More than words: PhD students and critical reading

IF 1.8 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Beverly FitzPatrick, Mike Chong, James Tuff, Sana Jamil, Khalid Al Hariri, Taylor Stocks
{"title":"More than words: PhD students and critical reading","authors":"Beverly FitzPatrick, Mike Chong, James Tuff, Sana Jamil, Khalid Al Hariri, Taylor Stocks","doi":"10.1108/sgpe-06-2023-0050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>Many PhD students have strong reading comprehension, but some struggle with how to read critically. The purpose of this study is to understand what reading looks like for PhD students, what they are doing when they read scholarly texts and how they bring these texts to life in meaningful ways.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>The authors conducted a self-study using a phenomenological research approach. Five PhD students collected data on their academic reading for three weeks, including the references, purpose for reading, and what they did as part of the reading process. Second, students analyzed their reading processes according to Paul and Elder’s (2006) intellectual standards. Third, students participated in two semi-structured discussions about the standards in relation to doctoral reading.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>Reading is inseparable from thinking, with Paul and Elder’s (2006) intellectual standards (e.g. clarity, relevance, logic and fairness) playing an essential role in the academic reading process. Alongside these cognitive aspects of reading, the affective domain also contributes to the reading process.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>This study is important because being able to read scholarly work is crucial for completing doctoral programs, conducting research, and publishing. We suggest that just as we need to teach writing, we need to acknowledge that many doctoral students need guidance to read scholarly texts, they need to be educated on the intellectual standards, and supervisors must rest their assumptions about doctoral reading and explicitly teach these processes.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":42038,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/sgpe-06-2023-0050","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

Many PhD students have strong reading comprehension, but some struggle with how to read critically. The purpose of this study is to understand what reading looks like for PhD students, what they are doing when they read scholarly texts and how they bring these texts to life in meaningful ways.

Design/methodology/approach

The authors conducted a self-study using a phenomenological research approach. Five PhD students collected data on their academic reading for three weeks, including the references, purpose for reading, and what they did as part of the reading process. Second, students analyzed their reading processes according to Paul and Elder’s (2006) intellectual standards. Third, students participated in two semi-structured discussions about the standards in relation to doctoral reading.

Findings

Reading is inseparable from thinking, with Paul and Elder’s (2006) intellectual standards (e.g. clarity, relevance, logic and fairness) playing an essential role in the academic reading process. Alongside these cognitive aspects of reading, the affective domain also contributes to the reading process.

Originality/value

This study is important because being able to read scholarly work is crucial for completing doctoral programs, conducting research, and publishing. We suggest that just as we need to teach writing, we need to acknowledge that many doctoral students need guidance to read scholarly texts, they need to be educated on the intellectual standards, and supervisors must rest their assumptions about doctoral reading and explicitly teach these processes.

不只是文字:博士生与批判性阅读
目的许多博士生都有很强的阅读理解能力,但有些人在如何进行批判性阅读方面却很吃力。本研究的目的是了解博士生的阅读情况,他们在阅读学术文章时在做什么,以及他们如何以有意义的方式将这些文章带入生活。五名博士生收集了他们三周学术阅读的数据,包括参考文献、阅读目的以及他们在阅读过程中所做的事情。其次,学生们根据保罗和埃尔德(Paul and Elder,2006 年)的知识标准分析了他们的阅读过程。研究结果阅读与思考密不可分,保罗和埃尔德(2006 年)的知识标准(如清晰度、相关性、逻辑性和公平性)在学术阅读过程中发挥着至关重要的作用。除了阅读的这些认知方面,情感领域也对阅读过程有所贡献。原创性/价值这项研究非常重要,因为能够阅读学术著作对于完成博士课程、开展研究和发表论文至关重要。我们建议,正如我们需要教授写作一样,我们需要承认许多博士生在阅读学术著作时需要指导,他们需要接受知识标准方面的教育,而导师也必须放弃他们对博士生阅读的假设,并明确教授这些过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education
Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
9.10%
发文量
17
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信