VIRTUAL LEARNING ABOUT POSTGRADUATE THESIS: KNOWLEDGE CONSTRUCTION IN ACTIVITIES WITH PEERS AND EXPERTS IN FORUMS

Formación virtual sobre tesis de posgrado: construcción del conocimiento en actividades con pares y expertos en foros

The aim of the article is to analyze how to construct knowledge in the interventions that graduate students share in forums designed for group exchange of a virtual thesis-writing workshop. A descriptive and exploratory study is applied, being part of a larger action-research study. Eighty-one interventions are analyzed, taken from seven forums proposed in an edition of the virtual workshop that was conducted in 2016 with two teaching researchers and fourteen postgraduate students of human and social sciences from different Argentinian universities. Initially, interventions are analyzed and quantified according to the presence (or lack thereof) of dialogue (linkage) with previous contributions, as well as their type in terms of conceptual processing (reproductive, basic or elaborated interpretative, constructive); then, they are analyzed and quantified according to the type of discursive action detected in relation to the linkage. According to the analysis, a greater level of conceptual processing would be suggested in the interventions that dialogue with previous contributions of peers. In addition, this level would increase slightly during the development of the successive forums proposed in the workshop. On the other hand, several discursive actions have been detected in relation to linkages and, in relation to them, it would seem that a higher level of conceptual processing is reached in cases in which the interventions share the dimensions or aspects that being analyzed.

Virtual environment, interventions in forums, knowledge construction, conceptual processing, postgraduate thesis.

Resumen

El objetivo del artículo es analizar las formas de construcción del conocimiento en las intervenciones que alumnos de posgrado comparten en foros diseñados para el intercambio grupal en un taller virtual de escritura de tesis. Como metodología se realiza un estudio descriptivo y exploratorio cualitativo que se enmarca en una investigación-acción de mayor envergadura. Se analizan 81 intervenciones, extraídas de siete foros propuestos en una edición del taller virtual que se desarrolló en 2016 con dos investigadores docentes y catorce estudiantes de posgrado de distintas ciencias humanas y sociales de diferentes universidades argentinas. Inicialmente se cuantifican las intervenciones según la presencia (o no) de diálogo (encadenamiento) con aportes previos, así como su tipo en términos de procesamiento conceptual (reproductiva, interpretativa básica o elaborada, constructiva); luego, se analizan y cuantifican en función del tipo de acción discursiva detectada en relación con el encadenamiento. De acuerdo con lo analizado, se sugeriría mayor nivel de procesamiento conceptual en las intervenciones que dialogan con aportes previos de los pares. Además, dicho nivel aumentaría levemente en el desarrollo de los sucesivos foros propuestos en el taller. Por otra parte, se han detectado diversas acciones discursivas en vinculación con los encadenamientos y, en relación con ellas, parecería que se alcanza un mayor nivel de procesamiento conceptual en los casos en que las intervenciones comparten las dimensiones o aspectos que se analizan.

Palabras clave

Entorno virtual; intervenciones en foros; construcción del conocimiento; procesamiento; conceptual; tesis de posgrado.

Several research studies call for attention on the obstacles faced by postgraduate students in the production and presentation of their program’s final project: the thesis (e.g., Espino Datsira, 2015; Lonka et al., 2014; Starke-Meyerring, 2011; Dowd, Thompson Jr., Schiff, & Reynolds, 2018; Gunawan & Aziza, 2017; Niswatin & Sanjaya, 2017; Samad & Adnan, 2018; Stappenbelt, 2017). It has been suggested that one of the main causes of this problem is that institutions fail to offer enough training about academic production (Aitchison and Lee, 2006; Caffarella and Barnett, 2000; Delyser, 2003; Kamler and Thomson, 2008; Maher et al., 2008; Wieth, Francis, & Christopher, 2019). In order to provide solutions to this issue, seminars and thesis-writing workshops have been developed mostly in face-to-face training, but also in the virtual modality to a lesser extent (Delgado-Coronado, 2019). Studies conducted on these experiences have shown that exchanges concerning a thesis, among peers, students or supervisors, represent a key contribution for its production and finalization (Alvarez and Difabio de Anglat, 2017a; Colombo 2013; Difabio de Anglat and Heredia, 2013; Ferguson, 2009; Kozar and Lum, 2013; Lassig et al. 2009; Maher et al., 2008).

