Reading Research for Writing: Co-Constructing Core Skills Using Primary Literature




critical reading skills, categorical reading method, doctoral education, reading for writing, sociocultural theory, social collaborative annotation


Synthesizing academic literature into new knowledge through writing is a core skill that doctoral students engaged in research must learn. However, developing efficacy in synthesis skills as an academic writer is a culturally and cognitively demanding process that occurs over many years, requires abstraction, and draws upon critical reading skills. Doctoral reading is an invisible part of training, despite large reading loads in doctoral coursework. Further, reading, writing, and researching skills are co-constructed at the doctoral level as previously described by Kwan (2008). The purpose of this essay is to describe how the primary author used her experience as an EdD student, science teacher, and writer to develop a method that addresses doctoral reading challenges. The novel method described here combines categorical reading strategies with social collaborative annotation (SCA). This method centers on active, categorial reading to deconstruct arguments in the primary literature by identifying claim, evidence, reasoning, implications, and context (CERIC), which can serve as a critical reading pedagogy in existing courses, reading clubs, and seminars. Combining CERIC with SCA tools—ranging from homemade variations of Google Suite to purposeful annotation software, such as—can support an efficient doctoral reading process. This essay illustrates several worked examples and explores how this process supports retrieval, engagement, collaboration, inclusion, and community, particularly in online learning environments. Significant implications of this work are to make hidden reading expectations explicit and transform professor-centered transmission models of learning to student-centered sociocultural models of learning. The essay proposes next steps for testing the approach's effectiveness in online doctoral learning.

Author Biographies

Genevive A. Bjorn, Johns Hopkins University

Ed.D. student specializing in online learning

Laura Quaynor, Johns Hopkins University

Assistant Professor, Ed.D. Program


Abdullah, C., Parris, J., Lie, R., Guzdar, A., & Tour, E. (2015). Critical analysis of primary literature in a master’s-level class: Effects on self-efficacy and science-process skills. CBE Life Sciences Education, 14(3).

Ahmad, S. Z. (2019). Impact of Cornell Notes vs. REAP on EFL secondary school students’ critical reading skills. International Education Studies, 12(10), 60-74.

Aitchison, C., Catterall, J., Ross, P., & Burgin, S. (2012). “Tough love and tears”: Learning doctoral writing in the sciences. Higher Education Research and Development, 31(4), 435-447.

Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., & Reynolds, R. E. (2009). What is learning anyway? A topographical perspective considered. Educational Psychologist, 44(3), 176-192.

Alguire, P. C. (1998). A review of journal clubs in postgraduate medical education. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 13(5), 347-353.

Anuar, N., & Sidhu, G. K. (2017). Critical reading skills: A survey of postgraduate students’ perspective of critical reading. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 25(February), 163-172.

Berry, S. (2017). Building community in online doctoral classrooms: Instructor practices that support community. Online Learning Journal, 21(2).

Bjorn, G. (2018). Love the lab, hate the lab report? The Science Teacher, 85(4).

Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3-15.

Bresser, R., Melanese, K., & Sphar, C. (2009). Supporting English language learners in math class, grades K-2. Math Solutions.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (2007). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.

Brown, P. C., Roediger, H. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make it stick: The science of successful learning. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Brown, R. A. J., & Renshaw, P. D. (2000). Collective argumentation: A sociocultural approach to reframing classroom teaching and learning. In H. Cowie & G. van der Aalsvoort (Eds.), Social interaction in learning and instruction: The meaning of discourse for the construction of knowledge (pp. 52-66). Pergamon/Elsevier Science Inc.

Chen, B. (2019). Designing for networked collaborative discourse: An unLMS approach. TechTrends, 63(2), 194-201.

Cho, M. H., & Tobias, S. (2016). Should instructors require discussion in online courses? Effects of online discussion on community of inquiry, learner time, satisfaction, and achievement. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 17(2), 123-140.

Cohn, J. (2019). Talking back to texts: An introduction to putting the “social” in “social annotation.” In A. J. Reid (Ed.), Marginalia in Modern Learning Contexts (pp. 1-16). IGI Global.

Cotterall, S. (2011). Doctoral students writing: Where’s the pedagogy? Teaching in Higher Education, 16(4), 413.

Council of Graduate Schools. (2010). The Ph.D. completion project.

Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two models. Management Science, 35(8), 982.

Galikyan, I., & Admiraal, W. (2019). Students’ engagement in asynchronous online discussion: The relationship between cognitive presence, learner prominence, and academic performance. The Internet and Higher Education, 43.

Gao, F. (2013). A case study of using a social annotation tool to support collaboratively learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 17, 76-83.

Gottesman, A. J., & Hoskins, S. G. (2013). CREATE Cornerstone: Introduction to scientific thinking, a new course for STEM-interested freshmen, demystifies scientific thinking through analysis of scientific literature. CBE Life Sciences Education, 12(1), 59-72.

Graham, S., Liu, X., Bartlett, B., Ng, C., Harris, K. R., Aitken, A., Barkel, A., Kavanaugh, C., & Talukdar, J. (2018). Reading for writing: A meta-analysis of the impact of reading interventions on writing. Review of Educational Research, 88(2), 243-284.

