Note-taking in the Academic Writing Process of Non-native Speaker = Students:=20 Is it Important as a Process or a Product?
by J. Christine Gould , JoAnne M. Katzmarek , Patricia A. =
Shaw
Three=20
junior faculty members decided to meet regularly to discuss their =
experiences=20
and frustrations with academic publishing. The authors reflect on the =
obstacles=20
they faced and the revelations that helped them become successful=20
writers.
THERE we were. Three new junior faculty members in the =
School of=20
Education, inundated by a million and a half things to do, with little =
time in=20
which to do them and even less time to have a life on the side. Each of =
us had=20
fairly extensive experience teaching and counseling in K-12 settings, =
but the=20
university experience of combining teaching, publishing, and service was =
new to=20
us all.
We were drawn to one another by our shared predicament and an =
interest in facing the challenge of entering the world of academic =
writing. We=20
began with tentative inquiries in the hallways outside our offices. We =
asked one=20
another what we were doing to get started publishing. Although we were =
all=20
members of the "junior" faculty, we found ourselves at three distinct =
places on=20
a continuum. We decided to meet regularly and talk about the challenges =
we faced=20
with writing for publication. Our aim was to learn as much as we could =
from our=20
pooled experiences.
Initially, we didn't plan agendas for our =
sessions but=20
approached each meeting as a way to take a step back from our individual =
writing=20
work and share a critique of our beliefs and practices. Our first =
meeting or two=20
can best be characterized as confused and unfocused. These meetings did =
little=20
to inspire or motivate us to write, and our confusion pushed us further =
away=20
from actual writing. Still, this initial confusion might have been =
extremely=20
important. As Eleanor Duckworth points out in her account of a yearlong =
teacher=20
study group, "If our knowledge is to be useful, we must be free to =
examine it,=20
to admit our confusion, and to appreciate our way of seeing the problem, =
explore=20
it and finally move to a new level of understanding." (1)
We agreed =
to=20
continue meeting, but we decided to audiotape our conversations. We =
thought that=20
playing back the tape or reading the transcript of each session might =
help us=20
see and understand patterns in our discussion of academic writing. Barb =
Birchek=20
and her colleagues had developed a similar way of handling their =
discussions:=20
general sharing, focused dialogue, and negotiation for the focus of the =
next=20
meeting. (2) From those rough early meetings grew what Etienne Wenger =
refers to=20
as a "community of practice." (3) In what follows, each of us shares her =
reflection on our joint effort to mold ourselves into a community of =
practice=20
designed to help us become part of the larger community of educators =
through our=20
published work.
CHRIS: REVISE, RESUBMIT, AND OVERREACT
"Start at =
the top.=20
You can always send your manuscript to a lesser journal if the first one =
rejects=20
you." This advice came from a respected and well-published member of my =
doctoral=20
committee, and I decided to follow it. As soon as I had settled into my =
first=20
university teaching job, I began working on Submission Number 1, which =
was=20
intended for a themed issue of Educational Leadership, a top-tier =
journal.=20
Several weekends and many bleary-eyed proofreading sessions later, my =
article=20
was ready. Like many novice writers, I loved every word. I packed up the =
manuscript and sent it off to the editors, making the deadline for the =
special=20
issue by just hours. I fully expected a rejection letter filled with =
caustic=20
comments.
Then I took a new job at a different university and began =
the long=20
process of another move. During the ensuing chaos, I temporarily lost =
track of=20
people, places, things, and so on. Once I was somewhat settled in my new =
locale,=20
I contacted the editorial staff of Educational Leadership and discovered =
that=20
they had accepted my article and needed me to get in touch with an =
editor=20
immediately to fine-tune it for publication. I was elated and would have =
done=20
anything they asked, so a little fine-tuning was nothing to me.
In =
the=20
naivete of my early career, I wasn't aware of just how many submissions =
arrive=20
at Educational Leadership, and I didn't know about its low acceptance =
rate=20
(roughly 10%). So I began to wonder if publishing wasn't as difficult as =
people=20
made it out to be. Soon after, I began to share my good news about my=20
manuscript, "An Early Childhood Accelerated Program," (4) with =
colleagues who=20
were veterans of the publishing wars. Several had submitted multiple =
times to=20
Educational Leadership, only to be rejected. It gradually dawned on me =
just what=20
a fluke it had been to have my first manuscript accepted by a top-flight =
journal.
When the issue was published, I found my article printed =
next to one=20
by a leader in my field. My article printed next to that of a famous =
scholar!=20
How could the editors have made such a mistake? I was sure I would =
shortly be=20
revealed as an imposter whose ideas and writing didn't belong side by =
side with=20
those of noted individuals. Cinderella was enjoying the ball, but the =
clock was=20
about to strike midnight.
