Published in Badenhorst, C. & Guerin, C. (2016). Research literacies and writing pedagogies for masters and doctoral writers. Leiden: Brill.

Chapter 18 - Thinking Through Play: “Visual” Approaches to Post/graduate Research Writing

Cecile Badenhorst, Cecilia Moloney, Janna Rosales and Jennifer Dyer

IntroductionStarke-Meyerring (2011) argues that post/graduate students face a paradox when it comes to research writing in academic contexts. Seasoned and experienced members of the discourse see research writing as universal, generic and transparent. Over many generations, the practices, routines and patterns of interacting in a research culture become so “common-sense” that they are normalised and eventually become invisible to insiders in the discourse: “disciplinary and institutional traditions of producing knowledge through writing have become normalised to the point that they appear universal to long-time participants in research cultures, including supervisors” (Starke-Meyerring, 2011, p. 77). In other words, insiders to the discourse (supervisors, professors, academic teachers) often do not “see” the patterns of writing that are specific to academia because they are so used to them. The paradox, according to Starke-Meyerring, is that research writing is not universal at all. Instead, research writing is always situated. Writing a thesis in Geography, for example, is very different from writing a thesis in Philosophy even though both may be housed in an Arts Faculty. Both of these theses are very different from writing a Science thesis. Writing a Master’s thesis, again, is substantially different from writing a PhD or a journal article for publication. Long-time members of a research culture see writing as “normal”, obvious and clear—“common sense”—while newcomers (post/graduate students) experience the specificity: “the culturally shaped nature of writing, its deep rootedness in cultural, institutional, and disciplinary traditions of knowledge production” (Starke-Meyerring, 2011, p. 78). Research communities develop their own culture with specific ways of arguing, making knowledge claims and valuing what counts as evidence. Starke-Meyerring (2011) calls this the “invisibility” of writing in academic contexts and she poses two consequences of this paradox. First, when writing practices merge into the unseen and we only focus on content (the writing is generic), we do not acknowledge the epistemic nature of writing. How one argues, for example, is tied to epistemology and how one comes to know knowledge. How one questions (is allowed to question) is intricately linked to how knowledge is produced in a specific research culture. Second, when we are blind to writing as part of epistemic practice, we fail to recognise the role of writing in shaping scholarly identity. It is through writing, that the researcher engages with disciplinary debates, positions him/herself, and develops as a researcher. As such research writing can be transformative, developmental and identity forming. The example Starke-Meyerring gives is that in undergraduate writing, citations usually involve accessing information. In post/graduate writing, citations involve aligning oneself with particular debates, defending a position, establishing an epistemological foundation.

1

Research on post/graduate student writing confirms the invisible nature of research/thesis writing The transition from undergraduate to post/graduate studies is often fraught with anxiety as students struggle to understand exactly what is required of them (Heussi, 2012). Many of the conventions and norms of academic writing are subtle and complex, yet post/graduate students rarely receive explicit instruction. Many post/graduate students feel intimidated and powerless about conducting and writing their research (Morgenshtern et al., 2011). In a context where language, genre, and stylistic conventions are governed by disciplinary norms that are constituted by competing and conflicting discourses, implicit learning becomes problematic. International students find it particularly difficult to access peer and academic cultures (Deem & Brehony, 2000). While not only coping with new systems and different research cultures international students are also negotiating all of this in a new or different language from their undergraduate programmes. “Widening participation” may be opening university doors to multilingual students, yet this access is potentially only partial and academic writing often serves as a mechanism of exclusion (Burke, 2008; Mitchell, 2010). These widespread structural and discursive practices are often seen as individual deficits and problems where the student is “blamed” for not being able to “see” hidden writing practices.