Maher et al. (2008) point out the benefits offered by a writing group implemented in the University of Australia, from the students’ point of view. They highlight the importance of group interaction and identification of each student as a participant of the science community in terms of learning. On the other hand, this type of group allows writing to be more than individual and private practice and to be considered a public and shared process.

Likewise, Lassig et al. (2009) have shown that academic writing can be positively developed through a work model based on e-mail groups, face-to-face group sessions and individual writing. Thus, demonstrating that working group with peers represent an opportunity to develop a professional dialog on writing and many other dimensions.

Similarly, Ferguson (2009) explains the experience of a social sciences thesis-writing group. Working in groups of three to six students evinces that groups facilitate the development of basic skills to produce publications and theses. According to the author, students themselves recognize that the group benefits thesis writing, and encourages positive attitudes in the writing process, i.e., reinforcement of motivation and increased confidence.

Also, Colombo (2013) shows that textual production of a thesis may improve when review dynamics exist in a group of around three students in different disciplines. These tasks imply reading the progress made and discussing it in face-to-face meetings.

In virtual training, Kozar and Lum (2013) mention the importance of virtual communication tools for the development of writing groups. Along this line, Difabio de Anglat and Heredia (2013) describe the results of a virtual workshop offered via Moodle platform with the aim of improving production of a chapter on a PhD thesis written by the student. According to the authors, in this experience, the workshop helped overcome an important problem faced by the postgraduate student: writing alone.

Complementing these observations, Alvarez and Difabio de Anglat (2017a) explain that work among peers makes in-depth analysis of a thesis metalinguistic reflection possible, to the extent that it enables students to become more aware of and to explicitly reflect on this process more than if they were alone (Camps, Guasch, Milian and Ribas, 2007). This degree of in-depth analysis implies a link between the analysis of macro-structural aspects with textual strategies and language resources at micro-structural levels.

All things considered, studies would evince that in function of a “horizontal” pedagogical scheme established with the work among peers (Boud y Lee, 2005), in some cases and with the guidance of teachers specialized in the area, the development of different dimensions would be possible (Zahrotun, Putri, & Nur Khusna, 2019), these include experiential, epistemological and textual dimensions that are part of writing a postgraduate thesis (Aitchison and Lee, 2006).

In the frameworks of said research, we propose to study the ways in which knowledge construction is displayed by students in contexts of shared activities (Zahrotun et al., 2019). We have sought to understand if the existence (or lack thereof) of exchange among students affects the ways in which knowledge is constructed.

This article disseminates the results of a descriptive and exploratory study that is framed in a larger action-research study (Hernandez Sampieri et al., 2014). Said action-research study intends to offer possible solutions to problems concerning writing during postgraduate studies. After diagnosing theses’ textual production problems, work was done on the design, evaluations and adjustment of a didactic proposal oriented towards solving the aforementioned problems (Barrios Oviedo & Chaves Silva, 2018). It is a virtual workshop aimed at familiarizing students with the thesis as a specialized discursive genre. The workshop has been designed based on a grid of pedagogical, didactic and technological hypotheses that have been presented in previous publications (Alvarez and Difabio de Anglat, 2016, 2017a, 2018).

For the purposes of this study, we have worked with the second edition of this workshop, which was conducted in 2016 with two teaching researchers and fourteen postgraduate students of human and social sciences from different Argentinian universities.

For the workshop’s core activities, the analysis of paratextual elements and basic sections on a thesis has been proposed. This analysis alternates between individual and group work stages, each case implies reflecting on theses supplied by the faculty or students. This reflection is based on conceptual categories of communicative situation model, event model and textual model (Cubo de Severino, Lacon and Puiatti, 2011). The communicative situation model refers to the role of the participants in the discursive community and to their intentions, as well as to knowledge of the author by potential readers. The event model refers to the research in itself and to its stages, the object of the research and the extralinguistic reality of the thesis. The textual model involves textual strategies of the meaning to be communicated, both globally and locally, which is why it is intended to recognize the movements and steps between chapters of a thesis¹, as well as the language resources and strategies of each chapter and section.

This article studies the ways of knowledge construction displayed by students in contexts of shared activities. We have sought to understand if the existence (or lack thereof) of exchange among students affects the ways in which knowledge is constructed. For that purpose, we analyzed the different ways of conceptual processing generated by students in the interventions they contribute in forums designed for group interactions, paying attention to whether or not those interventions are related to previous interventions.

The following is a detail of the forums to which the analysis and analytical procedure were applied.

