Writing groups in Ecuador as support for academics on the road to publication

147

Writing groups in Ecuador as support for academics
on the road to publication

Grupos de escritura en el Ecuador para el apoyo a
académicos en su camino a la publicación

Grupos de redação no Equador para apoiar acadê-
micos no caminho da publicação

Elisabeth Rodas Brosam
Universidad de Cuenca, Ecuador

E-mail: elisabeth.rodas@ucuenca.edu.ec

Laura Colombo
CONICET, Instituto de Lingüística de la Universidad de Buenos Aires,

Argentina
E-mail: laura.colombo@conicet.gov.ar

Recibido: 24: 07: 2018 Aceptado: 29:09:2018

Abstract

Writing groups where authors get constructive feedback to improve
their drafts are quite innovative in South America, especially for those
not used to sharing their work in progress with academic readers, even
more so when texts are produced in English as a second language. This
paper presents the experience of a writing group in English which took
place at a public Ecuadorian university. The participants revised and sent
for publication a conference paper. To determine the usefulness of this
initiative, group meetings were recorded, a short anonymous survey was
administered, and a semi-structured focus group was conducted with

Pucara, Nº 29, 147-167, 2018
https://publicaciones.ucuenca.edu.ec/ojs/index.php/pucara/issue/archive
ISSNe 2661-6912

Writing groups in Ecuador as support for academics on the road to publicationRevista Pucara, N.º 29 (147-167), 2018

149148

the participants. Results show that, in line with previous research, this
writing group presented benefits to help support academics on the road
to publication such as experiencing and learning how to give and receive
written feedback and learning literacy practices in a situated manner
through dialogue.

Key words: writing groups, publishing, teacher development, second
language writers

Resumen

Grupos de escritura donde los autores reciben feedback constructivo
para mejorar sus textos son bastante novedosos en América Latina,
especialmente para aquellos que no acostumbran compartir su trabajo en
progreso con lectores académicos; y más si es que los textos son escritos
en inglés como segundo idioma. Este trabajo presenta la experiencia de
un grupo de escritura en inglés que tuvo lugar en una universidad pública
ecuatoriana. Los participantes revisaron y enviaron a ser publicado una
ponencia. Para determinar la utilidad del círculo, las sesiones de trabajo
fueron grabadas para su análisis, se administró una encuesta corta, y se
mantuvo un grupo focal semi-estructurado con los participantes. Los
resultados muestran que, de acuerdo a la literatura, los grupos de escritura
presentan beneficios para dar apoyo a los académicos en su camino a
la publicación, tales como experimentar el dar y recibir feedback y el
aprender las prácticas letradas de manera situada por medio del diálogo.

Palabras clave: círculos de escritura, publicación, desarrollo docente,
escritores de segunda lengua

Resumo

Os grupos de escritores em que os autores obtêm feedback construtivo
para melhorar seus rascunhos são bastante inovadores na América do Sul,
especialmente para aqueles que costumavam compartilhar seu trabalho
com os leitores acadêmicos, ainda mais quando os textos são produzidos
em inglês como segunda língua. Este artigo apresenta a experiência de
um grupo de escrita em inglês, realizado em uma universidade pública
equatoriana. Os participantes revisaram e enviaram para publicação em
um documento de conferência. Para determinar a utilidade do círculo,
as sessões de trabalho foram registradas para análise, realizou-se uma
breve pesquisa e um grupo focal foi mantido com os membros do grupo
de pesquisa. Os resultados mostram que, de acordo com a literatura, os
grupos de redação apresentam três benefícios fundamentais para apoiar
os estudiosos no caminho da sua publicação, como experimentar e
aprender como dar e receber feedback por escrito e aprender práticas de
alfabetização em um diálogo menos estruturado.

