An academic writing model: Lessons learned from experienced writers

Fahrus Zaman Fadhly, Muziatun Muziatun, Nanan Abdul Manan, Arrofa Acesta, Dadang Solihat

Abstract


Academic writing seems daunting for novice writers. Unveiling cognitive processes of experienced writers in academic writing can presumably aid novice writers, primarily writing for publication. The purpose of this research is to explore the cognitive processes of experienced writers who have published articles in reputable journals in writing scientific articles. Three experienced writers participated in the study: one from the social science and two from the STEM fields. Thematic analysis following the six phases of Braun and Clark (2006) was conducted to analyze the interview data from three experienced writers. The findings from the interview generated five themes: search, topic, research, writing, and publication. These emerging themes have similarities with the previous academic writing models but expand some actions toward the publication process. The themes reflected the steps taken by the experienced writers who participated in the study in producing their published articles. Thus, these steps can be used as one of the models to guide novice writers intending to publish their work in academic journals.

Academic writing seems daunting for novice writers., and Uunveilingthe cognitive processes of experienced writers in academic writing can presumably aid novice writers, primarily writing for publication. The purpose of this research is to explore the cognitive processes of experienced writers who have published articles in reputable journals in writing scientific articles. Three experienced writers participated in the study: one from the social science and two from the STEM fields. Thematic analysis following the six phases of Braun and Clark (2006) was conducted to analyze the interview data from three experienced writers. The findings from the interview generated five themes: search, topic, research, writing, and publication. These emerging themes have similarities with the previous academic writing models but expand some actions toward the publication process. The themes reflected the steps taken by the experienced writers who participated in the study seem to employ the steps reflected in the themes in producing their published articles. Thus, these steps this model can be used as one of the models to guideguidelines for novice writers intending to publish their work in academic journals.


Keywords


Academic writing; experienced writers; novice writers; thematic analysis

References


Baier-Fuentes, H., Merigó, J. M., Amorós, J. E., & Gaviria-Marín, M. (2019). International entrepreneurship: A bibliometric overview. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15(2), 385–429.

Bereiter, C & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1982). From conversation to composition: The role of instruction in a developmental process. Dalam R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Birks, M., & Mills, J. (2015). Grounded theory: A practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Brainard, J. J. S. (2020). Scientists are drowning in COVID-19 papers. Can new tools keep them afloat. Science, 13(10), 11-26.

Chanson, H. (2007). Research quality, publications and impact in civil engineering into the 21st century: Publish or perish, commercial versus open access, internet versus libraries?" Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 34(8), 946–951. doi:10.1139/l07-027

Chenoweth, A & Hayes, J. (2003). The inner voice in writing. Written Communication, 20(1), 99-118.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Los Angeles: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research 4th edition. Boston: Pearson Education

Fadhly, F. Z. & Ratnaningsih, N. (2016). Reconstruction of cognitive process in popular article writing. Asian EFL Journal, 20(5), 7-33.

Fadhly, F. Z., Emzir, & Lustyantie, N. (2018). Exploring cognitive process of research topic selection in academic writing. English Review: Journal of English Education, 7(1), 157-166. doi: 10.25134/erjee.v7i1.1535.

Flower, L. & Hayes, J. (1980b). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In Gregg, Lee; Steinberg, Erwin (eds.) Cognitive processes in writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 31-50.

Flower, L. and Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387.

Flower, L., Stein, V., Ackerman, J., Kantz, M.J., McCormick, K., & Peck, W. C. (1990). Reading-to-write: Exploring a cognitive and social process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Grewal, A. Kataria, H. & Dhawan, I. (2016). Literature search for research planning and identification of research problem. Indian Journal of Anaesthesia, 60(9): 635–639. doi: 10.4103/0019-5049.190618.

Hayes, J. R. (2012). Modeling and remodeling writing. Written communication, 29(3), 369-388.

Hayes, J. R., & Olinghouse, N. G. (2015). Can cognitive writing models inform the design of the common core state standards? The Elementary School Journal, 115(4), 480-497.