Research problemThe challenge for our team was how to make the enormous range of research writing literacies visible, how to surface the epistemological nature of research writing, and how to tap into the identity-forming nature of research writing that is developmental, transformative and encourages the post/graduate researcher to develop an identity as a scholar? Our project only allowed for a co-curricular seven-day workshop for post/graduate students to produce this miracle. The solution, and the subject of this research chapter, was to add a layer of “play” and creativity to the workshop pedagogy particularly through the use of visuals. We approached research writing not as the product of research but as a way of thinking and a process that incubates creative insights. We used techniques and exercises commonly employed in creative activities to break down the barriers many academics struggle with: one’s own epistemology, research conceptualisation, research design, clarity of thought, research identity and the research process. Creativity, play, and innovation wove in and out of the activities which involved peer feedback and community building to foster participants’ confidence and self-efficacy. Ultimately, the main goal was to enable students to engage deeply with themselves as new researchers and their research in innovative ways so that the process was insightful, creative and enjoyable. We have presented and published papers on the effectiveness of the overall workshop pedagogy (Badenhorst et al., forthcoming; Rosales et al., 2012) on creativity and community as critical pedagogy (Badenhorst et al., 2012) and on the epistemological nature of post/graduate research writing (Badenhorst et al., 2014). In this paper, we would like to try and capture the visual approach we used. The pedagogy required workshop participants to think through the content and process of their research visually and metaphorically via concept-maps, sketching, and diagrams. Playing with visuals enabled students to work through epistemological, methodological and substantive complexities. They also recorded their personal emotional challenges visually. Finally, we used a visual approach to help students make decisions about aspects

2

of writing. We make the argument that playing visually with research ideas provides scaffolding for post/graduate student learning the literacies of thesis writing.

Visual thinking and research writingImages are central to communication, meaning making and interaction in the 21st century. University education (and other classrooms) tend to lag behind are perhaps the only venues where today’s students are less engaged in visual learning (Elkins, 2007; Luke, 2003). University curricula are overwhelmingly text-based and by the time a student reaches post/graduate work and is required to complete a thesis or dissertation, the text is firmly privileged (Thomas, Place & Hillyard, 2008). This is not to say that writers of research have not engaged with the visual. In research methodology, the social sciences have experienced a “visual turn” resulting in the introduction and increased use of visual research methods (Banks, 2007; Emmel & Clark, 2011; Gourlay, 2009; Stanczak, 2007). Over the past several decades, the social sciences have also engaged with the critique that text-based knowledge is only one of many ways of knowing. Arts-based, visual and performance research are burgeoning fields (Eisner, 1997).

The sciences, by contrast have always been visual (Gooding, 2004), both in terms of initial theorisation as well as a mechanism for representing data. Gooding argues that in science (for example, mathematics, engineering, geoscience) where many of the processes under examination cannot be experienced by the researcher, such as macro climate, research questions can often only be understood in broad visual terms (Gooding, 2004). His argument is that the visuals not only aid conceptually but that leaps in innovation would be difficult without a visual approach (Gooding, 2004). Visual representations facilitate cognitive processes such as pattern-matching and visual inference. In other words, in trying to manipulate visual forms, discoveries are made.

We argue here that playing with visuals as an approach to post/graduate research writing is useful for four significant reasons: 1) Thinking visually involves complex information processes that are not available within the confines of the linearity of text; 2) The visual provides an important and helpful interface between thinking and writing; 3) Visual tools are a universal language and do not rely on knowledge of a dominant language; and 4) The element of play created conditions for students to “see” their research and themselves in new ways.

Visual thinking as complex information processing The mind is a non-linear, dynamic system. Seeing is “not simply a process of passive reception of stimuli” (Felten, 2008, p. 61) but a process of synthesis and meaning making. As neuroscience has indicated, humans have the unique ability to recognise patterns and select relevant data: “What we see, then, is not a direct recording of what’s out there, but a mental configuration that we interpret as an image – the end result of a highly exploratory and complex information-seeking system” (Barry, 1997, p. 37; Stafford, 2007). Visual intelligence “reflects a quality of creative problem-solving that originates in a perceptual process that is characteristic of abstract thinking; that this pattern of thought has its own holistic logic; that this logic can be brought to bear creatively and analytically to solve various kinds of problems; and that this logic operates on every level of awareness from subliminal perceptual process to holistic creative

3

thinking, which allows us to consciously combine different elements in new and surprising ways” (Barry, 1997, p. 8).