Palavras chave: grupos de escritores, publicação, desenvolvimiento de
profesores, escritores de segunda língua

***

Introduction 20

In most countries, university professors are expected to conduct research
and publish besides teaching particular courses in their field of study (Lee,
2013; Nygaard, 2015). This is related to the fact that university as well as

20 Este trabajo forma parte del Proyecto PICT 2014 financiado por la Agencia
Nacional de Promoción Científica y Técnica de Argentina del cual es integrante la segun-
da autora.

Writing groups in Ecuador as support for academics on the road to publicationRevista Pucara, N.º 29 (147-167), 2018

151150

faculty performance is usually measured through publication rates (McGrail,
Rickard, & Jones, 2006). Actually, for tenured professors, publication is
generally tied to promotion or to the attainment of research grants, and
for those new to the higher education environment, it can constitute a
means of becoming a member of specific discourse communities. Thus,
professors are confronted with the need to write academic genres (e.g.,
research articles and conference papers) for which they might not have
been prepared (Antoniou & Moriarty, 2008; Boud and Lee, 1999). This
lack of preparation is often the case because writing for publication is
mistakenly understood as something that academics already know how to
do and need little to no guidance in developing research and writing skills
(Blaxter, Hughes, & Tight, 1998; Thomson & Kamler, 2010).

Another important consideration is that if academics’ first language is
not English, they seem to be further challenged given its dominance
in the publication world. These “geopolitics of academic writing”
(Canagarajah, 2002) frequently place non-English speakers at a
disadvantage (Bazerman, Keranen, & Encinas Prudencio, 2012; Curry
& Lillis, 2007; Kirkpatrick, 2010; Ortiz, 2009). In fact, it has been noted
that publications in other languages besides English do not have the same
impact factor because they are not cited as often, and thus are not as
widely read as those in English (Van Leeuwen, Moed, Tussen, Visser, &
Van Raan, 2001). Even if it could be argued that “citations are a shallow
measure of research quality or impact” (Lillis & Curry, 2010: 15), the
need to write in English continues to create pressure for academics.

Some universities, mainly in North America and Europe, have made
provisions to address the issue of teacher development in the area of
research writing through different types of interventions such as writing
workshops, writing tutorials, and writing groups (McGrail et al., 2006).
Nevertheless, in most institutions this has been more often than not a
neglected area (Boud & Lee, 1999; Gómez Nashiki, Jiménez-García, &
Moreles Vázquez, 2014; Kwan, 2010; McGrail et al., 2006).

In the case of Latin America, in the last decades there has been an
increase in research regarding writing and reading in different academic
areas, focusing mainly on student writing at the secondary and university
level (Navarro et al., 2016; Navarro, 2017). Interventions in behalf of the
development of professors’ academic and professional writing have not
been a priority and thus are uncommon. As a matter of fact, academic
writing or writing for publication initiatives in most Latin American
universities are offered at the postgraduate level (Carlino, 2015;
Colombo, 2013), with few of them directed at faculty development.
When the latter occurs, institutions usually offer workshops or seminars
but do not include them as part of professors´ working hours. As a result,
it seems that most universities demand professors to publish but do
not openly support this activity (Narváez, 2010). Furthermore, if these
initiatives aimed at teaching writing for publication are uncommon,
even less frequent are those aimed at writing in a second language. As
a consequence, researchers are left alone and have sole responsibility
for learning to participate in disciplinary conversations in English
(Englander, 2009). Thus, this situation continues to place non-native
English speaking academics at a disadvantage.

Considering these challenges, the reading and writing program of one
of the main public universities in Ecuador had as one of its objectives to
strengthen the practice of academic and scientific writing at the univer-
sity for students and professors. One of the initiatives put forth for this
purpose consisted of writing groups as a tool to accompany professors’
transition from only teaching to teaching and researching. This paper
analyzes this initiative born of an international collaboration (Ecua-
dor-Argentina) between the two authors: starting a writing group with
professors who needed to finish a conference paper in English as a se-
cond language. The first author was a member of the Academic Reading
and Writing Program and acted as coordinator of the writing group, and
the second author, who had experience implementing and researching
writing groups, acted as a consultant.

