View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

How Writing Retreats Represent an Ideal Opportunity to Enhance PhD Candidates' Writing Self-Efficacy and Self-Regulation

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: How Writing Retreats Represent an Ideal Opportunity to Enhance PhD Candidates' Writing Self-Efficacy and Self-Regulation
Language: English
Authors: Vincent, Cynthia (ORCID 0000-0002-6778-2700), Tremblay-Wragg, Émilie (ORCID 0000-0001-5411-6058), Déri, Catherine (ORCID 0000-0001-9689-3517), Plante, Isabelle (ORCID 0000-0003-4612-7018), Chartier, Sara Mathieu (ORCID 0000-0001-8192-6611)
Source: Teaching in Higher Education. 2023 28(7):1600-1619.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 20
Publication Date: 2023
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Doctoral Students, Doctoral Dissertations, Writing Workshops, Writing (Composition), Writing Attitudes, Psychological Patterns, Self Efficacy, Self Motivation, Program Effectiveness, Writing Skills, Skill Development, Student Attitudes, Goal Orientation, Time Management, Cooperative Learning, Group Activities, Social Networks
DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2021.1918661
ISSN: 1356-2517
1470-1294
Abstract: PhD candidates face heavy workloads and lack strategies to prioritize their dissertation, resulting in limited writing opportunities and low confidence in writing capabilities. Although writing retreats are known to propel academics' writing productivity, little is known about how they may assist PhD candidates in enhancing writing self-efficacy and self-regulation. An Explanatory Sequential Mixed Method with a quasi-experimental design was used to examine the impacts of writing retreats on PhD candidates' internal factors (writing self-efficacy and self-regulation) and external factors (urgency and opportunities to write). An experimental group (n = 34) and a control group (n = 64) answered a questionnaire measuring retreat effects, after which a subsample (n = 30) was interviewed to further interpret these effects. In sum, writing retreats enhance PhD candidates' writing self-efficacy and self-regulation through goals setting and time management practices. Recommendations are provided about using socially structured writing activities to support PhD candidates' dissertation advancement.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1398672
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGNToYdtXjma3LmzlAZM6IKAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDGlq8PcxX-MoGwj0_QIBEICBm6uIG_Q-g7PJ6Aa0TIRshLlhFAVdex9-NANAQVp4Sigw1aLdpjxRGoxhWFphiprCFaGqYZSybNHaxSYmCoC6v9FAtqscmgUO6yNKx74oStdZT93CZIWgAw7t_mrNJFbS6dfQZl7E9CUMoK6AM-SEakP0uALKKJuYd5qdssnOiAgJHeQkxJh2rg8LC0xyCWvr3KW8212EaSlmAgSd
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0171996650;thd01oct.23;2023Sep20.05:21;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0171996650-1">How writing retreats represent an ideal opportunity to enhance PhD candidates' writing self-efficacy and self-regulation </title> <p>PhD candidates face heavy workloads and lack strategies to prioritize their dissertation, resulting in limited writing opportunities and low confidence in writing capabilities. Although writing retreats are known to propel academics' writing productivity, little is known about how they may assist PhD candidates in enhancing writing self-efficacy and self-regulation. An Explanatory Sequential Mixed Method with a quasi-experimental design was used to examine the impacts of writing retreats on PhD candidates' internal factors (writing self-efficacy and self-regulation) and external factors (urgency and opportunities to write). An experimental group (n = 34) and a control group (n = 64) answered a questionnaire measuring retreat effects, after which a subsample (n = 30) was interviewed to further interpret these effects. In sum, writing retreats enhance PhD candidates' writing self-efficacy and self-regulation through goals setting and time management practices. Recommendations are provided about using socially structured writing activities to support PhD candidates' dissertation advancement.</p> <p>Keywords: Writing retreats; writing self-efficacy; writing self-regulation; opportunities to write; urgency to write; PhD candidates; social writing practices</p> <hd id="AN0171996650-2">Introduction</hd> <p>For individuals aspiring to obtain a doctoral degree, writing is an essential part of their studies, since reaching this highest academic level is dependent on the authorship of a comprehensive research document. During initial compulsory courses, PhD candidates are taught to read scientific documents, write in scientific language, and follow standardized formats in order to present scientific work. Unfortunately, they do not benefit from formal education on all aspects of writing such as the affective, cognitive, and social elements of the writing process. As a consequence, many PhD candidates lack confidence in their writing abilities while missing strategies to focus on writing activities (Russell-Pinson and Harris [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref1">34</reflink>]). Furthermore, academic writing is often perceived by PhD candidates as the most difficult facet of graduate studies, among other challenges, leading students to drop out or require extensive delays before meeting graduation requirements (Cassuto [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref2">7</reflink>]). The perceived difficulties associated to scientific writing may be attributed to the unstructured and isolated nature of dissertation writing, leaving PhD candidates with the impression of inefficiency throughout the writing process (Maher, Fallucca, and Halasz [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref3">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>With this in mind, a Canadian non-profit organization, named <emph>Thèsez-vous,</emph> was established in 2015 to support graduate students through academic writing developmental activities, while contributing to the reduction of students' isolation. The organization offers various services, in person and remotely, for students to experiment with academic writing by integrating pedagogically proven methods to writing practices in a social environment. Notably, <emph>Thèsez-vous</emph> developed an all-inclusive structured writing retreat program that has been offered over sixty times across the French-speaking province of Quebec and is even being replicated in some regions of France.</p> <p>Given the challenging context of doctoral studies, it seems relevant to investigate whether writing retreats influence the underlying reasons causing writing difficulties for PhD candidates.</p> <hd id="AN0171996650-3">Literature on writing retreats</hd> <p>Writing retreats are events organized for a group of people writing in a shared space, over several days, during which participants exchange information regarding individual goals, achievements, and setbacks (Aitchison and Guerin [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref4">1</reflink>]). Initially established for professors and faculty staff to increase publication output, writing retreats are now recognized as presenting benefits far exceeding the initially projected outcome. In a systematic literature review, Kornhaber et al. ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref5">15</reflink>]) stipulate that writing retreats: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref6">1</reflink>) legitimize the act of writing (without interruption) in a comfortable environment where community support is fostered; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref7">2</reflink>) value time and space dedicated to writing; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref8">3</reflink>) develop writing competencies by establishing a structure and setting specific goals; (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref9">4</reflink>) enhance personal motivation and self-confidence; and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref10">5</reflink>) reduce anxiety associated with academic writing.</p> <p>Writing retreats specifically addressed to PhD candidates are less common. They can be organized by supervisors and may include elements such as writing workshops in addition to several hours of binge writing. Despite this marathon-like atmosphere, writing retreats are collegial and supportive environments where 'doctoral students [...] are likely to find clarity of thinking, energy from others – and are likely to shift their writing forwards' (Carter, Guerin, and Aitchison [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref11">6</reflink>], 57). Therefore, PhD candidates are now encouraged more and more to participate to those types of academic writing events. According to Stewart ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref12">36</reflink>]), writing retreats are beneficial to PhD candidates because they experience productive writing (e.g. being part of a group among which there is writing accountability). These events are also known to improve the relationship that graduate students have with literacy (i.e. transforming the act of writing into a pleasurable experience) (Papen and Thériault [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref13">32</reflink>]). Although several studies highlight the importance of writing retreats to enhance productivity, we know little about the impact that participating in such events may have on difficulties experienced by PhD candidates, including deficient writing efficacy and regulation (Russell-Pinson and Harris [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref14">34</reflink>]) and the lack of opportunities to write due to heavy workloads (Levecque et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref15">18</reflink>]). Thus, there is a need to investigate if and how writing retreats respond to specific PhD candidates' challenges from an empirical perspective.