Scaffolding the Language of Power: Supporting Writing at the Doctoral Level (Poster 1)

• In Event: Scaffolding for Local Change-Making: Innovative EdD Supports Across Contexts

Abstract

In this presentation, we describe an approach to EdD writing as deliberate apprenticeship, offering a case study of interactive, affirmative practices and activities carefully developed for historically marginalized doctoral students, focusing on ways these supports help scaffold their literature review writing.

The genre of writing at the doctoral level requires fluency with sophisticated vocabulary and concepts and patterns of language found in specific academic structures (such as problem statements, literature reviews, methods sections, findings, and discussions) as well as the ability to use this vocabulary and linguistic knowledge for specific purposes (e.g., building new arguments, synthesizing bodies of research, disseminating original findings). Due to the complexity of these activities, many doctoral students experience challenges building a skillful writing practice in their EdD or PhD programs (Carlino, 2012; Coterall, 2011; Lee & Aitchinson, 2009; McAlpine & Amundsen, 2009). Yet, few doctoral programs make writing an explicit part of the curriculum (Kamler & Thompson, 2008). In effect, failing to teach students the ins and outs of the genre of doctoral level writing relegates this essential practice to the realm of “hidden curriculum” (Jackson, 1968; McLaren, 2009) where it serves as an exclusionary mechanism, particularly for minoritized populations (Author, 2024).

Supporting writing as deliberate apprenticeship is a social justice move for multiple reasons. First, doctoral language serves as a gatekeeper for our historically underrepresented students, who often come with linguistic resources and schooling experiences that do not match those of the dominant power culture (McLaren, 2009). Thus, they need to be actively and explicitly apprenticed into these patterns of language (Delpit, 2006). Making writing an explicit part of coursework also makes visible a “hidden curriculum” (Jackson, 1968; McLaren, 2009) based on norms of white/affluent speaking and writing–which not only helps them succeed, but also raises consciousness of the power relations implicated in doctoral-level language. This approach also promotes a socioculturally-conscious view for faculty: historically marginalized students have been part of a system that offered lower quality educational opportunities, and therefore it is our job to help them develop the necessary skills for writing at the doctoral level. Finally, a notion of apprenticeship takes a sociocultural view of learning (Vygotsky, 1978)—one that is not rooted in deficit (e.g., “these students lack the necessary writing skills”), but rather views program faculty as serving as mediators who work with students to develop and practice the necessary skills in increasingly complex, appropriately supported/scaffolded ways over the course of the program.

The presentation is anchored in three main theoretical perspectives: 1) critical pedagogy (hooks 1994; Freire 1970; McLaren 2009), which recognizes that language is political, and dominant language works to privilege those already part of the power majority; 2) Sociocultural (Vygotsky, 1978; Bruner, 1976) and situated learning perspectives (Lave & Wenger, 1992), which utilize forward-looking, participatory methods for powerful learning, including scaffolding; and 3) systemic functional linguistics (Halliday, 1978), which offers a method for making visible and supporting the practice of learning the patterns and purposes of language within specific genres (like doctoral level writing).

Authors

• Kathryn J. Strom, California State University - East Bay

• Nicole Williams Browning, California State University - East Bay

• Eric Haas, California State University - East Bay