A total of eighty-one interventions were analyzed; the analysis procedure involved four stages.

First, it was determined whether (or not) the intervention was linked to previous contributions by peers, and if there was a dialog among them. Moreover, the type of intervention was analyzed in function of conceptual processing, determined and used in previous studies (Alvarez and Difabio de Anglat, 2017b) based on the proposal concerning ideas of knowledge/learning by Pozo and Scheuer (1999)². This classification comprises:

Direct or replicative intervention: includes theoretical concepts taken from the bibliography and/or references to analyzed textual copies but fail to recognize links between the theory and the textual segments.

Interpretative intervention: establishes analytical links between the concepts taken from the bibliography and the segments of textual copies proposed for the analysis. In this category, basic and elaborate interpretative are differentiated considering if links between concepts and text fragments are substantiated or not.

Constructive intervention: makes segments of the thesis problematic based on bibliography or completes or makes bibliography problematic from questions or new theoretical contributions.

Second, the types of interventions were calculated considering the presence (or lack thereof) of linkage with previous contributions by peers or teachers. In the quantitative plane, frequencies and percentages of each conceptual processing level in function of linkage (or lack thereof) of interventions were calculated; then said levels were assigned a value (from 0 –replicative‒ to 3 –constructive‒) with the aim of applying the Mann–Whitney U test, fit to determine range differences samples that do not need to be random or have the same size. Lastly, linkage independence intended to inquire into (through Cramér's V) the verification of certain progress in students from Forum 1 to Forums 5 and 6 and in the level of conceptual processing.

Third, discursive actions taking place in cases of interventions linked with previous contributions were determined. To do so, different interventions were read and compared to verify similarities and differences, and to establish different discursive actions. The constant comparative method enabled to establish a categorization of discursive actions taking place in the interventions linked with previous contributions by peers or teachers. Also, an intervention of each type was selected considering its qualitative value, in order to exemplify the category it belongs to. These examples, in turn, were analyzed to show the discursive action in place. In these cases, participants’ names were replaced to respect their identity.

Finally, the amount of linked interventions according to the type of discursive action was quantified.

Recognizing each intervention on the basis of its link (linkage) with previous contributions and the type of conceptual processing has produced the following results (cfr. Table 1):

As Table 1 illustrates, cases of linked interventions, i.e., those associated to previous contributions, show a larger amount of elaborate and constructive interventions compared to unlinked interventions.

Assigning a value to each intervention (from 0 –replicative‒ to 3 –constructive‒), the Mann–Whitney U test results are as follows (cfr. Table 2):

The difference between the average ranges for unlinked and linked interventions has statistical significance (Mann–Whitney U test = 591; p = 0.023). In this regard, the following graph indicates the progression towards better development as the percentage of lower level interventions goes down –replicative and basic interpretative– and the corresponding progression increases for those of higher level –elaborate interpretative and constructive–:

Provisionally (given the size of the corpus), an association between linkage and interventions with higher level of conceptual processing could be suggested.

As illustrated in Table 3, the type of intervention present in forums was also analyzed.

Differences observed have has statistical significance (Cramér's V = 0.367; p = 0.01). Its graphic representation is as follows:

Clearly, the most important progress is corroborated with the decreased percentage in replicative interventions and in the increased percentage in basic interpretative.

Prior analysis has also allowed identifying that linkages are not always developed based on the same type of discursive actions. In fact, different types of discursive actions are presented based on which students link their own contribution to that of others. Consequently, after differentiating the linked interventions and the unlinked interventions, and quantifying them as per the type of conceptual processing, types of discursive actions happening in relation to linked interventions have been established, in other words, actions developed by students in linking their own contribution to previous interventions. As explained in the methodological section, this analysis comprised consecutive reading of interventions in order to establish the type of actions taking place and of clustering interventions per type. So, using the constant comparative method, a categorization of actions by students in relation to linkages has been outlined. The following are the different categories accompanied by representative examples of each.

In mi case, I found a paragraph with movement 2 “evaluate the niche’s occupation” with step 1; it picks up the main results at a general level. Logical connectors, textual organizers and precision markers, e.g., in that regard… were observed.

The fragment begins: ´On the other hand, those teachers who have introduced hypertexts....

In that regard, the incorporation of technologies in heavily loaded subjects....

In my opinion, I would have added the optional movements, such as establishing new niches, considering practical applications and implementations, suggesting future research and justifying its need or importance.