Hollett, T., & Kalir, J. H. (2017). Mapping playgrids for learning across space, time, and scale. TechTrends, 61(3), 236-245.

Hoskins, S. G., Stevens, L. M., & Nehm, R. H. (2007). Selective use of the primary literature transforms the classroom into a virtual laboratory. Genetics, 176(3), 1381-1389.

Hudson, T. (2009). Teaching second language reading. Oxford University Press.

Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity (Vol. 10). John Benjamins.

Johannsen, J., & Sun, Y. (2017). An intelligent and semantics-aware distraction-free writing system. 2017 IEEE 11th International Conference on Semantic Computing (ICSC), 465-468.

Kalir, J. H. (2020). Social annotation enabling collaboration for open learning. Distance Education, 41(2), 245-260.

Kalir, J. H., & Garcia, A. (2021). Annotation. MIT Press.

Kararo, M., & McCartney, M. (2019). Annotated primary scientific literature: A pedagogical tool for undergraduate courses. PLoS Biology, 17(1), 1-9.

Kluyver, T., Ragan-Kelley, B., Fernando Pérez, Granger, B., Bussonnier, M., Frederic, J., Kelley, K., Hamrick, J., Grout, J., Corlay, S., Ivanov, P., Avila, D., Abdalla, S., & Willing, C. (2016). Jupyter Notebooks – a publishing format for reproducible computational workflows. In F. Loizides & B. Schmidt (Eds.), Positioning and power in academic publishing: Players, agents and agendas (pp. 87–90). IOS Press.

Krishnan, A. (2009). What Are academic disciplines? Some observations on the disciplinarity vs. interdisciplinarity debate (Issue July).

Krummheuer, G. (1995). The ethnography of argumentation. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), Studies in mathematical thinking and learning series. The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures (pp. 229-269). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Kwan, B. S. C. (2008). The nexus of reading, writing and researching in the doctoral undertaking of humanities and social sciences: Implications for literature reviewing. English for Specific Purposes, 27(1), 42-56.

Kwan, B. S. C. (2009). Reading in preparation for writing a PhD thesis: Case studies of experiences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(3), 180-191.

Larreamendy-Joerns, J., & Leinhardt, G. (2006). Going the distance with online education. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 567-605.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (2012). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Situated Learning, 27-44.

Letchford, J., Corradi, H., & Day, T. (2017). A flexible e-learning resource promoting the critical reading of scientific papers for science undergraduates. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 45(6), 483–490.

Levine, E. (2001). Reading your way to scientific literacy: Interpreting scientific articles through small group discussions. Source Journal of College Science Teaching, 31(2).

Lie, R., Abdullah, C., He, W., & Tour, E. (2016). Perceived challenges in primary literature in a master’s class: Effects of experience and instruction. CBE Life Sciences Education, 15(4), 1-12.

Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning Journal, 22(1), 205-222.

Matarese, V. (2013). Using strategic, critical reading of research papers to teach scientific writing: The reading–research–writing continuum. In Valerie Matarese (Ed.), Supporting Research Writing (pp. 73-89). Chandos Publishing.

McAlpine, L. (2012). Shining a light on doctoral reading: Implications for doctoral identities and pedagogies. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 49(4), 351-361.

Moore, M. G., & Diehl, W. C. (Eds.). (2018). Handbook of distance education (4th ed.). Routledge.

Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224-240.

Novak, E., Razzouk, R., & Johnson, T. E. (2012). The educational use of social annotation tools in higher education: A literature review. Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 39-49.

Osborne, J., Enduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.

Reid, A. J. (2014). A case study in social annotation of digital text. Journal of Applied Learning Technology, 4(2).

Ritchey, K. A., & List, A. (2021). Task-oriented reading: A framework for improving college students’ reading compliance and comprehension. College Teaching, 1-16.

Shimic, G. (2008). Technology enhanced learning tools. In Technology lnhanced Learning: Best practices.

Sverdlik, A., Hall, N. C., McAlpine, L., & Hubbard, K. (2018). The PhD experience: A review of the factors influencing doctoral students’ completion, achievement, and well-being. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 13.

Tirado, R., Hernando, Á., & Aguaded, J. I. (2015). The effect of centralization and cohesion on the social construction of knowledge in discussion forums. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(3), 293–316.

Toulmin, S., Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1984). Argumentation in science. In An introduction to reasoning. Macmillan Publishing.

van Pletzen, E. (2006). A body of reading: Making “visible” the reading experiences of first-year medical students. In L. Thesen, E. van Pletzen, & N. S. Ndebele (Eds.), Academic literacy and the languages of change (pp. 104-129). Continuum International Publishing Group.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Zywica, J., & Gomez, K. (2008). Annotating to support learning in the content areas: Teaching and learning science. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(2), 155-165.




How to Cite

Bjorn, G. A., Quaynor, L., & Burgasser, A. J. (2022). Reading Research for Writing: Co-Constructing Core Skills Using Primary Literature. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 7(1), 47–58.