Submission Number 2 was a different story. =
I=20
followed my standard preparation format and sent the article off. That =
was the=20
high point, and it was all downhill from there. I submitted the piece to =
another=20
journal in my field for yet another themed issue. When I received the =
acceptance=20
letter, the editor wanted six changes that had been suggested by the =
peer=20
reviewers--two major and four minor. Upon reading the acceptance letter, =
my=20
indignation welled up immediately. Who did these people think they were =
talking=20
to? I was a published author. Sure, it was one publication, but still, I =
was a=20
published author. Did these people really want me to change some of my =
words? My=20
precious words that I had toiled over late into the night when normal =
people=20
were sleeping?
Maturity got the better of me, and I didn't send off =
an angry=20
e-mail to the editor. I simply put the packet with the peer reviews =
aside and=20
went about the many things I had to do that week. A few days later--on a =
Saturday--I came back to my peer-reviewed submission and reread =
everything. I=20
was slightly less indignant this time and so could view this process =
with some=20
perspective. It occurred to me that the peer reviewers might be =
right.
I made=20
the six changes. A couple of them were minor and easily completed. The =
others=20
required finding more sources to bolster connections and build =
transitions=20
between topics. By the end of this process, I didn't care if I never saw =
that=20
article again. Half the weekend was down the drain this =
time.
However, the=20
lag time between my revision and the eventual publication of the article =
allowed=20
me to forget the difficult parts, and I was just as thrilled as the =
first time=20
when the issue came out. Reading "Science Starts Early" was almost like =
reading=20
a new article. (5)
I wish I could say I had a focused plan for how to =
go=20
about developing ideas and writing a manuscript, but that would be =
giving myself=20
more credit than I deserve. I simply start by jotting down my thoughts =
on any=20
available paper--backs of envelopes seem to be particularly =
inspirational to me.=20
Then I transfer my thoughts to a typed list on regular-sized paper, and =
from=20
that list I construct a very, very rough draft. In fact, calling my =
manuscript a=20
rough draft at this stage is giving it more credit than it =
deserves.
Next, I=20
put everything away for a few days and come back with a fresh eye. At =
this=20
point, I am concerned only about ideas. Once I think I have my ideas in =
good=20
form, I begin editing. This process includes writing many more drafts as =
each=20
one becomes tighter. Usually, I have six or seven drafts before the =
paper is in=20
the shape I want it to be prior to submitting it for peer =
review.
I've always=20
had a mental picture of what editing a journal is like. It's the same =
mental=20
picture I have of a big-city newspaper--frantic typing, rushing around, =
harried=20
editors, noise, and tension. One year, when I attended a national =
conference in=20
my field, I went to a session on publishing. All the editors of the =
major=20
journals were there. I started to suspect that my mental picture was =
wrong and=20
that the editor was a lonely, overworked professor toiling away in the =
office on=20
a Saturday night when everyone else was at the football game. Everyone =
except=20
me, that is. I was home writing.
JoANNE: IN SOME WAYS, IT'S BEEN AN=20
OBSTACLE
At first, I used a Venn diagram to help me understand my =
struggles=20
with the switch from creative writing to academic writing. Instead of =
giving up=20
creative writing, which I had come to enjoy and count on, I wanted to =
discover=20
how to use creative writing as a springboard into academic =
writing.
In my=20
diagram, I noted, among other things, that academic writing is distant =
and=20
outside of myself. Even though that may have seemed true when I began =
this=20
process, I now know it is not so. Academic writing is honest writing, as =
honest=20
as any other type of writing. If I don't genuinely care about the =
problem or=20
issue I am writing about, then the quality of my writing suffers. I have =
experienced this several times.
For example, I may decide to write on =
a=20
particular issue, such as standardized testing, but find I can't write =
well=20
about it because I just don't have a genuine interest. There's nothing =
wrong=20
with the topic. In The Case Against Standardized Testing, Alfie Kohn =
writes=20
passionately and effectively about standardized testing. (6) But I don't =
have a=20
well-developed perspective on it, so it should be no surprise that I =
can't write=20
well about it. So it's not true that academic writing is distant and =
outside of=20
self. If a gap exists, it is the fault of the writer's choice of=20
topic.
Another phrase I have written on the "academic writing" half =
of my=20
Venn diagram is problem/solution. When I wrote that phrase, I was =
considering it=20
as antithetical to expressive writing. But, as I have since learned, =
this is=20
also not true.
I recently gave a writing assignment to my students, =
who were=20
preservice secondary teachers. They were supposed to write a reflective =
essay=20
about how they learn and then apply their discoveries to how they =
envision=20
themselves as teachers. How would their learning patterns affect their =
own=20
practice as teachers?