In Example 1, taken from Forum 1 Module 6, the student starts by agreeing with a peer’s previous analysis. In the next paragraph, the student expresses his/her own analysis, which is evident in the use of the self-reference phrase “In my case”. This analysis is independent from the contributions of the initial student. The interpretation is basic interpretative to the extent that it outlines conceptual categories provided for the analysis (e.g., the name of the movement “evaluate the niche’s occupation and are associated to the text’s fragments, but without presenting arguments to justify those associations.

In Example 2 the student also agrees with the previous contribution, which is described as “interesting” and proceeds to develop an own analysis of a text that had not been addressed in-depth. This analysis not just associates elements of the text with conceptual categories (for instance, paratexts) extracted from the bibliography and the seminar’s materials, but it also explains the reasons for these actions.

Good afternoon to you all! I am just joining this exchange. After reading your interesting analyses, I will try to contribute something else to the second text, since it has been addressed the least.

Looking at this article’s paratexts, the first that comes to mind in connection with the communicative situation model is that it is a specialized article, an academic paper which has been validated by a scientific journal; it is not for the general public but it is “by neuropsychologists for neuropsychologists” (or alike), so to speak.

I was thinking, making some progress in the reading, that the information provided could be of interest for educators, for instance, but I wonder if the writing style (textual model) causes a distance that is not inviting in terms of reading it. Back to the previous point, the way in which it is written refers to the recipients defined in the communicative situation.

Along the text the author/PhD clearly explains the methodological steps, tools of the research, and categories defined in the fieldwork, this is appreciated in terms of the event model.

Hi everybody! Regarding the fragment of the text cited by Silvia as step 2 (identifying limitations of the study conducted) I consider that, in effect, some limitation or delimitation can be observed, especially in terms of the theoretical aspect, as observed in the initial sentence: […]

I believe this sentence shows how participants’ discourse was categorized, in that regard, it can be inferred that said categorization was done based on a particular theoretical section.

Beyond the first part of the fragment, I can’t explicitly visualize other typical elements of this step throughout it (such as the possibilities and difficulties of the adopted theoretical-methodological perspectives, which aspects of the problem, the topic or the subject have not been inquired into and why, or suggestions of new aspects of the research).

However, ahead in other paragraphs of the section, some suggestions for new research may be identified, which in some way also refer to the study’s limitations. […]

As manifested in Example 3, the student’s analysis is tightly linked to a peer’s previous contribution. In fact, the intervention presents a thorough development of one of the colleague’s analysis enunciation; in particular, he/she justifies how the analyzed thesis fragment materializes the step identified as “identifying limitations of the study conducted”.

I had some doubts regarding the steps in the text chosen by Maria Elena for the analysis of movement 1, your analysis was extremely helpful for me clarify them.

In terms of Gisela’s question about if some other step takes place in the example, I believe step 2 does not take place (highlighting the relevance of the problem or topic of research) and that step 4 does take place (mentioning the most relevant aspects of the methodological design that allowed achieving the main results). This step is seen in the paragraph that begins “the selected theoretical framework…”, which begins with a reference to the selected theoretical framework, and also focuses on the implemented textual analysis levels and the modifications to each level’s parameters. Also, there is a reference to the methodological aspect as a nod to Greimas, showing the conceptual and methodological affinity with the other implemented model, Ciapuscio’s.

In Example 4, after referring to the analysis by a classmate, the student develops the answer to a question issued by the teacher. In this answer, the student shows the steps that would apply to the fragment and offers justifications for the analysis.

I was out of town for a few days, so I dared to break the ice briefly before I left. I agree with the previous detailed analysis by Lorena. I believe it describes well the social relationships and communicative roles of the communicative situation model and the verbalization strategies used in the document to which the textual analysis refers to.

As with Activity 2, I have tried to summarize and systematize the task in a table to organize and present the results of the analysis conducted. I have not been able to participate as much as I wanted to in the Forum’s exchanges, mostly due to lack of time and also because I am not used to this work dynamic, I expect to do better in the upcoming classes…

Thank you very much Gisela and Mara for your replies; I also think that the dialogs in this Forum have been enriching; I have many takeaways.

1) I did not notice, it did not cross my mind, I forgot… that the conclusions chapter of the thesis was subject to the analysis of the other movements… I did not log to the other Forums! Which is a shame because I was very “focused” on the third one! Thank you Gisela for your input in this regard. The tree blocked the forest, sort of.