Writing groups in Ecuador as support for academics on the road to publicationRevista Pucara, N.º 29 (147-167), 2018

153152

In the following sections, we first offer a description of writing groups
and a brief account, based on previous research, of the benefits associa-
ted with them. Then, we present the experience carried out at the Ecua-
dorian university, followed by preliminary results of its implementation.
Finally, we conclude with some considerations for the organization of
future similar initiatives.

Writing groups and the situated learning of literacy practices

Writing groups provide a space where writers get together to provide
constructive feedback on each other’s drafts before submitting them for
publication. As such, they have a long trajectory, especially in English-
speaking environments (Gere,1987). However, their use in South
American universities is still infrequent (Colombo & Carlino, 2015).
Although there are other types of interventions whose purpose is to
increase the number of publications at the university level, three benefits
of writing groups are highlighted that make them an interesting option.

First, writing groups offer a first-hand experience in the scholarly practice
of giving and receiving feedback from peers in a safe environment (Boud
& Lee, 1999). Becoming used to peer feedback is a key social practice in
the scientific community (Carlino, 2008, 2015; Colombo, 2013; Kumar
& Aitchison, 2017; among others) since prior to their acceptance, articles
and conference papers are usually peer reviewed. Once published,
scientific texts also come under the scrutiny and commentary of other
community members. Nevertheless, peer feedback is a practice that is
barely taught and, unfortunately, is usually learned through trial and
error (Boud & Molloy, 2012). Participating in a writing group gives
academics the benefit of becoming used to readers’ critical comments
and of learning how to evaluate and offer constructive feedback to peers.
In this sense, they can constitute a friendly arena where writers can enact
and learn these practices that commonly take part in the publication
world (Colombo, 2013; McGrail et al., 2006).

Additionally, by having preliminary readers, writing group members
are also faced from the very beginning of their writing process with the
need to consider their audience, another key element in academic and
scientific writing. Learning to consider the reader is of utmost importance
since knowledge of the needs and interests of the audience affects the
content of the text (Swales & Feak, 2004). Furthermore, instead of being
an isolated activity, writing is viewed as an exchange between writer
and reader, through the understanding of the rhetorical situation, an
awareness of social context, and the expectations this exchange creates
(Hyland, 2016).

Second, writing groups work in tandem with academics’ need to have a
higher writing production (Galligan et al., 2003). Through the organization
of the group, members establish schedules, are accountable for giving
feedback to each other on a weekly or bi-monthly basis, and are expected
to maintain a commitment to writing until finishing a specific text, all of
which helps to create and maintain the habit of frequent writing. Along
these lines, it has been noted that where writing groups have been used
to support academics’ writing, this type of intervention has been better at
helping to increase publication rates as well as the quality of the writing
(Colombo & Carlino, 2015; McGrail et al., 2006).

Third, writing groups support the idea that writing is not a solitary
endeavor, but it entails the construction of knowledge through interaction
with others (Aitchison, 2003; Van der Linden & Renshaw, 2010). By
being part of these groups, academics can learn and develop as writers
of specific academic-scientific genres (Swales, 1990). The exchange
of ideas and opinions with other participants can lead to making more
explicit and thus manageable the interpretations and assumptions of
readers from different scientific communities, the expected structure of
texts, and the common linguistic devices used. Based on this, members
of the group can make the necessary adjustments to improve their
writing. In this sense, dialogue can lead to learning since by talking
and exchanging ideas with others, meaning is negotiated and jointly

Writing groups in Ecuador as support for academics on the road to publicationRevista Pucara, N.º 29 (147-167), 2018

155154

constructed (Dysthe, Bernhardt, & Esbjorn, 2013; Wells, 1990, 2007).
This supports the belief that the construction of knowledge does not
only happen through the writing of draft texts, but also through the
interaction among members of the group, who each bring different
perspectives and levels of experience that can benefit everyone
(Aitchison, Kamler, & Lee 2010; Dysthe, 1996).