I also decided to write the assignment myself. =
I had=20
prompted my students to re-create a time when they learned something =
significant=20
or when they learned effectively. Through this narrative, I hoped they =
would=20
understand writing as a way to uncover essential knowledge about =
themselves. I=20
solve problems or understand conflicts best when I reflect on them in a =
natural=20
setting. To write this assignment, I decided to cross-country ski with =
the paper=20
topic in mind. After a vigorous sunset ski, I came inside and wrote the =
first=20
version of the paper. After several rewrites, I sent it off to a =
national=20
publication on alternative learning, and the editors accepted it for=20
publication. (7) What had begun as an assignment for my students ended =
as a=20
demonstration that I could connect academic writing with expressive =
writing. The=20
final version included memoir writing and some aspects of creative =
nonfiction,=20
items from the "expressive" half of my diagram.
PAT: WHEN IS ENOUGH =
REJECTION=20
ENOUGH?
Fear of judgment. Fear of being compared to other authors. =
Fear of=20
rejection. Personal doubt about the value of my scholarly contributions. =
These=20
and myriad other feelings about scholarly writing and publishing merge =
into my=20
pursuit of what I call legitimacy.
As a junior member of the faculty =
at a=20
comprehensive university, I was not unaware of the "publish or perish" =
adage. I=20
was, quite frankly, somewhat relieved to learn that our university =
emphasizes=20
teaching as our major responsibility.
However, the requirement that =
we=20
produce scholarly work cannot be minimized, and this fact is driven home =
at=20
retention, promotion, and tenure meetings. The issue of legitimacy in=20
publishing, therefore, is of paramount importance to me. In my effort to =
publish, I often encounter a number of psychological barriers that work =
to=20
prevent me from expanding my curriculum vitae.
Why, for example, =
should my=20
opinion, my research, or my reflections be considered worthy of =
publication? I=20
do have a Ph.D., but having been a university faculty member for only =
two years,=20
I have no reputation at all as a scholarly writer. I'm so unlike the =
authors of=20
note whose names appear in the bylines of educational journal articles =
and whose=20
distinguished scholarship I often compare with my own.
In my pursuit =
of=20
legitimacy, I'm often plagued by questions: Is the language in which I =
write=20
reflective of a scholarly writer? Does my work reflect the "rigor" of =
research?=20
Writing from a generally qualitative perspective (education being one of =
the=20
"soft" sciences), does my work compare favorably with that of those who=20
undertake studies of more longitudinal or statistical rigor?
As I =
reflect on=20
such questions, I believe the primary barrier to accepting my own =
legitimacy in=20
the world of academic publishing is self-doubt: doubt about the value of =
my=20
message to others and doubt that my junior faculty status will be an =
acceptable=20
credential for the publishing powers that be. What right, I ask myself, =
does an=20
untenured assistant professor have to be published next to leaders in =
the field=20
who have already distinguished themselves through their scholarly =
work?
But=20
despite my doubts, I want my writing to be of use to other educators. I =
want my=20
writing to empower others to teach more effectively, to be more informed =
about a=20
particular issue, and to have a positive impact on the learning of their =
students. Having worked in a public school setting for over 12 years as =
a=20
counselor, I know that many teachers, even veteran teachers, have =
ongoing=20
concerns about the impact that events outside the classroom have on =
their=20
students' learning. For example, how does a teacher effectively =
recognize and=20
deal with a child whose parents are going through a divorce? In what =
ways can a=20
teacher best address the behavior and attitudinal changes of a student =
who has=20
lost a loved one or even a favorite pet? I wrote an article about those =
very=20
issues and had it rejected by three different publications before I =
could=20
rejoice over a conditional acceptance by Kappa Delta Pi Record, a =
national=20
journal. (8)
I knew from personal experience that teachers would =
value this=20
information once they had access to it. However, after multiple =
rejections--some=20
with no feedback about ways in which I could improve the article--I felt =
defeated and seriously considered shelving the piece. Fortunately, I was =
able to=20
overcome my fear of rejection, and I stubbornly clung to my beliefs =
about the=20
credibility and value of the information. I believed my article would =
enhance=20
teachers' skills when they confronted these dilemmas in their =
classrooms. And=20
this time I succeeded.
Talent, experience, and prior success (not to =
mention=20
expectations of tenure committees) are all powerful motivators driving =
us to=20
continue our efforts to get published. However, as I indicated above, my =
own=20
stubbornness might have been the most compelling force in seeing a piece =
of my=20
writing through to publication. But are there other strategies available =
to=20
overcome the psychological barriers that spur the pursuit of =
legitimacy?
Ray=20
Heitzmann addresses many of the mechanics of writing and publishing in =
higher=20
education, including getting one's ideas on paper, conducting research, =
locating=20
outlets, soliciting critiques from colleagues, and so forth. Heitzmann =
offers=20
this empathic note to help writers come to terms with rejection: "A =
rejection=20
does not constitute the death of a paper, but merely a minor bump in the =
road to=20
production. Remain optimistic and positive; the history of publishing =
success is=20
littered with rejections." (9)
To Heitzmann's sage advice, I would =
add my=20
personal strategies:
* Separate myself psychologically from my =
writing when=20
submitting a manuscript; the reviewers are judging my writing, not =
me.
