Carpenter, S. S. (1996). Breathing the words: What students have taughtme. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 7 (2), 113-120.

Cassuto, L. (1998, November 27). Pressures to publish fuel the profes-sionalization of todays graduate students. The Chronicle of HigherEducation, 45 (14), pp. B4-B5.


Cole, A. L., & Hunt, D. E. (Eds.). (1994). The doctoral dissertation journey:Reflections from travellers and guides. Toronto: OISE Press.

Denzin, N. K. (1994). The art and politics of interpretation. In N. K. Den-zin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 500-515).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Introduction: Entering the field ofqualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbookof qualitative research (pp. 1-17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dinham, S., & Scott, C. (1999). The waste of a Ph.D.: The experience of dis-seminating the results of post graduate research. Paper presented to theHigher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia,Melbourne, Australia.

Edwards, R., & Usher, R. (1998). Lo(o)s(en)ing the boundaries: From ed-ucation to lifelong learning. Studies in Continuing Education, 20 (1),83-103.

Engstrom, C. M. (1999). Promoting the scholarly writing of female doc-toral students in higher education and student affairs program. NASPAJournal, 36 (4), 264277.

Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. London: Falmer Press.Gallimore, R., Tharp, R. G., & John-Steiner, V. (1992). The developmental

and sociocultural foundations of mentoring. Columbia University, NY:Institute for Urban Minority Education. (ERIC Document Reproduc-tion Service No. ED 354292)

Geertz, C. (1988). Works and lives: The anthropologist as author. Stanford,CA: Stanford University Press.

Henson, K. T. (1999). Writing for professional publication: Keys to aca-demic and business success. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Kochan, F. K, & Sabo, D. J. (1995). Transforming educational leadershipprograms through collaboration: Practicing what we preach. Planningand Changing, 26 (3/4), 168-178.

Kuh, G. D. (1999). Setting the bar high to promote student learning. In G.A. Blimling, E. J. Whitt, & Associates (Eds.), Good practice in studentaffairs: Principles to foster student learning (pp. 67-89). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Levinson, D. J., Darrow, C., Klein, E., Levinson, M., & McKee, B. (1978).The seasons of a mans life. New York: Knopf.

Lincoln, Y. S. (1998, April). The ethics of teaching in qualitative research. Pa-per presented at the annual meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, San Diego, CA.

Mintz, J. A. (1998). Involving students in their own learning: When thestudents become the teachers. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching,9 (1), 69-85.


Mullen, C. A. (2000, Winter). Constructing co-mentoring partnerships:Walkways we must travel. Theory Into Practice, 39 (1), 4-11.

Mullen, C. A., Cox, M. D., Boettcher, C. K., & Adoue, D. S. (Eds.). (2000).Breaking the circle of one: Redefining mentorship in the lives and writings ofeducators (2nd ed.). New York: Peter Lang.

Mullen, C. A., & Lick, D. W. (Eds.). (1999). New directions in mentoring:Creating a culture of synergy. London: Falmer Press.

Mullen, C. A., Whatley, A., & Kealy, W. A. (2000). Widening the circle:Faculty-student support groups as innovative practice in higher edu-cation. Interchange: A Quarterly Review of Education, 31 (1), 35-60.

Newby, T. J., Stepich, D. A., Lehman, J. D., & Russell, J. D. (1996). Instruc-tional technology for teaching and learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Nikolova Eddins, S. G., & Williams, D. F. (1997). Strategies for sustain-able integration of research activities within an established curriculum.Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 8 (3), 95-108.

Phillips-Jones, L. (1982). Mentors and protgs. New York: Arbor House.Prior, P. (1991). Contextualizing writing and response in a graduate sem-

inar. Written Communication, 8, 267-310.Richardson, L. (1994). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y.

S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 516-529). Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1986). Research on written composition.In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.; pp.778-803). New York: Macmillan.

Scott, M. E. (1992). Designing effective mentoring programs: Historicalperspectives and current issues. Journal of Humanistic Education andDevelopment, 30, 167-177.

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning orga-nization. New York: Doubleday.

Smith, S. (1997). The genre of the end comment: Conventions in teacherresponses to student writing. College Composition and Communication,48 (2), 249-268.

Stallings, W. M. (1995). Confessions of a quantitative educational research-er trying to teach qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 24 (3),31-32.

Straub, R., & Lunsford, R. F. (1995). Twelve readers reading: Responding tocollege student writing. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.

Tauer, S. (1998). The mentor-protg relationship and its impact on theexperienced teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14 (2), 205-218.

Terwel, J. (1999). Constructivism and its implications for curriculum the-ory and practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31 (2), 195-199.


Valde, G. A. (1997). Promoting student participation and learning throughthe use of weekly writing assignments. Journal on Excellence in CollegeTeaching, 8 (3), 67-76.

Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Willie, C. V., Grady, M. K., & Hope, R. O. (1991). African Americans andthe doctoral experience: Implications for policy. New York: Teachers Col-lege Press.