The aforementioned characteristics of writing groups suggest that
they are aligned with a situated framework for the teaching and
learning of scholarly writing practices (Colombo, 2012). The situated
learning theory (Lave & Wenger, 1991) proposes that people learn
by fulfilling activities which are peripheral but productive and thus
grant newcomers the opportunity to explore viewpoints while getting
involved in various social relations in the community. In effect,
participating in writing groups allows members to interact with others
while facing real writing tasks (i.e., legitimate publication practices)
in specific disciplinary fields (i.e., disciplinary communities of
practice). Therefore, the joint revision of texts allows academic
writers to negotiate in a low-stake environment how to participate
in disciplinary communities through written communication. This
pedagogical potential of writing groups led us to propose it as a
viable option to help fulfill one of the Academic Reading and Writing
Program’s objectives: strengthen the practice of academic and
scientific writing at the University.

The writing group experience

The writing group experience analyzed here was carried out in one
of the main public universities of the Ecuadorian Andes in 2016 and
it was sponsored by its Academic Reading and Writing Program as a
means to support scientific writing for publication in English. The group
was coordinated by one of the authors of this paper and participation
was voluntary. Two research groups from the Department of English
Language and Literature were interested in participating; however, one

of them decided not to due to time constraints and other obligations. The
other group participated in this initiative since it needed to finish a text
in English for publication.

Before the first group meeting, several emails were exchanged with
the four participants and an online tool was chosen as a means to share
the group’s draft and other relevant documents, such as a calendar to
determine the best time to meet and a document that suggested different
areas that needed to be agreed upon (e.g., meeting place and time, sections
to be reviewed, etc.). Concurrently with these preparation activities, the
coordinator in Ecuador exchanged information and received suggestions
on the formation of the writing group from the co-author of this paper
in Argentina, based on her experience implementing this type of
pedagogical initiative.

Typically, in a writing group each participant brings his or her own
writing and thus there are as many drafts as participants. In this case,
however, all the participants except the coordinator were authoring the
same paper. As a result, the text only had one source of external peer
feedback, instead of two or three as it is the case in most writing groups.
Despite this, the initiative proceeded as the ultimate goal was to support
the writing and publishing of scientific texts, in general.

The English text to be commented was a conference paper, meant to
be published in a conference’s proceedings. Since participants had a
complete first draft and the deadline for presenting the paper was close,
one-hour meetings were held once a week. The draft was reviewed
before each meeting and comments were shared orally on the scheduled
day and time. Each meeting focused on a specific section of the paper;
thus for the first meeting participants worked on the introduction, the
second meeting on the methodology, the third meeting on the results, and
for the fourth meeting they reviewed the final version of the paper. The

Writing groups in Ecuador as support for academics on the road to publicationRevista Pucara, N.º 29 (147-167), 2018

157156

discussion and the conclusion sections of the paper were not reviewed in
a group session, but the feedback for these sections was shared through
the online tool before the last meeting.

Since the members of the group as well as the coordinator shared the same
field of study in English, it was agreed that all meetings would be held in this
language to facilitate comments and suggestions about the draft, and they were
recorded with the participants’ consent. In addition to the session recordings,
printed and electronic documents were collected for analysis. Of the four
members of the research group, two of them attended the writing group’s
meetings consistently, with the other two missing at least one of the meetings
due to other university-related responsibilities. After the fourth session, once
the text was completely reviewed, the writing group was concluded as it had
achieved the purpose for which it had originally been created: to provide
support to faculty to advance and finish a publication project.