</p> <hd id="AN0171996650-4">Conceptual framework: factors facilitating academic writing</hd> <p>As mentioned by Kempenaar and Murray ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref16">14</reflink>]), academic writing is an iterative process influenced by several factors that are either internal or external to the writer. Especially relevant to writing challenges observed in doctoral studies are internal factors of writing self-efficacy (Huerta et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref17">11</reflink>]) and writing self-regulation (Kelley and Salisbury-Glennon [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref18">13</reflink>]), and external factors of urgency to write and opportunities to write.</p> <hd id="AN0171996650-5">Writing self-efficacy</hd> <p>The concept of self-efficacy was coined by Bandura ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref19">2</reflink>]) as a key element of his <emph>Social Learning Theory</emph> and is defined as 'people's beliefs in their capabilities to produce given attainments' (Bandura [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref20">2</reflink>], 477). More than a synonym for writing confidence (Pajares and Johnson [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref21">31</reflink>]), the theoretical concept of writing self-efficacy 'encompasses everything inherent in a writer's belief about their ability to write' such as capabilities requiring multiple skills, strategies, and knowledge within a specific context (Mitchell et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref22">26</reflink>], 206). This is of particular importance in the context of graduate studies because several PhD candidates cultivate negative representations of their writing competencies, hindering their academic progression (Litalien and Guay [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref23">19</reflink>]). PhD candidates may also feel threatened by the review or evaluation of their written work, resulting in procrastination or, even, the inability to write, a state of mind commonly referred to as <emph>writer's block</emph> (Lonka et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref24">20</reflink>]). Therefore, enhancing the 'belief in one's capability (or confidence) to write in a given situation' (Huerta et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref25">11</reflink>], 717) is deemed essential for PhD candidates to become proficient writers. To do so, 'supervisors can encourage students [... and] build student confidence through positive feedback and encouragement' (Carter, Guerin, and Aitchison [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref26">5</reflink>], 19). More importantly, graduate students need to understand that academic writing is a competency developed through practice that requires a deliberate and systematic effort rather than relying on innate qualities (Lonka et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref27">20</reflink>]). Presumably, group activities during which PhD candidates are binge writing may lead to a greater comprehension of the requirements to develop such abilities. According to a study led by Rickard and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref28">33</reflink>]), eight graduate students who participated in a one-week 'Writing for Publication' program reported increased writing self-confidence. While the dissemination of such findings is encouraging, there remain gaps in the literature about justifications explaining favorable results. Consequently, this current article not only examines if writing retreats influence the development of writing self-efficacy in PhD candidates, but also how this contribution transpires.</p> <hd id="AN0171996650-6">Writing self-regulation</hd> <p>The active process of self-regulation involves analyzing tasks and setting goals, then monitoring and regulating cognition, motivation, and behavior to reach said goals (Zimmerman [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref29">40</reflink>]). Since writing, especially academic writing, is a demanding and complex task, it requires a high degree of self-regulatory behaviors (Steel [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref30">35</reflink>]). When discussing thesis writing, Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref31">41</reflink>]) consider that self-regulation is a process of social nature that necessitates the following strategies: organizing and transforming (e.g. establishing an outline), goal-setting and planning (e.g. prioritizing and estimating timings for completion), managing the writing environment (e.g. turning off notifications to optimize concentration), searching for information (e.g. before and during writing), recording and monitoring (e.g. tracking word counts), and seeking social assistance (e.g. asking for help when faced with a problem).</p> <p>It is the assertion of Kelley and Salisbury-Glennon ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref32">13</reflink>]) that such strategies can be learned from peer support groups. However, little is known about the effects that writing retreats have on PhD candidates writing self-regulation; thus, this article evaluates if this is the case and, if there is an effect, by what means.</p> <hd id="AN0171996650-7">Urgency to write</hd> <p>According to Kempenaar and Murray ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref33">14</reflink>]), for academic writing to be prioritized, the writer needs to perceive the absence of writing as a 'threat' leading to, for example, adverse consequences for missed deadlines. In the case of PhD candidates, falling behind on writing projects can result in, among other things, receiving poor performance evaluations or exceeding the duration of a scholarship. When perceived as challenges, these external pressures can trigger an urgency to write which is considered beneficial for PhD candidates to spring into action (Lazarus and Folkman [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref34">17</reflink>]). It is then necessary to further examine this concept because if there is no sense of urgency to write, there will be no writing (Kempenaar and Murray [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref35">14</reflink>]); PhD candidates will instead turn their attention to other competing priorities or simply procrastinate. Since writing groups have been identified as environments that are conducive to academic writing productivity (Kornhaber et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref36">15</reflink>]), this article will investigate whether and determine how attending a writing retreat can enhance PhD candidates' perceived urgency to write.</p> <hd id="AN0171996650-8">Opportunities to write</hd> <p>The complex nature of dissertation writing requires that regular, extensive, and quality periods of time be set aside to fully engage in writing activities (Aitchison and Guerin [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref37">1</reflink>]). However, PhD candidates face competing demands for their attention throughout their study programs, making time a scarce commodity. According to Levecque et al. ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref38">18</reflink>]), graduate students experience time management challenges in having to balance academic writing activities with other professional or personal responsibilities. As for those aspiring to tenure track positions after graduating, they must invest time in academic activities in parallel with their dissertation to bolster their <emph>curriculum vitae</emph> (Larivière [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref39">16</reflink>]). Juggling with a multitude of scheduling conflicts can result in limited opportunities to write, restricting the progression of PhD candidates' dissertations while they cater to other work-life priorities. Kamler and Thomson ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref40">12</reflink>], 167) claim that: 'Retreats provide doctoral researchers with an extended period of time to try out new writing habits and identify new goals for their writing and development in a supported environment'. With this in mind, this article also examines empirically if writing retreats can increase opportunities to write perceived by PhD candidates and for what specific reasons.</p> <hd id="AN0171996650-9">Thèsez-vous writing retreats</hd> <p>Inspired by the <emph>Structured retreat program for academics</emph> developed by Murray and Newton ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref41">29</reflink>]), <emph>Thèsez-vous</emph> writing retreats were created exclusively for graduate students based on a three-day schedule. Figure 1 bellow illustrates the complete process to follow for a graduate student interested in participating in a <emph>Thèsez-vous</emph> writing retreat.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Thèsez-vous structured writing retreats pedagogical framework.</p> <p>As illustrated, this pedagogical framework for structured writing retreats starts with two steps of preparation, followed by three steps of presential activities, then a final step of integration to transfer learned practices to day-to-day writing. Figure 1 also points out the time, place and people involved in the process, as well as resources and pedagogical activities required to ensure overall retreat success. As detailed in Table 1, all features explained in a recently published book chapter on the topic of engagement with scientific writing (Mathieu-Chartier et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref42">23</reflink>]) are applicable to <emph>Thèsez-vous</emph> writing retreats.