While I write this, I wonder if Moodle allows printing and systematizing what has been done in the course.

3) The example referring to Martin Fierro to illustrate the difficulty of replacing the concept of time was particularly good!

4) I am left thinking about… more polished rhetorical organization, strategies with cyclical configurations, steps “embedded” in others…

Dear Armando: I wanted to ask you if in the development of the chapter the author synthesizes the main contributions with the main and secondary variables. Does he/she graphically exemplify the results of the two types of variables, showing its relations? Regards

Good night everybody, after reading the first message of the Forum by Cecilia, my imagination is going wild thinking I would really like to be in Villa la Angostura drinking hot chocolate with raspberry sweets… but the night here in Mendoza is not bad at all, it is a humid and fresh day that announces the arrival of fall.

After establishing the conceptual categories, the total interventions have been quantified, as well as the types of interventions associated to each discursive action.

Frequency of interventions as per fundamental discursive action by the student in relation to linkage

*A=replicative intervention; B=basic interpretative, C=elaborate interpretative y D= constructive

Results presented in Table 4 show that the three first actions happen more frequently in the Forums, while the rest only take place in one or two interventions. In that regard, if a didactic analysis were to be used to evaluate the importance of diversifying the actions, it would seem necessary to explicit them with own instructions as to involve the students in that development.

On the other hand and as per the observed values, there would be greater likelihood to attain higher levels of conceptual processing in cases in which successive interventions share dimensions or aspects being analyzed, be it because the analysis by a peer is resumed and delved into or because it answers the teacher’s question about a previous analysis. For that reason, it would seem necessary to develop exchanges regarding one same dimension, seeing as this type of interaction would allow larger complexity of the analyses.

In this study we have analyzed the ways in which knowledge construction is displayed by students in Forums designed for joint activities in a virtual workshop aimed at reflecting on postgraduate theses. It was determined whether (or not) interventions among students have an impact on ways of knowledge building about theses (Flores-Lueg, Mena-Bastias, Arteaga-Gonzalez, Navarrete-Troncoso, & Gajardo-Rodriguez, 2018).

To do so, we have analyzed and quantified the interventions according to presence (or lack thereof) of dialogue (linkage) with previous contributions, as well as their type in terms of conceptual processing (reproductive, basic or elaborated interpretative, constructive). This has suggested that cases in which the interventions dialog with previous contribution by peers attain a higher level of conceptual processing. Also, said level would slightly increase the development of successive Forums proposed in the workshop. These findings are aligned with studies that have shown that exchanges regarding theses (between peers, or students and supervisors) would allow fulfilling the development of different dimensions, which include epistemological and textual (Alvarez and Difabio de Anglat, 2017; Colombo 2013; Difabio de Anglat and Heredia, 2013; Ferguson, 2009; Kozar and Lum, 2013; Lassig et al. 2009; Maher et al., 2008).

On the other hand, interventions have been analyzed and quantified in terms of the type of discursive action detected in relation to linkage. According to the corpus, different classes of discursive actions have been established, it would seem that a higher level of conceptual processing is attained in cases in which interventions share dimensions or aspects being analyzed, be it because the analysis by a peer is resumed and delved into or because it answers the teacher’s question about a previous analysis. Thus, as per the analysis, teachers would have at least two non-exclusive alternatives to drive higher complexity of the analyses: proposing instructions that encourage interactions involving common axes, or also, participating in concrete interactions to steer the analyses. From this point of view, we are able to complete the observations by Alvarez and Difabio de Anglat (2017a), who have suggested that peer work makes it possible have an in-depth metalinguistic reflection of the postgraduate thesis, since the process shared in the Forums is more explicit than that taking place with the student alone.

As closure, it must be highlighted that due to the size of the corpus, the proposed conclusions are provisional and need to be resumed by a study with a more extensive sample of interventions. It would also be interesting to take into account, the profile of students producing the interventions, as done in prior studies (Alvarez and Difabio de Anglat, 2017b).

Aitchison, C. y Lee, A. (2006). Research writing: Problems and pedagogies. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 265-278.