Hinkel, E. (2014). Effective curriculum for teaching L2 writing. London: Taylor & Francis.

Kahraman, S. (2015). An evaluation of an English language teaching education program in terms of teacher autonomy. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 2(2), 53-66.

Kellogg, R. (1996) A model of working memory in writing. In Levy, Michael; Ransdell, Sarah (eds.) The Science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 57-72.

Kemenridstekdikti. (2018). Menristekdikti targetkan publikasi ilmiah internasional Indonesia terbaik di Asia tenggara dan peningkatan produk inovasi di tahun 2019. Diakses dari https://ristekdikti.go.id/kabar/menristekdikti-targetkan-publikasi-ilmiah-internasional-indonesia-terbaik-di-asia-tenggara-dan-peningkatan-produk-inovasi-di-tahun-2019/

Klein, P. D. (2004). Constructing scientific explanations through writing. Instructional Science 32(3), 191–231.

Kraus, S., Breier, M., & Dasí-Rodríguez, S. (2020). The art of crafting a systematic literature review in entrepreneurship research. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 16, 1–20.

Kraus, S., Mahto, R. V. & Walsh, S. T. (2021). The importance of literature reviews in small business and entrepreneurship research. Journal of Small Business Management, 17, 1-12.

Kroll. B. (2003). Exploring the dynamics of second language writing. Ernst Klett Sprachen.

Lubis, M. S., Rahimah, A. & Lubis, I. S. (2019). Kesulitan-kesulitan yang dihadapi oleh mahasiswa yang mengampuh mata kuliah bahasa indonesia di program studi bahasa Indonesia IPTS dalam penulisan karya tulis ilmiah (KTI). Jurnal Education and Development, 7(3), 193-199.

Nuraeni, I., & Fadhly, F. Z. (2016). Creative process in fiction writing of three Indonesian writers. Indonesian EFL Journal, 2(2), 117-126.

Öchsner, A. (2013), Introduction to scientific publishing. Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Paris, P., Said, I., Hamsa, A., & Mahmudah, M. (2015). Discourse mastery based on Indonesian language teaching skills of the second grade students in senior high school, Pangkep Regency. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6(1), 172-178.

Paris, P., Said, I., Hamsa, A., & Mahmudah, M. (2015). Discourse mastery based on Indonesian language teaching skills of the second grade students in senior high school, Pangkep Regency. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6(1), 172-178.

Rahimi, M., Kushki, A., & Nassaji, H. (2015). Diagnostic and developmental potentials of dynamic assessment for L2 writing. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 2(2), 185-208.

Rahimi, M., Kushki, A., & Nassaji, H. (2015). Diagnostic and developmental potentials of dynamic assessment for L2 writing. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 2(2), 185-208.

Rahmatunisa, W. (2014). Problems faced by EFL learners in writing argumentative essay. English Review: Journal of English Education,3(1), 41-49.

Rahmiati (2015). Analisis kendala internal mahasiswa dalam menulis karya ilmiah. Ad-Daulah, 4(2), 327-343.

Republika. (23 Februari 2018). Banyak profesor tak produktif menulis. Retrieved on July 17, 2020 from https://www.republika.co.id/berita/pendidikan/eduaction/18/02/23/ p4leyr335-banyak-profesor-tak-produktif-menulis

Savin-Baden, M. & Howell Major, C. (2013). Qualitative research: The essential guide to theory and practice. Abingdon: Routledge.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. 91987). Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming in written composition. Advances in Applied Psycholinguistics, 2(1), 142-175.

Silva, T., & Matsuda, P. K. (Eds.). (2012). On second language writing. London: Routledge.

Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333-339.

White, R., & Cheung, M. (2015). Communication of fantasy sports: A comparative study of user-generated content by professional and amateur writers. Professional Communication, IEEE Transactions on, 58(2), 192-207.

Wodak, R. & Meyer, M. (2009). Methods for critical discourse analysis. London: Sage Pulishing.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v12i3.44952

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


View My Stats

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.