</p> <p>Table 1. Descriptive features of <emph>Thèsez-vous</emph> writing retreats.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Feature</td><td>Description</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Spiritual locations</td><td>Retreats are mostly held in spiritual sites such as abbeys and spirituality centers due to their affordability and availability of spaces allowing writing periods in silence. As Susan Carter mentions about writing retreats, they serve as: 'quiet space allowing real thinking' (Carter, Guerin and Aitchison <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">2020b</xref> 57).</td></tr><tr><td>All-inclusive package</td><td>Participants benefit from all-inclusive services, including accommodation, three meals a day, as well as snacks and beverages during breaks.</td></tr><tr><td>Group constitution</td><td>The number of participants is between 40 and 50 compared to smaller groups reported in the literature (Kornhaber et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr15">2016</xref>). Participants come from different universities and disciplines.</td></tr><tr><td>Facilitation</td><td>Two facilitators greet participants and offer an introductory workshop on how the retreat works. While adopting a caring approach, they are responsible for time management and social activities throughout the event. They monitor the schedule, giving cues for breaks and return-to-work timings, to free participants from this responsibility.</td></tr><tr><td>Pomodoro workshop</td><td>The initial workshop introduces participants to the Pomodoro technique developed by Francesco Cirillo in the late 1980s (Cirillo <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr8">2006</xref>). This time management method consists of using a timer to break down work into intervals. <italic>Thèsez-vous</italic> adapted the technique to the demanding task of academic writing by suggesting that participants alternate between 50-minute periods of work in silence followed by a 10-minute break during which they may rest or socialize with others.</td></tr><tr><td>SMART goals workshop</td><td>Participants are also introduced to the SMART method of setting Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Time-bound goals. While this goal-setting method developed by Doran (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr10">1981</xref>) is typically focusing on the outcome, the adaptation made by <italic>Thèsez-vous</italic> emphasizes on dividing and narrowing down objectives while taking ownership of the writing process.</td></tr><tr><td>Kanban board</td><td>Participants are encouraged to use a Kanban board for managing work progress by tracking the completion status of tasks. At the retreat, this consists of posting and monitoring SMART goals on a shared bulletin board, thus allowing the visualization of individual and collective progress.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>In terms of scheduling, Figure 2 presents the three-day program for <emph>Thèsez-vous</emph> writing retreats that includes a total of 20 hours of intensive writing.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 2. Thèsez-vous writing retreats program outline (Tremblay-Wragg et al. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref43">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>In sum, academic writing activities that are socially structured represent an opportunity for graduate students to work on their respective documents surrounded by other writers. It is worth noting that although participants exchange on individual writing goals, activities such as peer reviews or mentoring from experienced writers are not included in the program.</p> <hd id="AN0171996650-10">The present study</hd> <p>The goal of the current study is to evaluate the effect of writing retreats organized by <emph>Thèsez-vous</emph> on internal and external factors known to influence dissertation writing. Specifically, the study explores the following research questions:</p> <p>Q1. Does participation in writing retreats affect PhD candidates' perception of writing self-efficacy, writing self-regulation, urgency to write and opportunities to write?</p> <p>Q2. What are perceived explanations for the effects on participants' writing self-efficacy, writing self-regulation, urgency to write and opportunities to write?</p> <hd id="AN0171996650-11">Methods</hd> <p>In order to address the above research questions, the study relies on an <emph>Explanatory Sequential Mixed Method</emph> (Creswell and Creswell [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref44">9</reflink>], 220), including a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews, applied with a quasi-experimental design to an experimental group (EG) and a control group (CG). In this type of method, researchers use quantitative data collection and analysis followed by qualitative data collection and analysis in an ecological context to interpret the effects of a particular intervention, as well as opinions from participants with respect to this intervention (Creswell and Creswell [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref45">9</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0171996650-12">Sampling and recruitment</hd> <p>The study sample consisted of PhD candidates participating in one of 10 writing retreats offered over a six-month period in 2019 (EG, <emph>n</emph> = 34), as well as PhD candidates presenting similar characteristics than those in the EG but who did not participate in such retreat (CG, <emph>n</emph> = 64). Information related to participants' characteristics is reported in Table 2 for the quantitative portion of the study. Participants selected for the EG completed an online survey administered by email one week before the writing retreat (pretest) and one day after the retreat (posttest). Meanwhile, emails were sent to seven different universities with doctoral programs across the province of Quebec to recruit PhD candidates who had never participated in a writing retreat. This recruiting message included a link to a CG version of the online survey. PhD candidates who agreed to participate were asked to complete the same online survey for pretest, and seven days later, for posttest (full database available on request).</p> <p>Table 2. Demographic comparisons between the experimental group and control group for quantitative data.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>Participants</td></tr><tr><td>Demographic</td><td>Experimental group</td><td>Control group</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Study participants</td><td char=".">34</td><td char=".">64</td></tr><tr><td>Participant gender, <italic>n</italic> (%)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Female</td><td char="(">24(70.6)</td><td char="(">50(78.1)</td></tr><tr><td> Male</td><td char="(">10(29.4)</td><td char="(">14(21.9)</td></tr><tr><td> Non-binary</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0</td></tr><tr><td>Age (range 24–57)</td><td char=".">33.41</td><td char=".">32.49</td></tr><tr><td>Number of semesters completed (range 6–60)</td><td char=".">14.53</td><td char=".">13.29</td></tr><tr><td>Discipline, <italic>n</italic> (%)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Social and human sciences</td><td char="(">26(76.5)</td><td char="(">44(68.8)</td></tr><tr><td> Health, pure and applied sciences</td><td char="(">8(23.5)</td><td char="(">20(31.3)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>To provide a deeper understanding of results, a random sampling led to the selection of 15 participants from both the EG and CG to take part in interviews conducted by the first author of this article. Information related to participants' characteristics is reported in Table 3 for the qualitative portion of the study. Interviews were respectively conducted right after both groups completed posttest questionnaires. Each individual interview lasted approximately 40 minutes.</p> <p>Table 3. Demographic comparisons between experimental group and control group for qualitative data.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>Participants</td></tr><tr><td>Demographic</td><td>Experimental group</td><td>Control group</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Study participants</td><td char=".">15</td><td char=".">15</td></tr><tr><td>Participant gender, <italic>n</italic> (%)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Female</td><td char="(">11(73.3)</td><td char="(">9(60)</td></tr><tr><td> Male</td><td char="(">4(26.7)</td><td char="(">6(40)</td></tr><tr><td> Non-binary</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0</td></tr><tr><td>Discipline, <italic>n</italic> (%)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Social and human sciences</td><td char="(">12(80)</td><td char="(">12(80)</td></tr><tr><td> Health, pure and applied sciences</td><td char="(">3(20)</td><td char="(">3(20)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0171996650-13">Measures and data analyses</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0171996650-14">Quantitative phase</hd> <p>To evaluate the aforementioned indicators represented by internal and external factors of influence on academic writing, a questionnaire including self-reported items was used. The measure of writing self-efficacy comprised eight items that were adapted from the <emph>Self-Efficacy Scale for Academic Writing (SESAW)</emph> initially developed by Mitchell et al. ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref46">26</reflink>]) to assess students' positive or negative perceptions of their writing capacities (e.g. <emph>It was easy for me to write</emph>). Participants' writing self-regulation was measured with four items related to goals setting and planning derived from the <emph>Self-Regulated Learning Interview Schedule</emph> developed by Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref47">41</reflink>]). All items were adapted to capture the reality of dissertation writing (e.g. <emph>I was able to prioritize my dissertation</emph>). Based on Kempenaar and Murray's ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref48">14</reflink>]) work, the transactional model of stress was adapted to the context of academic writing by using five items to capture participants' urgency to write (e.g. <emph>I absolutely needed to work on my dissertation to submit a version on time</emph>). Finally, opportunities to write were assessed using a single item: <emph>Did you work on your dissertation in the last week</emph>? If participants reported not having written in the last week, an open-ended question was posed to them to clarify why, after which they were automatically directed to the next section of the questionnaire, bypassing writing self-efficacy and writing self-regulation items. Consequently, these last two factors were measured with a reduced sample going from 34 to 19 EG participants and from 64 to 24 CG participants. In doing so, our research design ensured that writing self-efficacy and writing self-regulation measurements related to recent writing activities. Given that time lapse is recognized for impacting the stability of such measures (Bandura [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref49">3</reflink>]), this decision adds rigor to our methodological design. For all items pertaining to the first three factors, participants provided their degree of agreement using a Likert-type scale, with ranging scores of 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). Results of reliability analyses showed that all scales yielded high internal consistency for each factor in both groups and times. Results of reliability analyses are reported in Table 4.</p> <p>Table 4. Internal consistency (Cronbach's Alpha) for each factor in both groups and times.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Factors (number of items)</td><td>EG pretest</td><td>EG posttest</td><td>CG pretest</td><td>CG posttest</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Writing self-efficacy (8)</td><td char=".">.953</td><td char=".">.863</td><td char=".">.897</td><td char=".">.902</td></tr><tr><td>Writing self-regulation (4)</td><td char=".">.819</td><td char=".">.963</td><td char=".">.739</td><td char=".">.864</td></tr><tr><td>Urgency to write (5)</td><td char=".">.829</td><td char=".">.888</td><td char=".">.926</td><td char=".">.921</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>In order to address the first research question, that is to examine whether writing retreats influenced PhD candidates' internal and external factors, four separate two-way repeated measures ANOVA were computed with <emph>IBM SPSS Statistics</emph> (version 25) respectively including: writing self-efficacy, writing self-regulation, urgency to write and opportunities to write as dependent variables. All of these two-by-two ANOVAs included time (pretest/posttest) as a within-subject variable and group type (EG/CG) as a between-subject variable.</p> <hd id="AN0171996650-15">Qualitative phase</hd> <p>In regard to the second research question, namely to further understand participants' explanations of results on the selected factors, qualitative data were collected from semi-structured interviews and the open-ended question from the quantitative questionnaire. An interview guide was developed based on the research objectives, with questions asking participants how they felt during their last writing period, as well as the reasons and conditions for feeling the way they did (referring to the writing retreat for the EG). The open-ended question addressed to participants who had not written in the last week was: <emph>For what reasons have you not written in the last week?</emph></p> <p>All qualitative data were transcribed and imported into the qualitative analysis software <emph>NVivo 12</emph>. As described by Van der Maren ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref50">38</reflink>]), a content analysis of all interview transcripts was conducted by the two first authors of this article, allowing for the systematic categorization of qualitative data into defined emergent themes. Analytic discrepancies between coders were recorded by directly comparing codes applied to the same excerpts. Since each coder might not have included the same amount of text for excerpts covering similar themes, those passages encompassing the greatest amount of contextual information were retained. The overall inter-rater agreement was calculated by dividing the total number of coded excerpts by the number of nodes that coders mutually agreed upon (McAlister et al. [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref51">24</reflink>]). This formula provides a fractional percentage of assented themes, which in the case of our analysis represented 82% of reliability. Reverse coding was then conducted by the first author to ensure that all categories included excerpts that truly matched their definitions. In order to preserve anonymity, excerpts from interview are herein reported using participant identification codes (for EG or CG from 1 to 15). Before presenting findings ensuing from these main analyses, we first present descriptive statistics and results of factor analyses.</p> <hd id="AN0171996650-16">Results</hd> <p>After performing preliminary analyses to ensure that all assumptions were met, we conducted a principal-components factor analysis (using Varimax rotation of factors with Kaiser normalization) to verify whether measured factors conformed to a prior classification, with <emph>IBM SPSS Statistics</emph> (version 25).</p> <hd id="AN0171996650-17">Descriptive statistics and results of factor analysis</hd> <p>Results yielded a three-factor solution reflecting a prior identification of writing self-efficacy, writing self-regulation and opportunities to write, with factor loading over.40 in the intended factor. Descriptive statistics were then examined and are reported for all factors at each time point in Table 5.</p> <p>Table 5. Descriptive statistics of writing self-efficacy, writing self-regulation, urgency to write and opportunities to write scores by group.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>Pretest</td><td>Posttest</td><td>Score change</td></tr><tr><td /><td>M(SD)</td><td>M(SD)</td><td>M(SD)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>EG writing self-efficacy</td><td char="(">4.39(1.43)</td><td char="(">5.36(.98)</td><td char="(">−0.97(1.21)</td></tr><tr><td>CG writing self-efficacy</td><td char="(">4.45(.90)</td><td char="(">4.43(1.25)</td><td char="(">0.02(1.23)</td></tr><tr><td>EG writing self-regulation</td><td char="(">4.59(1.40)</td><td char="(">5.89(1.34)</td><td char="(">−1.30(1.39)</td></tr><tr><td>CG writing self-regulation</td><td char="(">4.61(.96)</td><td char="(">4.89(1.24)</td><td char="(">−0.28(1.1)</td></tr><tr><td>EG urgency to write</td><td char="(">3.52(1.65)</td><td char="(">4.37(1.90)</td><td char="(">−0.85(1.78)</td></tr><tr><td>CG urgency to write</td><td char="(">3.11(1.65)</td><td char="(">3.72(2.03)</td><td char="(">−.61(1.84)</td></tr><tr><td>EG opportunities to write</td><td char="(">.47(.51)</td><td char="(">1.00(.0)</td><td char="(">−.53(.51)</td></tr><tr><td>CG opportunities to write</td><td char="(">.52(.50)</td><td char="(">.58(.50)</td><td char="(">−.06(.59)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0171996650-18">Does writing retreat participation affect PhD candidates' perception of writing self-efficacy...</hd> <p>To address this research question, results of performed ANOVAs are presented separately for all four factors.</p> <hd id="AN0171996650-19">Effect of writing retreat participation on participants' writing self-efficacy</hd> <p>As illustrated in Figure 3, results of the ANOVA on writing self-efficacy revealed a significant interaction between time and group type (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref52">1</reflink>, 41) = 7.957, <emph>p</emph> =.007, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> =.163). Further examination of results showed that prior to the writing retreat, EG and CG did not significantly differ (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref53">1</reflink>, 41) =.033, <emph>p</emph> =.857, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> =.001). In contrast, EG participants reported higher writing self-efficacy scores than those in the CG, (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref54">1</reflink>, 41) = 7.165, <emph>p</emph> =.011, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> =.149) at posttest.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 3. Comparison of Estimated Marginal Means of writing self-efficacy scored between groups and over time.