Alvarez, G., y Difabio de Anglat, H. (2016). Formación virtual en estrategias para la producción conceptual y escrita en el posgrado en Ciencias Sociales y Humanas. Revista Q, 10(20), 110-136. DOI: 10.18566/revistaq.v10n20.a05

Alvarez, G., y Difabio de Anglat, H. (2017a). La actividad metalingüística en espacios de interacción entre pares: reflexiones en torno a un taller virtual orientado a la escritura de la tesis de posgrado. Perfiles educativos, XXXIX(155), 51-67. Disponible en: www.iisue.unam.mx/perfiles/download.php?clave=2017-155-51-67…

Alvarez, G. y Difabio de Anglat, H. (2017b). Perfil del estudiante y nivel de construcción del conocimiento en intervenciones en foros. Reflexiones en torno a un taller virtual de tesis en el posgrado. En A. H. González, y M. Martin (¿Eds.), Más Allá del Aula Virtual. Otros Horizontes, otros desafíos (pp. 600-610). La Plata: Dirección General de Educación a Distancia y Tecnologías, Universidad Nacional de La Plata.

Alvarez, G., y Difabio de Anglat, H. (2018). Retroalimentación docente y aprendizaje en talleres virtuales de escritura de tesis. Apertura. Revista de innovación educativa, 10(1), 8-23. Disponible en: http://www.udgvirtual.udg.mx/apertura/index.php/apertura/

Barrios Oviedo, L., & Chaves Silva, M. (2018). La investigación acción y el aprendizaje por proyectos en el marco del modelo pedagógico enseñanza para la compresión. Experiencia del modelo visión mundial en comunidades vulnerables de montería. PANORAMA, 11(21), 38. https://doi.org/10.15765/pnrm.v11i21.1053.

Boud, D., y Lee, A. (2005). Peer learning as pedagogic discourse for research education. Studies in Higher Education, 30(5), 501-516.

Caffarella, R., y Barnett, B. (2000). Teaching Doctoral Students to Become Scholarly Writers: The importance of giving and receiving critiques. Studies in Higher Education, 25(1), 39-52. DOI: 10.1080/030750700116000

Camps, A., Guasch, O., Milian, M., y Ribas, T. (2007). El escrito en la oralidad: el texto intentado. Archivos de Ciencias de la Educación, 1(1), 1-19. Disponible en https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277273110_El_escrito_en...

Camps, A., Guasch, O., Milian, M. y Ribas, T. (2007). El escrito en la oralidad: el texto intentado. Archivos de Ciencias de la Educación, 1(1), 1-19.

Colombo, L. (2013). Una experiencia pedagógica con grupos de escritura en el posgrado. Aula Universitaria, 15, 61-68. Disponible en

Cubo de Severino, L., Lacon, N., y Puiatti, H. (eds.). (2011). Escribir una tesis. Manual de estrategias de producción. Córdoba, Argentina: Comunic-arte.

Delyser, D. (2003). Teaching graduate students to write: a seminar for thesis and dissertation writers. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 27(2), 169-181. Disponible en http://www.ga.lsu.edu/delyser/writingseminar.pdf

Delgado-Coronado, S. (2019). PERSPECTIVAS EN TORNO A LA FORMACIÓN DOCENTE Y LA POSIBILIDAD DE UNA CAPACITACIÓN Y ACTUALIZACIÓN CONSTANTE: UNA MIRADA DESDE LOS ACTORES EN UNA UNIVERSIDAD MEXICANA - Perspectives around teaching training and the possibility of a training and constant up. PANORAMA, 13(24), 33. https://doi.org/10.15765/pnrm.v13i24.1204

Difabio de Anglat, H., y Heredia, M. del V. (2013). El taller de tesis doctoral en educación desde un enfoque comprehensivo de escritura a través de la plataforma Moodle. En 6° Seminario Internacional de Educación a Distancia, Universidad Nacional de Cuyo, Mendoza, 10-12 de octubre de 2013. Disponible en http://www.uncu.edu.ar/seminario_rueda/upload/t234.pdf

Dowd, J. E., Thompson Jr., R. J., Schiff, L. A., & Reynolds, J. A. (2018). Understanding the complex relationship between critical thinking and science reasoning among undergraduate thesis writers. CBE Life Sciences Education, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-03-0052

Espino Datsira, S. (2015). La enseñanza de estrategias de escritura y comunicación de textos científicos y académicos a estudiantes de posgrado. Revista Mexicana de Investigación Educativa, 20(66), 959-976. Disponible en:

http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1405-66662015000300012

Ferguson, T. (2009). The ‘Write’ Skills and More: A Thesis Writing Group for Doctoral Students. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 33(2), 285-297. DOI: 10.1080/03098260902734968