Results

Even though the writing group described here had only one text to receive
feedback and only one reader, the experience did provide results that
make this type of initiative positive to accompany academics’ need to
write at the university level. To analyze this first implementation, a focus
group was held to gather information about the members’ experience in
the writing group. Additionally, a short, anonymous survey was sent to
the participants five months after the initiative ended. The questionnaire
gathered information about their experience receiving feedback, their
perception of the writing group as a means to improve their writing
skills and habits, as well as their feelings about presenting their text
for publication after having been previously reviewed by an outside
reader. In line with previous research and based on the data gathered,
participants agreed that the writing group was beneficial and it provided
opportunities to develop the three aforementioned aspects that facilitate
learning academic writing practices.

The first aspect, the giving of feedback through a safe and friendly
environment, was mentioned in the last meeting where one of the
participants asserted: “I feel very comfortable working with you . . . and
receive all your feedback and it is so direct, so face to face so that the
environment also, I think, it’s very positive.” As this quote shows, the
writing group created a space where the members could discuss their ideas
and receive comments on their writing without feeling attacked or exposed.
In the same vein, another member of the research group expressed, “I feel
good when I work in this way. So for me everything is positive.” With the
other participants agreeing, it seems that in this case, as in the experiences
reported by the literature, the writing group provided a secure space where
writers engage in the receiving and giving of feedback, a useful scholarly
practice. Through the survey, the respondents stated that what they enjoyed
most about the writing group was that each meeting provided “feedback
that was very relevant to the text,” and “how the feedback was given”
was regarded as positive. In general, criticism, even when it is meant
as constructive feedback, is usually hard to receive; thus, this first-hand
experience gained by the participants in the writing group provided them
with a glimpse of the peer interaction common in academic environments,
such as the peer review process.

At the same time, peer feedback was the means by which the reader’s
perspective was transmitted to the authors, thus having participants
experience this important aspect of scientific writing. In this sense, the
comments shared orally during the writing group meetings provided
its members with the opportunity to envision their audience, often a
difficult task for novice writers, by examining its possible expectations
of the text’s structure and content, what Hyland (2016) considers the
reading approach to writing. This was possible thanks to the intervention
of the coordinator, who guided participants on how to give feedback
and asked “reflective questions” (Hyatt, 2005) to better understand the
research that had been done and how this was transmitted in the text
itself. Through these types of questions, the purpose was to have the
authors consider not only the content but also the language used and how

Writing groups in Ecuador as support for academics on the road to publicationRevista Pucara, N.º 29 (147-167), 2018

159158

it could be modified in order to make it understood by an outside reader.
The respondents to the survey indicated that “having the viewpoint of
another person allowed me to see things that, as the author, I couldn’t
have seen,” as well as “listening to the opinion of another person about
my work” was the most useful aspect of the writing group. Once again,
having the opportunity to access readers’ interpretations of a text before
sending it for evaluation was a valuable tool since it allowed the authors
to anticipate some criticisms and improve their draft.

In this writing group, the second benefit of this type of initiative was met
by reviewing the whole text before sending it for publication. The weekly
meetings structured the writing process and kept members accountable for
devoting time to this task. Additionally, it allowed authors to experience
writing as an iterative process where usually more than one revision is
needed once you have a complete draft. The regular encounters, then,
compelled the participants not only to devote time reviewing the text
but also to break down the reviewing activity into more manageable
and feasible tasks. As a result, at the end of the meetings, the text had
been commented on, suggestions received and considered, and changes
made as the research group deemed necessary. The conference paper
was completed and sent to be evaluated to be part of the conference
proceedings, as it was confirmed later via email to the coordinator. The
participants felt more confident about sending their paper for publication
once it had already been reviewed inside the writing group, as survey
results indicated.

Finally, another benefit of writing groups is working with others to
build knowledge (Aitchison, 2003; Van der Linden & Renshaw, 2010).
In this regard, the usefulness of the writing group is expressed thusly
by a member during the last meeting: “The first time we wrote it, we
said ‘it is fine, we are okay.’ And then, after going through this whole
process and looking at all the changes we have made, we realized: no,
no. You definitely need someone else’s perspective; otherwise, there is
no way something like this can be accomplished.” Through the different

questions asked by the coordinator to clarify sections of the text and the
group discussions that these questions triggered, the authors were able
to view their writing and the ideas conveyed through it from a different
perspective. Additionally, through dialogue, they clarified ideas and
considered other ways to more clearly express them on paper.