</p> <hd id="AN0171996650-20">Effect of writing retreat participation on participants' writing self-regulation</hd> <p>As demonstrated in Figure 4, results of the ANOVA on writing self-regulation revealed a significant interaction between time and group type (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref55">1</reflink>, 41) = 5.532, <emph>p</emph> =.024, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> =.119). Further examination of results showed that prior to the writing retreat, EG and CG did not significantly differ (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref56">1</reflink>, 41) =.004, <emph>p</emph> =.951, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> =.000). In contrast, at posttest, EG participants reported higher writing self-regulation scores than those in the CG, (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref57">1</reflink>, 41) = 6.377, <emph>p</emph> =.016, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> =.135).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 4. Comparison of Estimated Marginal Means of writing self-regulation scored between groups and over time.</p> <hd id="AN0171996650-21">Effect of writing retreat participation on participants' urgency to write</hd> <p>As shown in Figure 5, results of the ANOVA on the urgency to write revealed a non-significant interaction between time and group type (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref58">1</reflink>, 96) =.438, <emph>p</emph> =.510, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> =.005). Further examination of results showed that prior to the writing retreat, EG and CG did significantly differ (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref59">1</reflink>, 96) = 1.379, <emph>p</emph> =.243, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> =.014). Similarly, EG participants reported higher urgency to write scores than those in the CG, (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref60">1</reflink>, 96) = 2.387, <emph>p</emph> =.126, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> =.024) at posttest.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 5. Comparison of Estimated Marginal Means of urgency to write scored between groups and over time.</p> <hd id="AN0171996650-22">Effect of writing retreat participation on participants' opportunities to write</hd> <p>As illustrated in Figure 6, results of the ANOVA on the opportunities to write revealed a significant interaction between time and group type (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref61">1</reflink>, 96) = 15.38, <emph>p</emph> =.000, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> =.138). Further examination of results revealed that prior to the writing retreat, EG and CG did not significantly differ (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref62">1</reflink>, 96) =.177, <emph>p</emph> = 675, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> =.002). In contrast, at posttest, EG participants reported higher scores for opportunities to write than those in the CG (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref63">1</reflink>, 96) = 24.304, <emph>p</emph> =.000, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> =.202).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 6. Comparison of Estimated Marginal Means of opportunities to write scored between groups and over time.</p> <hd id="AN0171996650-23">What are perceived explanations for the effects on participants' writing self-efficacy, writi...</hd> <p>To address this second research question, qualitative results, which on the whole provided an inter-rater agreement of 82%, are also presented for all four factors (full database available on request).</p> <hd id="AN0171996650-24">Perceived explanations for the effects on participants' writing self-efficacy and writing sel...</hd> <p>During interviews, none of the CG participants revealed an increase in writing self-efficacy or writing self-regulation after the pretest. In contrast, all EG interviewees (EG: 15/15) reported an increase in writing self-efficacy over time, which was predominantly attributed to an increase in productivity and writing self-confidence. Participant EG15 summarized this shared perception by stating: 'my participation to the writing retreat gave me confidence in my writing abilities'. Most participants explained that learning organizational and time management techniques contributed to increasing their writing self-efficacy, and by extension, also increased their writing self-regulation (EG: 14/15). For instance, this participant stated:</p> <p>I realized the extent to which I was capable [and] that my stalling was not due to incapacity, incompetence, lack of talent or reasons other than to create the most favourable conditions. I understand that if I adequately plan my writing by setting goals, it drastically changes, and I will not be stalling as much. (EG1)</p> <p>The importance of setting goals was also evoked by almost every participant (EG: 14/15) who referred to using a newly acquired management by objectives technique:</p> <p>I learned to organize SMART goals in columns with verbs provided by the [retreat] facilitators. (...) I threw away a lot of post-its at the beginning. I did not realize that my post-it was really three post-its in one, so I started again to ensure that [my goals] were really SMART. (EG6)</p> <p>Using this goal-setting technique allowed participants to observe their progress and feel productive (EG: 12/15). Just as importantly, they reported learning to organize writing periods by using a time management technique: 'I learned the Pomodoro technique, with 50 minutes of writing followed by a 10-minute break. I did not do that before. Now, it helps' (EG7). Taking short breaks every hour appeared to help participants get away from the computer, stretch and recharge to start writing afresh.</p> <p>Finally, some participants even reported how their participation in a writing retreat will help them in the future, since it gave them a sense of confidence that is now well established:</p> <p>My participation helped psychologically. When in doubt, I can now tell myself: "remember at the <emph>Thèsez-vous</emph> [retreat], you wrote this thing in three days, which is really good (...) and shows you can do it", then I am ok to continue writing, and it is not as tough. (EG5)</p> <p>Interestingly, the majority of EG participants also reported a 'positive social pressure' (EG7) that made them feel confident and productive during the retreat. As one participant described it: 'It's kind of like mirror neurons there. We're all doing the same thing [writing] and get stronger together' (EG8). The presence of others in this supportive and caring environment also allowed participants to feel compassion for both others and themselves: 'Seeing or hearing others recognize their own accomplishments also forces you to do the same. It allows you to realize [your own progress] and tell yourself "yes, I've worked hard! It's good, it's moving forward" (EG1)'.</p> <hd id="AN0171996650-25">Perceived explanations for the effects on participants' urgency to write</hd> <p>Qualitative data regarding the urgency to write reveal that, in both the EG and CG, some interviewees (EG, <emph>n</emph> = 8; CG, <emph>n</emph> = 6) reported urgent deadlines and significant workloads related to their dissertation: 'My director expects that within a month, I will submit the final version of my last article ready for publishing. For me, it seems like a monumental task (...) and this established date seems unattainable' (CG12). On the contrary, some participants from both groups (EG, <emph>n</emph> = 7; CG, <emph>n</emph> = 9) did not feel this pressure to write, reporting nonexistent consequences if exceeding deadlines established by university departments. A few PhD candidates were even complaining that they would like tighter supervision and more precise deadlines:</p> <p>I asked my supervisor, multiple times, to give me deadlines, to clearly ask me: "before the end of the month, I want you to send me a chapter", because the dissertation is such a long-term task. I like being supervised, without it, I make it less of my responsibility and my dissertation always ends up being the last priority. (EG6)</p> <p>In this excerpt, the participant, like many others, acknowledged that she needs to feel the urgency to write to prioritize her dissertation above all other tasks. In general, participants indicated that writing retreats did not affect their sense of urgency to write, which appears to originate from their supervisors, rather than participating in socially structured writing activities.</p> <hd id="AN0171996650-26">Perceived explanations for the effects on participants' opportunities to write</hd> <p>The participants' perceived explanations for opportunities to write are drawn from their responses to the open-ended question at pretest. It should be noted that this open-ended question was only posed to participants reporting not having worked on their dissertation during the week prior to filling out the questionnaire. Based on responses from participants in both the EG and CG, results from this open-ended question reveal that opportunities to write are hindered by engagements in research and teaching assistant contracts and internships, or by prioritization of family responsibilities. Interestingly, only female participants reported caring for children to justify being unable to prioritize writing: 'I work 33 hours per week. I have three kids. It is difficult to find both the time and energy' (Questionnaire EG10). In contrast, men participants tended to report taking writing breaks, suggesting they felt the freedom to do so: 'I didn't write in the last week because I took a three-week break to rest' (Questionnaire CG21).