Flores-Lueg, C., Mena-Bastías, C., Arteaga-González, P., Navarrete-Troncoso, L., & Gajardo-Rodríguez, A. (2018). Nivel de desempeño autopercibido por futuras educadoras de párvulos sobre el uso pedagógico de TIC. PANORAMA, 12(22), 18. https://doi.org/10.15765/pnrm.v12i22.1070

Gunawan, W., & Aziza, F. (2017). Theme and thematic progression of undergraduate thesis: Investigating meaning making in academic writing. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 413–424. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v7i2.8350

Hernández Sampieri, R., Fernández Collado, C., y Baptista Lucio, P. (2014). Metodología de la investigación (6ª ed.). México: McGraw Hill.

Jara Solar, Iván (2013). Descripción funcional de introducciones de tesis doctorales en las disciplinas de química y lingüística. Onomázein, núm 28, pp. 72-87.

Kamler, B., y Thomson, P. (2008). The Failure of Dissertation Advice Books: Toward Alternative Pedagogies for Doctoral Writing. Educational Researcher, 37, 507-514.

Kozar, O., y Lum, J.F. (2013). Factors to consider when designing writing groups for off-campus doctoral candidates. En H. Carter, M. Gosper, and J. Hedberg (eds.), Electric Dreams (pp. 498-502). Proceedings ascilite 2013, Macquarie University, Sydney. Disponible en

Lassig, C., Lincoln, M., Dillon, L., Diezmann, C., Fox, J., y Zui, N. (2009). Writing together, learning together: the value and effectiveness of a research writing group for doctoral students. En Australian Association For Research In Education 2009 International Education Research Conference, 29 November - 3 December, 2009, National Convention Centre, Canberra. Disponible en

Lonka, K., Chow, A. Keskinen, J., Hakkarainen, K., Sandström, N., y Pyhältö, K. (2014). How to measure PhD. students’ conceptions of academic writing – and are they related to well-being. Journal of Writing Research, 5(3), 245-269. DOI: 10.17239/jowr-2014.05.03.11

Maher, D., Seaton, L., McMullen, C., Fitzgerald, T., Otsuji, E., y Lee, A. (2008). ‘Becoming and being writers’: the experiences of doctoral students in writing groups. Studies in Continuing Education, 30(3), 263-275.

Niswatin, R. K., & Sanjaya, A. (2017). Classification of category selection title undergraduate thesis using k-nearest neighbor method. Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, 7(3), 846–854. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijeecs.v7.i3.pp846-854

Pozo, J. I., y Scheuer, N. (1999). Las concepciones sobre el aprendizaje como teorías implícitas. En J. I. Pozo y C. Monereo (Coords.). El aprendizaje estratégico (pp. 87-108). Madrid: Santillana.

Samad, I. A., & Adnan, Z. (2018). Generic structure of an important, but neglected, academic genre, undergraduate thesis defence examination, and its Pedagogic implications. A collective case study at four universities in Aceh and North Sumatra Provinces, Indonesia. TESOL International Journal, 13(2), 54–75. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85051051924&partnerID=40&md5=652539146416716f20966e17806ad928

Stappenbelt, B. (2017). Action learning in undergraduate engineering thesis supervision. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 7(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.224

Starke-Meyerring, D. (2011). The paradox of writing in doctoral education: Student experiences. En: L. McAlpine, y C. Amundsen (Eds.), Doctoral education: Research-based strategies for doctoral students, supervisors and administrators (pp. 75–95). Dordrecht: Springer.

Wieth, M. B., Francis, A. P., & Christopher, A. N. (2019). Use of a creative problem solving (CPS) approach in a senior thesis course to advance undergraduate publications. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(APR). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00749

Zahrotun, L., Putri, N. H., & Nur Khusna, A. (2019). The implementation of k-means clustering method in classifying undergraduate thesis titles. 12th International Conference on Telecommunication Systems, Services, and Applications, TSSA 2018. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSSA.2018.8708817

1 The term movement –move- “captures the communicative purpose of a textual segment at a more general level; the step more deliberately explains the rhetorical means of the movement. A movement may be done in a single rhetorical step or through the combination of several steps” (Jara Solar, 2013, p. 77).

2 These authors propose three levels of ideas of knowledge/learning: direct or replicative, when knowledge is a true copy of presented content; interpretative, when learning is generated based on a meaningful activity but its representation is similar to the original; and constructive, when authentic rework is present, transforming the original object, thus, generating new knowledge.