"Just write?" ... not quite: writing "procedure" for stem-focused dissertation boot camps.

Blake, Brandy ; Bracewell, Joy ; Stivers, Clint 等

Like graduate students at other universities, many Georgia Tech students face numerous day-to-day challenges from grad school and life, making it difficult for them to finish their dissertations. In order to help our doctoral students make some headway toward that goal, the Communication Center, Tech's multimodal writing center, researched and piloted the school's first Dissertation Boot Camp (DBC). In implementing our own DBC, we found that the techniques that worked well at other research institutions did not necessarily translate to our context. Therefore, we argue that DBC leaders need to be sensitive to the context in which the DBC is created. Though we started with a process-based approach, we quickly modified it into a procedure-based approach, specifically focused for the largely STEM-oriented students at Georgia Tech. This procedure-based approach emphasizes goals, motivation, and wellness. To focus on a singular group of students with specific needs, Georgia Tech's Communication Center (Assistant Director and a Professional Tutor/Postdoctoral Tutoring Coordinator) collaborated with the Communication Specialist from the Stewart School of Industrial and Systems Engineering (ISyE) for the pilot DBC, which included nine ISyE students and one student from the School of Literature, Media, and Communication's Digital Media program. This group created a fairly realistic microcosm of the Georgia Tech Ph.D. population--mostly STEM fields with a few humanities students. The Assistant Director and Postdoctoral Coordinator of the Communication Center worked with the ISyE Communication Specialist to solicit advisor referrals for potential participants and to open the application process to all interested ISyE Ph.D. candidates. Students were chosen first based on their commitment to attend the Boot Camp and second on their preparedness to write for the entirety of the camp. Our Dissertation Boot Camp ran from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday-Friday. Each day, students wrote and edited for the bulk of that time, while also participating in workshops, goal-setting sessions, and stretch breaks.

CURRENT DBC SCHOLARSHIP

In our early efforts to establish a plan, we found current DBC scholarship focuses on the two models specified by Sohui Lee and Chris Golde in "Completing the Dissertation and Beyond: Writing Centers and Dissertation Boot Camps":

* The "Just Write" model: "the productivity-driven ... model presumes that students will write productively, if they are given space, food, and monitored time. 'Just Write' DBCs sometimes include presentations on writer's block and 'stand-by' tutors, but extended writing support is not offered" (2).

* The "Writing Process" model: the model "introduceis] students to the benefits of structured writing time, quiet space, and productivity logs. In addition, 'Writing Process' DBCs work under the assumption that students' writing productivity and motivation are significantly enhanced by consistent and on-going conversations about writing" (2). Such a model could include dissertation writing groups and frequent sessions with writing consultants.

With the "Just Write" and "Writing Process" models in mind, we began our first DBC experiment prepared to borrow from both. We wanted to find out how students responded to "monitored time" and how productive they might be. However, we wanted to focus on process: we planned workshops, discussed how to emphasize long-term changes to the writing process, outlined numerous conversations about writing, and explored the benefits of dissertation writing groups. Excited by Lee and Golde's descriptions of "Writing Process" Boot Camps, we aspired to follow this model. Like them, we too held the belief that "DBCs should offer more [than 'Just Write' Boot Camps] because the primary mission of most writing centers is to cultivate writing awareness with a focus on long-term writing success. DBCs can help graduate students reflect on their own writing even as they rush to finish their theses" (4). Because our interests overlap with Lee and Golde and because of our need for a foundation from which to begin, we followed their model for boot camps.

EXISTING APPROACHES AND OUR CONTEXT

Once our DBC began and we had interacted with our students, we realized the "Writing Process" model did not fit our program needs or work efficiently for our students. Because we recognized the value in Lee and Golde's "Writing Process" model, we wanted to encourage "long-term changes in writing process behavior," as Steve Simpson suggests in "Building for Sustainability: Dissertation Boot Camp as a Nexus of Graduate Writing Support" (2). However, after examining the challenges faced by our staff and students, we decided to take a goal-oriented approach to DBCs that would nonetheless allow us to emphasize aspects of Lee and Golde's model.