</p> <p>Findings from interviews revealed that all respondents who participated in a writing retreat (EG: 15/15) considered the event to be a writing opportunity in itself, and not any other kind of opportunity: 'the perfect opportunity' with the 'optimal conditions' to write (14/15). For participants, this could be explained by multiple reasons, such as 'the fact that everything is organized by the facilitators' (EG3), in 'an enchanting environment' (EG6) and 'to be surrounded and supported by other people who are in different fields of study, but who face the same reality as mine' (EG12). In contrast, the majority of CG participants (13/15) did not benefit from opportunities to write in the week preceding interviews, once again flagging heavy workloads as writing constraints. Furthermore, an interesting result associated with the CG revealed that some of these participants seemed to prefer solo writing.</p> <hd id="AN0171996650-27">Discussion</hd> <p>The current study examined if participating in a writing retreat had positive effects on perceived writing self-efficacy and writing self-regulation, as well as the perceived urgency to write and opportunities to write. In parallel, the study aimed to understand participants' explanations of the obtained effects. Our study was among the first to empirically examine the effects of writing retreats on PhD candidates by analyzing four important indicators including two internal factors, namely writing self-efficacy and writing self-regulation, and two external factors, that is the urgency to write and opportunities to write. On the whole, results support the added value of writing retreats on the two selected internal factors as well as on opportunities to write, as an external factor. However, contrary to our hypothesis, writing retreats did not enhance participants' perceived urgency to write, a result that was supported by quantitative and qualitative data. These findings are discussed based on literature pertaining to academic writing as a social practice.</p> <hd id="AN0171996650-28">Writing retreats: a strategy enhancing writing self-efficacy and self-regulation</hd> <p>Quantitative results revealed that participating in a writing retreat is effective to promote participants' writing self-efficacy and writing self-regulation. Qualitative results further revealed that these improvements were mainly due to a boost in writing self-confidence attributed to the learning of organizational and time management techniques (Pomodoro and SMART) that were explicitly taught during the retreat. These results reflect those of prior studies, mostly conducted among faculty members at the beginning of their academic careers, which showed that writing retreat participation increases assurance in writers (Maheux-Pelletier, Marsh, and Frake-Mistak [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref64">22</reflink>]) and facilitates goal setting (Kornhaber et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref65">15</reflink>]). Drawing from these findings, our positive results suggest that writing retreats could, through time management strategies known to increase goal setting, enhance writing self-efficacy in PhD candidates. Furthermore, participants learned and experienced many other aspects of writing such as the affective and social sides of the writing process, including how reassuring it is to be in the presence of others facing similar challenges. Furthermore, since a number of PhD candidates will become scholars, our results could indicate that writing retreats may assist in overcoming writing difficulties often experienced by novice academics, prior to their becoming tenure track professors.</p> <hd id="AN0171996650-29">Writing retreats: a strategy unrelated to the urgency to write</hd> <p>One unexpected result was that writing retreats did not significantly affect PhD candidates' urgency to write. Although these results are apparently in stark contrast with theoretical presumptions suggesting that the urgency to write is a necessary condition to cognitively engage in writing activities (Kempenaar and Murray [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref66">14</reflink>]), our qualitative data offer interesting hypotheses to understand these findings. Based on interviews conducted with participants in both the EG and CG, one possible explanation is that the urgency to write mainly stems from the supervisor. Indeed, this presumption is consistent with available literature showing that pressure experienced by some PhD candidates comes from the imposition of arbitrary timelines usually imposed by the doctoral program or dissertation supervisor (McCallin and Nayar [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref67">25</reflink>]; Neumann [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref68">30</reflink>]).</p> <p>Another plausible explanation would be that the urgency to write is not necessarily a primary condition to engage in academic writing activities. In fact, in a populational study involving 27,393 graduate students enrolled in PhD programs between 2000 and 2007 in the province of Quebec, Larivière ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref69">16</reflink>]) found that those who were highly involved in research activities outside their doctoral project happened to advance their own dissertation more expediently. These results suggest that being part of a research infrastructure, which is likely to promote students' collaboration and socialization, might be sufficient to facilitate PhD candidates' engagement in writing activities, even if it does not increase the perceived urgency to write. These same mechanisms – creating an opportunity to increase PhD candidates' collaboration and socialization – could also explain why writing retreats provide positive effects on students' writing productivity, even though they do not affect their urgency to write.</p> <hd id="AN0171996650-30">Writing retreats: a strategy providing an ideal opportunity to write</hd> <p>Our study also showed that the writing retreat significantly increased EG participants' perceived opportunities to write. Qualitative results further revealed that these increments were mainly due to optimal conditions provided by the retreat, such as all-inclusive services provided by retreat facilitators. Being surrounded and supported by a doctoral community and located on a site that was often characterized as 'enchanting' were also identified as factors making the writing retreat an optimal opportunity for PhD candidates to write their dissertation.</p> <p>Despite this enhanced perception of opportunities to write, approximately half of the participants (in both the EG and CG) reported not engaging in writing their dissertation during the week preceding the two data collections. These results underscore that these PhD candidates apparently did not prioritize their dissertation in relation to other work-life imperatives. Furthermore, qualitative data obtained through the open-ended question suggested that male and female candidates may have different constraints preventing them from engaging in dissertation writing. Indeed, both male and female students reported having difficulties to prioritize their writing due to engagements in research and teaching assistant contracts and internships. However, only female participants mentioned caring for children as a reason for not engaging in writing activities, a finding that has been documented for the last two decades (Carter, Blumenstein, and Cook [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref70">4</reflink>]; Webber and Dismore [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref71">39</reflink>]). Accordingly, as suggested by Moore, Murphy, and Murray ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref72">27</reflink>]) and Murray and Kempenaar ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref73">28</reflink>]), participation in writing retreats could contribute to narrowing the gap between male and female doctoral graduation rates by leveling writing opportunities for female graduate students, especially those having one or more children.</p> <hd id="AN0171996650-31">Limitations</hd> <p>The current study has some limitations that need to be acknowledged and should be addressed in future research. First, although we used a rigorous quasi-experimental design to compare participants in a EG and CG, a random assignment would be necessary to draw clear causal claims. That being said, the fact that both groups (EG and CG) were equivalent at pretest suggests that similar results would emerge from an experimental design with random assignment. Another limitation concerns the absence of measure to evaluate the expected long-term effects of writing retreats on dissertation completion. Although selected internal and external factors are known to promote PhD candidates' perseverance to complete their study programs (Kempenaar and Murray [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref74">14</reflink>]), future research using a longitudinal design would be useful to confirm the validity of this presumption. The final limitation relates to productivity measures that were self-reported and measured perceptions of productivity. Future research could explore PhD candidates' writing behaviors through tangible productivity variables to better understand the complexities of this concept.