* Use=20
my writing as a means to learn more about the craft of teaching.
* =
Write for=20
a specific audience or publication (try to fill gaps with my=20
contributions).
* Internalize the advice we give our students: accept =
feedback as a way to learn, and look at rejection as a part--not the =
end--of the=20
process.
* Use a word association strategy to effectively analyze my=20
vocabulary for appropriateness.
* Write with one or more co-authors =
on a=20
topic of mutual interest.
I would expand on the last point by saying =
that=20
this practice poses its own unique challenges of personality, style, =
voice, time=20
constraints, and the focus of the particular journal to which an article =
is=20
submitted. However, writing with others provides benefits as well. =
Nuances may=20
be uncovered that, working in solitude, may have gone unnoticed. Writing =
with=20
others forces me to see multiple perspectives. Furthermore, ideas may =
become=20
better elaborated as the result of multiple sources of input. Personal=20
experience has taught me that there is not one "right" way to create a=20
multi-authored article. Each team can create a system that works for all =
involved.
PROCESS, PRODUCT, AND POSSIBILITIES
Wenger explains that =
a=20
community of practice emerges when we sustain our effort in pursuing an=20
enterprise that leads to some significant learning. He further explains =
that=20
this sustained effort is not a "static subject matter but the very =
process of=20
being engaged in, and participating in developing, an ongoing practice." =
In our=20
case, we initially worked together for the explicit purpose of helping =
one=20
another understand and negotiate the demands of publishing in our =
faculty=20
positions. But we also learned from one another about the ongoing =
practice of=20
being writers in an academic setting. As a result of the work in our =
writing=20
group, each of us explored in her own way what it means to be a =
practicing=20
academic writer. JoAnne used a Venn diagram to resolve the tensions =
between=20
academic and expressive writing. Chris came to understand more fully the =
challenges of the writing process in an academic setting. Pat explored =
her own=20
legitimacy as a participant in the creation of knowledge about teaching =
and=20
learning.
Our continuing conversations have helped us to clarify our =
own=20
strengths and limitations with regard to academic writing and to =
understand the=20
feelings of others like us who may be wrestling with "publishing =
issues." And=20
equally important, our discussions have led us to possibilities for =
future=20
articles. We have all expressed interest in investigating the purpose of =
writing=20
both for ourselves and for our students and exploring relationships =
between our=20
writing and our teaching.
Finally, our camaraderie as junior faculty =
members=20
struggling for intrinsic satisfaction and personal success has been =
strengthened=20
and has enabled us to swim more confidently in the stream of academic=20
writing.
1. Eleanor Duckworth, Teacher to Teacher: Learning from Each =
Other=20
(New York: Teachers College Press, 1997), p. 4.
2. Barb Birchek et =
al.,=20
Teacher Study Groups: Building Community Through Dialogue and Reflection =
(Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English, 1998).
3. =
Etienne=20
Wenger, Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity =
(Cambridge:=20
Cambridge University Press, 1998).
4. J. Christine Gould, Peggy =
Thorpe, and=20
Valerie Weeks, "An Early Childhood Accelerated Program," Educational =
Leadership,=20
November 2001, pp. 47-50.
5. J. Christine Gould, Valerie Weeks, and =
Sarah=20
Evans, "Science Starts Early," Gifted Child Today, Summer 2003, pp. =
38-41,=20
65.
6. AIfie Kohn, The Case Against Standardized Testing (Portsmouth, =
N.H.:=20
Heinemann, 2000).
7. JoAnne Katzmarek, "Thoughts Like Flying Grouse," =
Journal=20
of the Assembly for Expanded Perspectives on Learning, Winter 2004-2005, =
pp.=20
87-88.
8. Patricia A. Shaw, "Death and Divorce: Teaching Dilemmas or=20
Teachable Moments?," Kappa Delta Pi Record, Summer 2004, pp. =
165-69.
9. Ray=20
Heitzmann, "Writing for Publication Successfully in Academia: =
Applications in=20
History, the Social Sciences and Education," National Social Science=20
Perspectives Journal, Spring 2000, pp. 31-39.
J. CHRISTINE GOULD is =
an=20
associate professor in the College of Professional Studies at the =
University of=20
Wisconsin-Stevens Point, where JoANNE M. KATZMAREK is an associate dean =
and head=20
of the School of Education, and PATRICIA A. SHAW is an assistant =
professor of=20
educational psychology.
![3D"paypal](3D"http://www.essay-911.com/essay-encyclopedia/style/img/paypal.jpg")