We quickly realized our greatest challenges originated in the perceptions and (particularly) the training of the students themselves. While students with undergraduate majors in the humanities likely have enough experience writing to understand the basic need for process, STEM Ph.D. students may come from programs that do little-to-no writing after fulfilling undergraduate writing requirements. These students often have misperceptions about writing, misunderstanding its value, dismissing process and audience, and seeing writing centers as fix-it shops. The divide in expectations between STEM and humanities students likely derives from differences in how writing is treated in major classes, the perception of its purpose, and the regularity of its use in assignments. Many STEM graduate students experience high-level writing problems, but because they are so specialized in their fields and because many have years of distance between their current work and their last writing-intensive course, they resist some tutoring methods humanities students often readily embrace. Thus, STEM graduate students do not inherently value conversation and discussion as a way to work through writing processes, and we found many "Writing Process" DBC methods (one-to-one consultations, writing groups, etc.) a hard sell.

Not surprisingly, our first DBC problem was our mandatory consultation requirement. Like Lee, Golde, and Simpson, we did not want our DBC to perpetuate the "fix-it" stereotype, but the consultations we offered either frustrated our students (and tutors) or perpetuated the stereotype. One-to-one consultations were largely unwanted by the "Just Write" students who wanted to focus and write without interruption, not engage in one-to-one consultations. Additionally, the content of STEM dissertations can often confound tutors with humanities backgrounds. STEM dissertations, featuring formulas, specialized vocabulary, tables, and other conventions unfamiliar to many tutors, will inevitably take time for the tutor to work through. We realized that mandatory one-to-one sessions could be dominated by the time required for reading alone--not helpful for anxious Ph.D. students wanting to make progress during the DBC. Tutors could read the work beforehand, but that strategy negates the ability to converse about the work during the initial reading and could cause the tutor to dominate and point out "problems" that he/she recognizes, which reinforces the writing center fix-it shop stereotype--even if the "fixes" focused on higher order concerns. So we switched to offering one-to-one sessions on a volunteer basis and instead focused on process during workshops and beginning/end-of-day writing discussions.

OUR APPROACH

Similar to Elizabeth Powers' description in "Dissercamp: Dissertation Boot Camp 'Lite,'" our DBC showed both that students needed "an environment that facilitated productivity" (14) and that writing consultations and discussions of writing groups elicited lukewarm responses. Our graduate students want to finish, often have plans on how to finish, but are interrupted by life. Teaching assistantships, extra research work piled on them by professors, housework, the demands of children or other dependents, and more responsibilities constantly get in the way, and finding time to write becomes a serious issue. So once we began our DBC, we came to recognize that our primary goal needed to be helping students who have been interrupted by the life circumstances surrounding grad school to make significant progress on their dissertations. Our secondary goals became helping them improve longterm perceptions of writing, of writing assistance, and of places that support these endeavors--writing centers. Additionally, because many STEM students misunderstand or do not see the immediate value of "Writing Process"-oriented concepts, we wanted to change their perceptions. Rather than immediately fighting their assumptions about writing and writing centers, we did not pressure our DBC participants into consultations or writing groups. Like Powers, we realized we "could best serve the group by providing time and space for dissertators to shape and embody practices they could carry through the entire dissertation writing process" (14).