Witte, J. E., & James, W. B. (1998). Cohort partnerships: A pragmatic ap-proach to doctoral research. New Directions for Adult and ContinuingEducation, 79, 53-62.

I am grateful to my graduate students who embraced this learning challengeand who gave me permission to quote their responses from my data. I also wishto thank the two anonymous reviewers of this article who provided helpfulfeedback.

Carol A. Mullen is assistant professor in the Leadership Development Department atthe University of South Florida. She teaches courses in leadership, administration, andcurriculum and received a teaching award for academic excellence by the Auburn Uni-versity Panhellenic Council in 1999. Her research focuses on curriculum-based mentoringtheory and practice within school-university settings. Her latest book is New Direc-tions in Mentoring (1999, Falmer Press). Breaking the Circle of One (2000, 2nd ed.,Peter Lang) won the Exemplary Research in Teaching and Teacher Education Awardfrom AERA (Division K) in 1998.


Appendix

Summary of the Writing Process and Feedback (WPF) Model

This research-based writing assignment for graduate students may needto be adjusted to accommodate different disciplines, curriculum areas,timeframes, teaching styles, improvements, preferences, academicabilities, and learner input.

Steps forGraduate Students Writing, Research, and Publishing Specifics

Paragraph Writing Outline your intended research topic inabout three sentences. Provide thereasons/rationale for this study. Write oneresearch question based on your professionalinterests and any secondary questions. Listthe methods you plan to use (e.g.,questionnaires, interviews, focus groups).These are your data sources. Include atimeframe for the development of yourstudy (e.g., instrument[s], the collection ofdata, and the analysis). Provide key sourcesfrom the literature and elsewhere.

Paragraph Sharing Bring copies of your paragraph to class. Readeach others paragraphs. Help the otherwriters to develop their ideas and plans andreach out to get constructive feedback fromothers. Offer resources to classmates (e.g.,access to a specific research population orsite).

Phase 1 Writing Develop the paragraph exercise byelaborating on each of the items in yourparagraph exercise. Write personal queriesabout unanswered questions regarding theresearch process directly on the text.Emphasise your thoughts, concerns, andplans for the project by, for example, usingbold or colored font. Questions go directly inthe text or margins. Also, clarify the areas ofyour study that still require development(e.g., collection and analysis of the data).Submit your draft instruments (tables orfigures) and get feedback prior to use. Findcreative and prompt ways to gather data.



Phase 1 Sharing Circulate your text to the class. If there aresensitive issues in your study, discuss themwith the instructor beforehand. Present yourresearch and talk openly about the areas ofthe project that are working well and theareas that concern you. Ask for specificfeedback and offer constructive input toothers. Encourage others to discuss issuesthat you share in common, such as questionsabout confidentiality and how to protect theidentity of participants and/or institutions.Discover what areas of the research processthe class shares and discuss these byworking through all major ideas anddecisions together.

Subsequent Writing Phases Submit three to four (or more) drafts of yourwriting. Continue to use the strategies forwriting development and honest reportingoutlined for the Paragraph Writing phase.Express any confusion that you may beexperiencing.

Continued Sharing At this point you ideally should have sharedaspects of your work on a regular basis. Theidea is to share the messy realities of yourstudy, not to protect them or to make theresearch process seem perfect orflawlessits not. Search for the deepervalue of the research process by turning itslimitations and obstacles into material forwriting (and, hence, strengths).

Final Writing Phase Learn the publishing style that is requiredfor your purposes. Examine manuscripts thatare in the correct form. Include your table(s)and/or figure(s). Present the results of yourwork. One way of doing this is to use yourtable/figure as a handout to describe theresults and implications of your study. Thisway you will be certain to have feedbackfrom the group in these critical areas.



Writing Refinements Learn where you will submit your study forreview before the course is over. You canbegin with electronic venues that publishstudent papers (in the U.S., this would be theERIC Clearinghouse), and then furtherimprove the work before submitting it to ajournal. Find out about the relevant journalsin your area and their acceptance ratesbefore you submit. Your text may needadditional revision before it can be sent outfor review for publication. It may evenrequire a larger subject pool and moreextensive analyses of the data as well asprofound or original insights. Ask yourself,What am I contributing of value to theacademic/professional field that my paperaddresses? Be patient with any suchadditional layering and envisioning. Thisprocess can make the critical difference inwhether or not your work is accepted. Seekanswers to your questions about publishingfrom knowledgeable faculty and students,scholarly guides (e.g., Henson, 1999), writingworkshops, and the Internet. Be persistent!

A New Writing Cycle Initiate a new writing/research cycle with astudy that extends your previous one, or thatis different altogether. Strive for cohesivestudies that reflect your values andphilosophy of education.

Documents

What_I_Needed_to_Know_to_Get_Published_Teaching_Frightened_Graduate_Students_to_Write_for_Publication.pdf