We know that representing in visual form what students need to know, helps students to learn (Zull, 2002; Thomas et al., 2008). Similarly, a visual approach to thinking about one’s research can be transformative (Sanders-Bustle, 2003). Conceptualising research involves focusing on one element among many, moving some issues into the background and identifying others that take centre stage. It involves deciding what is relevant, what is not, how the whole system is interconnected and works together, what the relationships are, what is interlocked and what is isolated, which parts work in harmony and which are in conflict, what is regular and what is anomaly. It further involves isolating one research problem from many intersecting problems. Post/graduate students also need to synthesise large amounts of information, group data into clusters or patterns and develop abstract thoughts from concrete materials. Using visuals to conceptualise research creates spaces of productive ambiguity, shifts boundaries and generates insights. It often results in a change in thinking, it questions existing beliefs and allows the researcher to break free from restricting conceptualisations and assumptions: “it is our belief that pedagogical possibilities of image and inquiry open up spaces for creative, critical, and transformative practice to take place” (Sanders-Bustle, 2003, p. 13). Visually conceptualising research encourages exploration, and is satisfyingly creative but perceptively critical at the same time. By contrast, linear thinking often does not reflect the dynamic, interdependent, highly complex network of connections that characterise how our brains work: the linear wall of text does not explicitly show the rich networks and patterns of thinking that the author is presenting implicitly within linear representations” (Hyerle, 2009, p. 10).

Visual thinking at the interface between thinking and writing Using visuals to aid writing is not a new concept but one that has been used successfully in early literacy classrooms for decades. Pictures provide a “natural language” for struggling writers and for those new learners writing in an additional language (Olshansky, 2008). Using visuals is one way to overcome the language of “deficit” with struggling writers (Hyerle, 2009). “Transmediation is defined as the act of recasting or translating from one sign system to another. In this context, sign systems refer to the many ways we create and share meaning: (written) language, art, music, drama, movement, mathematics” (Olshansky, 2008, p. 33). The process of translating meaning from one sign system to another increases the opportunities for generating ideas and reflective thought. Visuals provide a concrete and dynamic “core language” for thinking and developing ideas before any writing takes place (Olshansky, 2008, p. 33). Using both visuals and words expands our ability to think in new and different ways. In university classrooms, research has shown that not only have students found the transition into writing easier by using visuals but they also develop into more analytical/critical writers (Hurley, 2013).

Visual thinking is a universal language Generating visuals is a language available to everyone. Visuals are “accessible no matter what language one speaks”. The language of words, however, “can be specific to each culture, each country, and sometimes each region, with local dialects creating yet another

4

layer of distinction” (Olshansky, 2008, p. 21). Visual tools are democratic because they do not privilege dominant language but instead provide a direct route for learners to communicate their thinking about content and conceptual thinking (Hyerle, 2009). Research indicates that multilingual students writing in English struggle with organisation, composition and fluency, and often feel isolated from their peers because of language difficulties (Phillips, 2014). Visual thinking allows these students a level of control and authority over their own knowledge. In addition, writer identities are rooted in perceptions of knowledge and positionality. Visual thinking allows us additional access to, and a way of communicating, identity/ies (Barry, 1997). In this way, by acknowledging the socio-political implications of language, multicultural voices and perspectives are also encouraged and nurtured (Fernsten, 2008).

The element of “play”Csikszentmihalyi (2008) describes experiences of optimal engagement as being “in the flow”. “Flow” is like being carried along a current where our attention is engaged, we are highly motivated and we employ personal skills. A state of flow is not only productive, it is highly enjoyable, motivating and self-actualising. Csikszentmihayli (2008) argues that a key component of “flow” is play. Play involves embracing chaos, opening thoughts to chance ideas, irreverence, being provocative, and taking risks with thoughts and words. When we play without fear of consequences our mood lifts and creates the conditions for us to explore, take in new information and to expand our sense of self (Fredrickson, 2006). Positive emotions also build personal resources, increase self-regulation and create fulfilling meaning in the task (Csikszentmihalyi et al. 1993). Play also increases autonomy and opens up choice (Csikszentmihalyi, 2008) and consequently, enables us to “see” in new ways.