</p> <hd id="AN0171996650-32">Conclusion</hd> <p>This study used an innovative quasi-experimental mixed design to examine the effects of writing retreats on PhD candidates' internal and external factors related to dissertation writing, combined with qualitative data to further understand their interpretation of these effects. Overall, the quantitative and qualitative results both supported the idea that participating in a writing retreat organized by <emph>Thèsez-vous</emph> increased PhD candidates' writing self-efficacy and writing self-regulation, while providing an ideal opportunity to write. Qualitative data further suggest that the writing retreat imposed a positive social pressure that enhanced participants' confidence and productivity, much like a mirror-neuron activity where individuals perform a task while observing others do the same. The presence of others in this supportive and caring environment also allowed participants to feel compassion for each other by recognizing individuals' successes. Quantitative and qualitative data also revealed that writing retreats did not lead to the expected increases in the perceived urgency to write, for the reason that this sense of urgency stems from other external constraints such as deadlines established by the doctoral programs or dissertation supervisors. The lessons learned in this article, while positive, do not indicate that attending a single writing retreat will be a panacea for completing a PhD program successfully, simply because one needs to write and work consistently. Therefore, socially structured writing activities should be supported by supervisors, but PhD candidates also require ongoing university-level support, such as regular writing groups organized for students on campus or online. The qualitative results, particularly from the CG, allowed us to better understand that PhD candidates exhibit very diverse profiles. Indeed, not all PhD candidates feel the need to write in the company of others or to create an isolated environment away from daily life for three days, which is what writing retreats generally offer. This article suggests that some PhD candidates benefit more than others from such activities, especially women with family related responsibilities who must get away from home to invest time in thinking and writing. Future research should further explore PhD candidates' profiles (specifically women and novice writers) and their needs related to academic writing. Ultimately, a better understanding of the factors facilitating writing could contribute, not only to provide PhD candidates a better experience during their doctoral studies, but also to enhance doctoral graduation rate, which is highly desirable.</p> <hd id="AN0171996650-33">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <hd id="AN0171996650-34">Data availability statement</hd> <p>All data can be made available upon request.</p> <ref id="AN0171996650-35"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref4" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Aitchison, Claire, and Cally Guerin. 2014. Writing groups for doctoral education and beyond: Innovations in practice and theory. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref7" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, Albert. 1997. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York : Freeman.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref8" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, Albert. 2019. Auto-efficacité: Comment le sentiment d'efficacité personnelle influence notre qualité de vie. Louvain-la-Neuve : De Boeck Supérieur.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref9" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Carter, Susan, Marion Blumenstein, and Catherine Cook. 2013. " Different for Women? The Challenges of Doctoral Studies." Teaching in Higher Education 18 (4): 339 – 351.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref10" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Carter, Susan, Cally Guerin, and Claire Aitchison. 2020a. "Being and Developing Writers." Doctoral Writing, 7–50. Singapore: Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref11" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Carter, Susan, Cally Guerin, and Claire Aitchison. 2020b. "Managing Productivity." Doctoral Writing, 51–91. Singapore: Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref2" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Cassuto, Leonard. 2013. "Ph.D. Attrition: How Much Is Too Much?" The Chronicle of Higher Education. <ulink href="http://chronicle.com/article/PhD-Attrition-How-Much-Is/140045">http://chronicle.com/article/PhD-Attrition-How-Much-Is/140045</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cirillo, Francesco. 2006. "The Pomodoro Technique." <ulink href="http://www.baomee.info/pdf/technique/1.pdf">http://www.baomee.info/pdf/technique/1.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref44" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Creswell, John W., and J. David Creswell. 2018. " Mixed Methods Procedures." In Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Design Approaches, 5th ed., edited by John W. Creswell, and J. David Creswell, 215 – 240. London : Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doran, George T. 1981. " There's a S.M.A.R.T. Way to Write Management's Goals and Objectives." Management Review 70 (11): 35 – 36.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huerta, Margarita, Patricia Goodson, Mina Beigi, and Dominique Chlup. 2017. " Graduate Students as Academic Writers: Writing Anxiety, Self-Efficacy and Emotional Intelligence." Higher Education Research & Development 36 (4): 716 – 729. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2016.1238881.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kamler, Barbara, and Pat Thomson. 2014. Helping Doctoral Students Write: Pedagogies for Supervision. New York, NY : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelley, Martha J. M., and Jill D. Salisbury-Glennon. 2016. " The Role of Self-Regulation in Doctoral Students' Status of All but Dissertation (ABD)." Innovative Higher Education 41 (1): 87 – 100. <ulink href="http://hdl.handle.net/10415/2698">http://hdl.handle.net/10415/2698</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kempenaar, Larissa Elisabeth, and Rowena Murray. 2016. " Writing by Academics: A Transactional and Systems Approach to Academic Writing Behaviours." Higher Education Research & Development 35 (5): 940 – 950. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2016.1139553.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kornhaber, Rachel, Merylin Cross, Vasiliki Betihavas, and Heather Bridgman. 2016. " The Benefits and Challenges of Academic Writing Retreats: An Integrative Review." Higher Education Research & Development 35 (6): 1210 – 1227. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2016.1144572.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Larivière, Vincent. 2012. " On the Shoulders of Students? The Contribution of PhD Students to the Advancement of Knowledge." Scientometrics 90 (2): 463 – 481. doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0495-6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lazarus, Richard S., and Susan Folkman. 1984. Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York : Springer Publishing Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levecque, Katia, Frederik Anseel, Alain De Beuckelaer, Johan Van der Heyden, and Lydia Gisle. 2017. " Work Organization and Mental Health Problems in PhD Students." Research Policy 46 (4): 868 – 879. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2017.02.008.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Litalien, David, and Frédéric Guay. 2015. " Dropout Intentions in Phd Studies: A Comprehensive Model Based on Interpersonal Relationships and Motivational Resources." Contemporary Educational Psychology 41 : 218 – 231.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lonka, Kirsti, Angela Chow, Jenni Keskinen, Kai Hakkarainen, Niclas Sandström, and Kirsi Pyhältö. 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.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maher, Michelle, Amber Fallucca, and Helen Mulhern Halasz. 2013. " Write On! Through to the Ph.D.: Using Writing Groups to Facilitate Doctoral Degree Progress." Studies in Continuing Education 35 (2): 193 – 208. doi: 10.1080/0158037X.2012.736381.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maheux-Pelletier, Geneviève, Heidi Marsh, and Mandy Frake-Mistak. 2019. " The Benefits of Writing Retreats Revisited." Critical Issues in the Future of Learning and Teaching 17 : 92 – 105. doi: 10.1163/9789004410985_008.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mathieu-Chartier, Sara, Émilie Tremblay-Wragg, Marie-Ève Gadbois, and Élise Labonté-Lemoyne. 2021. " Soutenir l'engagement dans la rédaction de mémoires, de thèses et d'articles." In (Se) Former à et par l'écriture du qualitatif, edited by Marie-Hélène Forget and Anne Malo, 169 – 194. Québec, QC : Presses de l'Université Laval.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McAlister, Anne Marguerite, Dennis M. Lee, Katherine M. Ehlert, Rachel Louis Kajfez, Courtney June Faber, and Marian S Kennedy. 2017. " Qualitative Coding: An Approach to Assess Inter-Rater Reliability." American Society for Engineering Education, 18189. https://<ulink href="http://www.asee.org/public/conferences/78/papers/18189/view">www.asee.org/public/conferences/78/papers/18189/view</ulink> and click "download paper"</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCallin, Antoinette, and Shoba Nayar. 2012. " Postgraduate Research Supervision: A Critical Review of Current Practice." Teaching in Higher Education 17 (1): 63 – 74. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2011.590979.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mitchell, Kim M., Tom Harrigan, Torrie Stefansson, and Holly Setlack. 2017. " Exploring Self-Efficacy and Anxiety in First-Year Nursing Students Enrolled in a Discipline-Specific Scholarly Writing Course." Quality Advancement in Nursing 3 (1): 1 – 21. doi: 10.17483/2368-6669.1084.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moore, Sarah, Maura Murphy, and Rowena Murray. 2010. " Increasing Academic Output and Supporting Equality of Career Opportunity in Universities: Can Writers' Retreats Play a Role? " The Journal of Faculty Development 24 (3): 21 – 30.