Thus, having noted challenges our staff and students faced, we committed to a Goal-Oriented DBC, taking a middle ground between the "Writing Process" and "Just Write" models. We focused on process as procedure--a simple change in vocabulary that our procedure-oriented STEM students could relate to--and followed a procedure that emphasized goal-setting, motivation, and wellness. Our DBC, as Lee and Golde suggest, "cultivate[s] writing awareness with a focus on long-term writing success" (4), and we emphasize writing management strategies: changing behavior throughout the writing process in order to alter perceptions of writing and writing success. To address writing praxis within specific frameworks related to students' aims, we modeled positive writing strategies through the structure of the daily "work" routine and incorporated ways for students to discuss, hear about, and reflect on time management techniques and goal-setting. Throughout the week, we formally and informally discussed writing techniques with students. We tried to shape the writing process and production into procedures STEM students could better relate to. Our approach was, at least superficially, very formulaic. We used analogies to the scientific method and formulas as a way to show how the writing process could work, mirroring habits of thought and orientations familiar to our students. Consonant with our shift towards goal-setting, one of the most sustained discussions devoted to writing focused on apps, advice, and techniques for regularizing writing habits. We workshopped time management methods, including tools that freeze social media and the internet (e.g. Freedom, Self-control, Anti-social) and techniques for reorganizing the desktop to reduce "cluttered" thinking (e.g. Spaces). This discussion brought attention to the benefits of focused writing as a way to produce material that can later be revised.

We also emphasized the importance of regular breaks to our highly driven, goal-oriented students, an idea Phyllis Korkki explains in this way:

   Mental concentration is similar to a muscle.... It becomes fatigued
   after sustained use and needs a rest period before it can recover,
   he explains--much as a weight lifter needs rest before doing a
   second round of repetitions at the gym.

Consequently, we shared anecdotes within our own experience, including narratives of productivity from accomplished writers who took time to step away from their computers. Our Postdoc Coordinator shared his dissertation writing struggles, explaining that he'd sit at his computer 10 hours a day-- making little progress--believing that if he did anything besides work on his dissertation, he would not finish on time. But a member of his committee learned of this mental block and insisted he take writing breaks to hang out with friends, watch a movie, whatever. His advisor explained that breaks can recharge the brain and that mental progress is made during writing breaks. Once he began taking breaks, he began making more effective progress. To practice these anecdotal suggestions, we modeled regular breaks throughout the program and highlighted alternatives such as the Time Out app to force students to take breaks so their writing routines would be structured and also manageable. Time Out alerts readers after a certain period of time, sometimes forcing a "micro-break" by dimming the screen. Other applications use alarm noise and visual effects to encourage users to change their focus, as with techniques that divide work into 25-minute chunks and enforce a short break between those chunks. Such applications increase focus, help users divide large tasks into manageable pieces, and emphasize the importance of breaks.

Our daily schedule included time for physical activity and interaction: we took two 10-minute stretch breaks, and at lunch students had to leave their work and the scene of writing. We used YouTube clips to both allow students a mental refresher and show them ways they could find limited "escape time," i.e., "a two-video break." We hoped students would realize that occasionally getting away from the computer can actually increase productivity. We also made changing students' ways of thinking about writing part of our goal-setting. We surmised that heuristics measuring students' progress would fit in with their approach and mindset, and our feedback affirmed that conjecture. While time management, productivity strategies, and forced breaks might allow students to take control of their writing sessions rather than letting the sessions get out of control (leading to procrastination or intimidation), we found that one strategy, specifying and tracking goals, had an immediate effect on the students' general attitudes. This strategy was S.M.A.R.T. rules for goal-setting, a concept attributed to George Doran, identifies five key rules:

* Specific * Measurable * Achievable * Relevant * Time-bound

We correctly predicted the specificity of the ruleset would appeal to STEM students. We gave students a worksheet at the beginning of the week so they could develop long-term writing goals related to their dissertations. We then workshopped S.M.A.R.T. goal concepts with them, allowing them time to revise those goals. Following this revision and at the beginning of every DBC day the students fisted their short-term goals--what they actually wanted to accomplish that day. At the end of each day we discussed their goals, whether they had fulfilled any or all of them, and how they might revise their goal-setting methods the next day. On day one, students vastly overestimated (or underestimated) their writing abilities. Following that day, they became more specific about goals, began to understand how empowering goal-making can actually be, were better able to prioritize and, at the end of the day, could celebrate their successes. When they didn't accomplish something, they were inclined to examine why rather than just berate themselves or dismiss the lapse without making any changes to their process. The clear and easy to follow SMART rules give students prescribed boundaries. By taking control of their writing, our students seemed energized, enthusiastic, and extremely motivated. At the end of the week, we could barely get them to go home.