Visual toolsThe visual tools used in this project ranged along a continuum from organised diagrams to spontaneous sketching. Banks (2007) suggests that on the continuum, tables, lists and diagrams are closer to linear texts while unformed drawings (made up of signs and symbols) are at the more open-ended part of the continuum. The key techniques used in the workshops were diagrams, concept-mapping and sketching. Buckley & Waring (2013) argue that diagrams are under utilised tools in the analytical process, particularly in qualitative research. Diagrams can be used not only as visual representations of results but also as generative and analytical techniques. De Freitas (2012) suggests that diagrams can be a creative force because they invite speculation and a disruption of assumptions. Concept-maps are non-linear diagrams that often involve stream of consciousness thinking and are widely used in many disciplines. A core idea is usually drawn in the centre of the page and then all subsequent ideas are linked to it. Concept maps can be used to generate ideas, to develop relationships, or to structure hierarchies (Buzan & Buzan, 2006). These diagrams are also known as mind-maps or spider-diagrams and have been known to increase learning and engagement (Davies, 2010). Sketching or unformed drawings are spontaneous, quickly expressed thoughts, which are highly intuitive (Manolopoulou, 2005). These sketches are never complete, sometimes abstract and often accompanied by scribbled notes. The results are not always consistent, sometimes ambiguous and often full of surprises.

5

MethodologyThe methodology for this project involved 1) hosting workshops; and 2) collecting data from the workshops. The workshops were adapted from a pedagogy developed in South Africa, a context of cultural diversity and multi-lingualism (Badenhorst, 2007; 2008; see Janks, 2012). We adjusted the workshop to suit the local context (Memorial University of Newfoundland) (Rosales et al., 2012) and applied for funding to pilot the programme. Two cohorts of students, 35 in total, were recruited from the Graduate Programme in Humanities and the Faculty of Arts (17 participants, Fall 2011) and the Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science (17 participants, Winter 2012). The majority of participants were international students from diverse cultures including China, the Middle East, Mexico and France. The research areas of participants varied considerably and included sports, poetry, the esoteric, music anthropology, and philosophy from the humanities group and electrical, computer, civil, ocean and naval architecture, and mechanical in the engineering group.

The intensive co-curricular seven-day workshop was delivered in two stages to mimic parts of the writing process. Part 1 was loosely called “Composition” to represent the pre-writing, thinking, conceptualising and researching stage; and Part 2 was called “Revision”. In practice, pre-writing activities, writing and revision took place throughout both components of the workshop. Part 1 consisted of four consecutive mornings and three consecutive mornings made up Part 2. In the afternoons participants were expected to adapt what they had learned in the morning sessions to their own research which they then had to bring to present to their groups the following morning. Part 1 and 2 were held about a month apart for students to write the first draft of their chosen project. Students worked on grant applications, chapters of theses, assignment papers, conference papers and journal articles during the course. While we emphasised the iterative and recursive nature of writing, we found the two-part structure useful for focusing on the processes of composition and revision.

The pedagogy was largely experiential (Kolb, 1984). Participants were given information (research articles, examples, theories) which they then had to apply by completing an activity. They reflected on the activity individually and then through dialogue in groups where we extracted key learning points which the participants then applied to their individual research projects. The curriculum was continuously spiralling and activities contained levels of scaffolding to build participant confidence. Layered over the experiential and applied nature of the learning was an emphasis on Freirian critical pedagogy which highlighted a critical engagement of self to broader social processes through group dialogue and practical interventions (Badenhorst et al., 2014). A further layer was the development of community and a “safe” non-judgemental environment where students felt free to experiment and take risks with their thinking and writing. Creativity, play and innovation were key components of the workshops to develop participants’ confidence in challenging discourses (Badenhorst et al., 2012). Peer feedback and community building were also important to counter notions of isolation and individualism. The “content” covered in the workshop was no different from many other thesis writing courses and included conceptualising research, finding focus, writing problem/purpose statements, academic genres, argument and evidence, literature reviews, the writing process and revision strategies. The problem/purpose statements proved to

6

crucial threshold concepts. Threshold concepts are core concepts that once understood transform perception of a given subject and allow learners to see things in a new way (Meyer & Land, 2003). Leading from the problem/purpose statements, participants were asked to think about epistemology and ontology in relation to their own research and their discipline, and how these concepts were related to their research methodology and design. What was different in these workshops was in the focus on the visual and play as methods of thinking, making-meaning and communicating. We did not present any material or ideas as “truths” or “best practices” but rather, through dialogue, allowed students to deconstruct and develop an understanding about the epistemological nature of academic writing and allowed them to decide how they would or could write from a range of choices.