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murray, Rowena, and Larissa Kempenaar. 2020. " Why Do Women Attend Writing Retreats? " Gender and Education 32 (8): 1001 – 1018.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murray, Rowena, and Mary Newton. 2009. " Writing Retreat as Structured Intervention: Margin or Mainstream? " Higher Education Research & Development 28 (5): 541 – 553. doi: 10.1080/07294360903154126.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neumann, Ruth. 2017. " Policy and Practice in Doctoral Education." Studies in Higher Education 32 (4): 459 – 473. doi: 10.1080/03075070701476134.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pajares, Frank, and Margaret J. Johnson. 1994. " Confidence and Competence in Writing: The Role of Self-Efficacy, Outcome Expectancy, and Apprehension." Research in the Teaching of English 3 : 313 – 331.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Papen, Uta, and Virginie Thériault. 2018. " Writing Retreats as a Milestone in the Development of PhD Students' Sense of Self as Academic Writers." Studies in Continuing Education 40 (2): 166 – 180.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rickard, Claire M, Matthew R Mcgrail, Mollie Burley, and Gillian Ray-Barruel. 2009. " SupPorting Academic Publication: Evaluation of a Writing Course Combined with Writers' Support Group." Nurse Education Today 29 : 516 – 521.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Russell-Pinson, Lisa, and M. Lynne Harris. 2019. " Anguish and Anxiety, Stress and Strain: Attending to Writers' Stress in the Dissertation Process." Journal of Second Language Writing 43 : 63 – 71.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Steel, Piers. 2007. " The Nature of Procrastination: A Meta-Analytic and Theoretical Review of Quintessential Self-Regulatory Failure." Psychological Bulletin 133 (1): 65 – 94. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stewart, Cyndi. 2018. Academic Writing Retreats for Graduate Students: A Qualitative Case Study. Fort Collins.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tremblay-Wragg, Émilie, Sara Mathieu-Chartier, Élise Labonté-Lemoyne, Catherine Déri, and Marie-Ève Gadbois. 2020. " Writing More, Better, Together: How Writing Retreats Support Graduate Students Through their Journey." Journal of Further and Higher Education 45 (1): 95 – 106 10.1080/0309877X.2020.1736272.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van der Maren, Jean-Marie. 2003. La recherche appliquée en pédagogie : des modèles pour l'enseignement. Brussel : De Boeck.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Webber, Louise, and Harriet Dismore. 2020. " Mothers and Higher Education: Balancing Time, Study and Space." Journal of Further and Higher Education, 1 – 15. https://<ulink href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0309877X.2020.1820458">www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0309877X.2020.1820458</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zimmerman, Barry J. 2000. " Attaining Self-Regulation: A Social Cognitive Perspective." In Handbook of Self-Regulation, edited by Moshe Zeidner, Monique Boekaerts, and Paul R. Pintrich, 13 – 39. New York, NY : Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zimmerman, Barry J., and Manuel Martinez-Pons. 1986. " Development of a Structured Interview for Assessing Student Use of Self-Regulated Learning Strategies." American Educational Research Journal 23 (4): 614 – 628. doi: 10.3102/00028312023004614.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Cynthia Vincent; Émilie Tremblay-Wragg; Catherine Déri; Isabelle Plante and Sara Mathieu Chartier</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref73"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1398672
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: How Writing Retreats Represent an Ideal Opportunity to Enhance PhD Candidates' Writing Self-Efficacy and Self-Regulation
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Vincent%2C+Cynthia%22">Vincent, Cynthia</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6778-2700">0000-0002-6778-2700</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tremblay-Wragg%2C+Émilie%22">Tremblay-Wragg, Émilie</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5411-6058">0000-0001-5411-6058</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Déri%2C+Catherine%22">Déri, Catherine</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9689-3517">0000-0001-9689-3517</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Plante%2C+Isabelle%22">Plante, Isabelle</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4612-7018">0000-0003-4612-7018</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Chartier%2C+Sara+Mathieu%22">Chartier, Sara Mathieu</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8192-6611">0000-0001-8192-6611</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Teaching+in+Higher+Education%22"><i>Teaching in Higher Education</i></searchLink>. 2023 28(7):1600-1619.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 20
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Doctoral+Students%22">Doctoral Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Doctoral+Dissertations%22">Doctoral Dissertations</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Workshops%22">Writing Workshops</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+%28Composition%29%22">Writing (Composition)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Attitudes%22">Writing Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychological+Patterns%22">Psychological Patterns</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Efficacy%22">Self Efficacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Motivation%22">Self Motivation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Skills%22">Writing Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Skill+Development%22">Skill Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Goal+Orientation%22">Goal Orientation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Time+Management%22">Time Management</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cooperative+Learning%22">Cooperative Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Group+Activities%22">Group Activities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Networks%22">Social Networks</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/13562517.2021.1918661
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1356-2517<br />1470-1294
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: PhD candidates face heavy workloads and lack strategies to prioritize their dissertation, resulting in limited writing opportunities and low confidence in writing capabilities. Although writing retreats are known to propel academics' writing productivity, little is known about how they may assist PhD candidates in enhancing writing self-efficacy and self-regulation. An Explanatory Sequential Mixed Method with a quasi-experimental design was used to examine the impacts of writing retreats on PhD candidates' internal factors (writing self-efficacy and self-regulation) and external factors (urgency and opportunities to write). An experimental group (n = 34) and a control group (n = 64) answered a questionnaire measuring retreat effects, after which a subsample (n = 30) was interviewed to further interpret these effects. In sum, writing retreats enhance PhD candidates' writing self-efficacy and self-regulation through goals setting and time management practices. Recommendations are provided about using socially structured writing activities to support PhD candidates' dissertation advancement.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1398672
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1398672
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/13562517.2021.1918661
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 20
        StartPage: 1600
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Doctoral Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Doctoral Dissertations
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing Workshops
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing (Composition)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychological Patterns
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Efficacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Motivation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Skill Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Goal Orientation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Time Management
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cooperative Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Group Activities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Networks
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: How Writing Retreats Represent an Ideal Opportunity to Enhance PhD Candidates' Writing Self-Efficacy and Self-Regulation
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Vincent, Cynthia
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tremblay-Wragg, Émilie
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Déri, Catherine
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Plante, Isabelle
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Chartier, Sara Mathieu
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1356-2517
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1470-1294
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 28
            – Type: issue
              Value: 7
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Teaching in Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1