Of special importance in this specific group was the fact that all
the members were English professors, including the coordinator, as
mentioned earlier. This created an environment where it was possible to
collaborate with each other in order to clarify the use of different terms,
expressions, and organizational and structural questions in this second
language. Thus, this particular situation helped to directly address the task
of scholarly writing in another language to meet standard conventions.

Conclusion

This first experience of a writing group yielded several positive
conclusions. First, it provided guidelines to consider when organizing
new writing groups at the university level, especially the importance of
having more than one reader. Although the feedback provided during the
group meetings to a text co-authored by four professors was relevant and
beneficial to improve the draft, as indicated by the participants, comments
and suggestions from more than one reader would have presented richer
feedback and a more varied audience.

Second, this experience has contributed with important insights about
how feedback could be shared and made available. In this writing
group, feedback was mainly shared orally, with written comments and
suggestions later shared through an online tool. However, based on
comments from the members, the coordinator considered that not all
feedback given during the meetings could be assimilated in detail or
written down as it happened; feedback was generally expanded on
and discussion of sections provided the research group a different
perspective of their own work that went beyond short annotations on

Writing groups in Ecuador as support for academics on the road to publicationRevista Pucara, N.º 29 (147-167), 2018

161160

the margins of the text. These oral interchanges were important since
they allowed the joint construction of knowledge and the negotiation
of meaning, something that probably would not have happened if the
reader had given only written feedback. This led to the reflection that
comments need to be shared in different ways in future writing groups,
by using the technology that currently makes group collaboration much
easier. One of these ways would be to share the audio recordings with
the members of the writing group, making them available for future
review. Another option would be to share written feedback through
an online collaboration tool before each meeting, thus having all
comments ready for discussion and expansion, if needed, during face-
to-face interactions.

Third, as all the members were users of the English language, the writing
group provided a means to reaffirm and consolidate the use of this language
in academic writing, considering the syntax, lexis, and organization to
best convey the content of the article as it had been intended and thus
better fulfill the specific discourse community demands (Lave & Wenger,
1991). Additionally, working on an authentic use of the language through
the writing of a real text (Roberts & Banegas, 2018), a conference paper
to be submitted for evaluation, allowed members to access legitimate
peripheral participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991) in literacy practices. It
also made explicit the fact that learning is a continuous process in an
academic’s life (Flowerdew, 2000).

As a whole, based on a first analysis of the sessions, this initial experience
of a writing group instituted through the Academic Reading and Writing
Program at a public Ecuadorian university can be considered positive.
Not only did the writing group come to be, but it also produced results,
with a finished paper that was consequently sent, evaluated and accepted
for publication. It also provided valuable insights for the coordinator and
the consultant for the implementation of future writing groups. This first
experience can serve as inspiration for similar pedagogical initiatives in
other contexts. So far, it seems that writing groups have the potential to

contribute in positive ways to the development of professors’ academic
and scientific writing skills, considering that becoming a mature and
effective writer is a lifelong process (Bazerman, 2013). Since academics’
need to become involved in literacy practices will no doubt continue to
increase, institutions should provide as well as maintain the tools to meet
this challenge.

Writing groups in Ecuador as support for academics on the road to publicationRevista Pucara, N.º 29 (147-167), 2018

163162

References

Aitchison, C. (2003). Thesis writing circles. Hong Kong Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 97-115.

Aitchison, C., Kamler, B., & Lee, A. (2010). Publishing pedagogies for
the doctorate and beyond. New York: Routledge.

Antoniou, M., & Moriarty, J. (2008). What can academic writers learn
from creative writers? Developing guidance and support for
lecturers in Higher Education. Teaching in Higher Education,
13(2), 157-167.