Besides the students' enthusiasm, student, faculty, and institute response to the program was quite positive. Because the DBC was a pilot project, we could only measure our success in limited ways. We received unsolicited requests for additional DBCs from graduate students in ISyE and other disciplines. The ISyE faculty accepted the DBC as a much-needed graduate student resource and pledged funding for future DBCs. Additionally, we advertised the program's goals to STEM faculty outside of ISyE, who expressed genuine interest in our methods. Finally, the Graduate School Director hopes to contribute funding and space to further the program's development. Now that we have facilitated a DBC and have a general idea of what worked, what did not work, and what we can accomplish in a week, we plan to hold future DBCs, during which we will specifically examine the Mowing:

1. Does altering the vocabulary of writing (from process to procedure) also alter perceptions about writing held by our participating STEM students?

2. What goal-setting, time management, wellness, and reflection strategies do students use in their writing procedure before the DBC?

3. How do students' perceptions of these strategies change by the end of the DBC?

4. Do students propose to implement these strategies after the DBC?

5. Do students' ability to specify and develop attainable goals grow during the DBC week?

In future DBCs, we plan to conduct short-term studies that examine documents used by students throughout the week to self-report on participation, goals, and progress, which will allow us to better evaluate the success of our DBC methods.

We plan to follow a similar process in our next DBC, although this time emphasizing our focus on goal-setting, motivation, and wellness from recruitment to conclusion. We will incorporate more structured break and exercise time, discuss techniques for regulating writing habits earlier, and encourage students to try different apps or time management techniques throughout the week. We will still offer writing consultations and, at the end of the week, discuss the option of dissertation writing groups after we have "buy-in" from the group and can promote these concepts and their benefits more successfully. With this plan of action, we can more methodically determine the benefits of our approach.

Based on our pilot DBC experience and the enthusiasm of its participants, we have concluded that, while process-based writing is conventional and comfortable to those in humanities-related fields, this approach was less familiar to many of the STEM-oriented Georgia Tech graduate students. However, our students responded well to our modified procedure-based approach to writing, an approach focusing on goals, motivation, and wellness. We eschewed vocabulary that would confuse and disorient students, instead focusing on actions that would replicate the process-oriented goals that produce good writing. We accommodated the students by recognizing their needs and aims for participating in a week-long commitment to writing. Although productivity-based DBCs based on the "Just Write" model have been interpreted as sidelining the importance of writing process, they can emphasize changes in writing behavior that lead to a more process-based approach to writing. Such DBCs can provide administrators and writing center personnel a method by which to tailor the practices of their programs to the competencies and experiences of their participants. As we progress forward with our DBCs, we plan to continue adapting according to our students' needs and looking to continue a balance between "Process," "Procedure," and "Just Write" methodologies that can best help them while also changing their behaviors and attitudes toward writing. ?

Works Cited

Doran, George. T. "There's a S.M.A.R.T. Way to Write Management's Goals and Objectives." Management Review 70 (11): 35-36. Nov. 1981. Print.

Korkki, Phyllis. "To Stay on Schedule, Take a Break." New York Times. New York Times Company, 16 June 2012. Web. 11 Nov. 2014.

Lee, Sohui, and Chris Golde. "Completing the Dissertation and Beyond: Writing Centers and Dissertation Boot Camps." Writing Lab Newsletter 37.7-8 (2013): 1-5. Print.

Simpson, Steve. "Building for Sustainability: Dissertation Boot Camp as a Nexus of Graduate Writing Support." Praxis: A Writing Center Journal 10.2 (2013): 1-9. Web. 17 Feb. 2015.

Powers, Elizabeth. "Dissercamp: Dissertation Boot Camp 'Lite.'" Writing Lab Newsletter 38.5-6 (2014): 14-15. Print.

Brandy Blake, Joy Bracewell, and Clint Stivers

Georgia Tech Atlanta, GA