Bazerman, C. (2013). Understanding the lifelong journey of writing
development / Comprendiendo un viaje que dura toda la vida: La
evolución de la escritura. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 36(4) 421-441.

Bazerman, C., Keranen, N., & Encinas Prudencio, F. (2012). Facilitated
immersion at a distance in second language scientific writing.
In M. Castelló & C. Donahue (Eds.), University Writing:
Selves and Texts in Academic Societies (pp. 235-248). Bingley:
Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Blaxter, L., Hughes, C., & Tight, M. (1998). Writing on academic careers.
Studies in Higher Education, 23(3), 281.

Boud, D., & Lee, A. (1999). Promoting research development through
writing groups. Paper presented at the Australian Association
for Research in Education Conference, Melbourne, Australia.
Retrieved February, 2012, from www.aare.edu.au

Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2012). Rethinking models of feedback for
learning: The challenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 38(6), 698-712.

Canagarajah, A. S. (2002). A geopolitics of academic writing. Pittsburgh,
PA.: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Carlino, P. (2008). Revisión entre pares en la formación de posgrado.
Lectura y Vida, 29(2), 20-31. Available at https://sites.google.
com/site/jornadasgiceolem/posgrado.

Carlino, P. (2015). Revisión entre pares: Una práctica social que los
posgrados deberían enseñar. Espaço Pedagogico, 22(1), 9-29.

Colombo, L. (2012). Escritura de posgrado y aprendizaje situado. In
Facultad de Psicología de la Universidad de Buenos Aires (Ed.),
Memorias del IV Congreso Internacional de Investigación
y Práctica Profesional en Psicología - XIX Jornadas de
Investigación - VIII Encuentro de Investigadores en Psicología
del MERCOSUR [en CD] (Vol. 1, pp. 82-85). Buenos Aires,
Argentina: Ediciones de la Facultad de Psicología - Universidad
de Buenos Aires. Available at https://sites.google.com/site/
jornadasgiceolem/posgrado.

Colombo, L. (2013). Una experiencia pedagógica con grupos de escritura
en el posgrado. Aula Universitaria, 15, 61-68. Available at
http://bibliotecavirtual.unl.edu.ar/publicaciones/index.php/
AulaUniversitaria/article/view/4368/6643.

Colombo, L., & Carlino, P. (2015). Grupos para el desarrollo de la escritura
científico-académica: Una revisión de trabajos anglosajones.
Lenguaje, 43(1), 13-34. Available at http://revistalenguaje.
univalle.edu.co/index.php/Lenguaje/article/view/3276.

Curry, M. J., & Lillis, T. (2007). The dominance of English in global
scholarly publishing. International Higher Education, 46, 6-7.

Dysthe, O. (1996). The multivoiced classroom. Written Communication,
13(3), 385-425.

Writing groups in Ecuador as support for academics on the road to publicationRevista Pucara, N.º 29 (147-167), 2018

165164

Dysthe, O., Bernhardt, N., & Esbjorn, L. (2013). Enseñanza basada
en el diálogo: El museo de arte como espacio de aprendizaje.
Dinamarca: Skoletjenesten & Fagbokforlaget.

Englander, K. (2009). El mundo globalizado de las publicaciones
científicas en inglés: Un enfoque analítico para comprender a
los científicos multilingües. Discurso & Sociedad, 3(1), 90-118.

Flowerdew, J. (2000). Discourse Community, Legitimate Peripheral
Participation, and the Nonnative-English-Speaking Scholar.
TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 127-150.

Galligan, L., Cretchley, P., George, L., Martin, K., McDonald, J., &
Rankin, J. (2003). Evolution and emerging trends of university
writing groups. Queensland Journal of Educational Research,
19(1), 28-41.

Gere, A. R. (1987). Writing groups: History, theory, and implications.
Carbondale & Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.

Gómez Nashiki, A., Jiménez-García, S. A., & Moreles Vázquez, J.
(2014). Publicar en revistas científicas, recomendaciones de
investigadores de ciencias sociales y humanidades. Revista
Mexicana de Investigación Educativa, 19(60), 155-185.

Hyatt, D. F. (2005). ‘Yes, a very good point!’: A critical genre analysis
of a corpus of feedback commentaries on Master of Education
assignments. Teaching in Higher Education, 10(3), 339-353.

Hyland, K. (2016). Teaching and researching writing. (3rd ed.). New
York/Abingdon: Routledge.

Kirkpatrick, A. (2010). The Routledge handbook of world Englishes.
New York: Routledge.

Kumar, V., & Aitchison, C. (2017). Peer facilitated writing groups: a
programmatic approach to doctoral student writing. Teaching in
Higher Education, 23(3): 360-373.

Kwan, B. S. C. (2010). An investigation of instruction in research
publishing offered in doctoral programs: The Hong Kong case.
Higher Education, 59(1), 55-68.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral
participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lee, I. (2013). Publish or perish: The myth and reality of academic
publishing. Language teaching, 47(2), 1-12.

Lillis, T. & Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic writing in a global context:
The politics and practices of publishing in English. London:
Routledge.

McGrail, M., Rickard, C., & Jones, R. (2006). Publish or perish: A
systematic review of interventions to increase academic
publication rates. Higher Education Research & Development,
25(1), 19-35.

Narváez, E. (2010). Escritura académica y formación de docentes
universitarios. Pedagogía y Saberes 33, 113-124.

Navarro, F. (2017). Estudios latinoamericanos de la escritura en educación
superior y contextos profesionales: hacia la configuración de un
campo disciplinar propio. Lenguas Modernas, 50, 9-14.

Navarro, F., Ávila Reyes, N., Tapia Ladino, M., Lopez Cristovão, V.
L., Moritz, M. E. W., Narváez Cardona, E., & Bazerman, C.
(2016). Panorama histórico y contrastivo de los estudios sobre
lectura y escritura en educación superior publicados en América
Latina. Revista Signos, 49(S1), 100-126.

Writing groups in Ecuador as support for academics on the road to publicationRevista Pucara, N.º 29 (147-167), 2018

167166

Nygaard, L. P. (2015). Publishing and perishing: An academic literacies
framework for investigating research productivity. Studies in
Higher Education, 42(3), 519-532.

Ortiz, R. (2009). La supremacía del inglés en las ciencias sociales (T.
Arijón, Trans.). Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI.

Roberts, G., & Banegas, D.L. (2018). Writing beyond the classroom:
Insights on authenticity and motivation. Argentinian Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 33-41. Available at http://www.faapi.
org.ar/ajal/issues/602/RobertsBanegas.pdf.

Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research
settings. Cambridge University Press.

Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2004). Academic writing for graduate
students: Essential tasks and skills (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press.

Thomson, P., & Kamler, B. (2010). It’s been said before and we’ll say it
again–research is writing. In P. Thomson & M. Walker (Eds.),
The Routledge Doctoral Student’s Companion: Getting to Grips
with Research in Education and the Social Sciences (pp. 149-
160). London and New York: Routledge.

Van der Linden, J., & Renshaw, P. (Eds.). (2010). Dialogic learning:
Shifting perspectives to learning, instruction and teaching.
New York: Kluwer.

Van Leeuwen, T. N., Moed, H. F., Tussen, R. J., Visser, M. S., & Van
Raan, A. F. (2001). Language Biases in the Coverage of the
Science Citation Index and its Consequences for International
Comparisons of National Research Performance. Scientometrics,
51, 335–346.

Wells, G. (1990). Talk about text: Where literacy is learned and taught.
Curriculum Inquiry, 20(4), 369-405.

Wells, G. (2007). Semiotic mediation, dialogue and the construction of
knowledge. Commentary. Human Development, 50(5), 244-
285.