In conjunction with the workshops, we collected extensive research data: observations during the workshops, workshop data (samples of student work, reflections on activities), pre- and post workshop surveys, and programme evaluations. In addition, we conducted longitudinal in-depth interviews from six participants to explore the long-term effects of the workshop intervention over time. Overall the data indicates that participants experienced growth in writing output, confidence and self-efficacy over the course of the workshop and later, after the workshops ended (Badenhorst et al., 2012; Rosales et al., 2012).

Setting the scene for playing visuallyIn his poem “Introduction to poetry”, Billy Collins (1996) asks that we “drop a mouse into a poem/and watch him probe his way out/ or walk inside the poem’s room/and feel the walls for a light switch” instead of roping the poem to a chair and torturing a confession from it (http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/rw.v3i1.25 ). We asked participants to do the same. Instead of being at war with their research and using metaphors of boot camps, battle, and struggle, we asked them to “drop a mouse” in their research and to see how it found its way out. Many participants were at first quite perplexed by this request; particularly the Engineering students who were focused on problem solving, but the temptation to play soon won them over. Our purpose was to present writing and research genres, rules and conventions but then to introduce the notions of possibility, creativity and choice. We sought to encourage flexible minds (Zerubavel, 1995) that would allow students to embrace the chaos of research. Tables and chairs were arranged in groups to reflect a more “studio” style of learning. On each table we placed batches of blank coloured paper and a collection of coloured felt-tip markers. As we explained to participants, the purpose for using coloured paper and pens was to shift them out of habitual ways of working and to highlight the visual aspect of their research. In this way, we wanted them to “see” their research with fresh eyes, to be able to challenge their familiar taken-for-granted assumptions. We asked them to write/draw using activities that were metaphorical and often illogical. Initially some students were sceptical of the activities but over the duration of the workshop they increasingly found value in them (Badenhorst et al., 2012).

Student reflections on visual elementsAll visual activities were scaffolded to build confidence in participants’ abilities. For instance, students were asked to sketch issues such as “democracy” or “a good and a bad

7

marriage” before they sketched their research problem. When concept maps were introduced, participants drew maps of familiar topics such as “home” or “family” before moving on to more complex topics such as “evidence for my research argument”. Most students were familiar with diagrams; consequently, although we did ask them to “draw a diagram of your research”, we extended this by also asking them to “draw a diagram of balance or tension relating to your research”. Many of the activities were metaphorical such as “draw your research as if it were on a stage” or “draw your relationship with your research”. Most visual activities were preceded or followed by one or more free-writing activities and all work was shared in the groups in the morning sessions. In the afternoons, participants took their pages of visual thinking and free writing, and developed more sustained pieces of writing, which they then presented to the groups for feedback next morning. The drawings in Figures 1–4 below are a sample of visual and metaphorical activities. Some students included more words and linear diagrams but we actively encouraged them to move away from these automatic responses. It is not necessary for anyone but the author/drawer to decipher the meaning attached in the sketches. They used symbols, scratches and colour to portray the literature, the research problem and other research components. They did explain their drawings to their groups but the initial freedom from having to interpret their thinking allowed participants to focus on key issues relevant to their needs.

[Insert Figure 1 here] Figure 1 Example of activity "Draw your research along a path"

[Insert Figure 2 here]Figure 2 Example of activity: “Draw your relationship to your research”

[Insert Figure 3 here]Figure 3 Example of activity: “Draw your research as if it were on a stage”

[Insert Figure 4 here]Figure 4 Example of activity “Draw your research”

The following quotes were taken from written reflections on the visual elements, the surveys and the interviews. The quotes have been maintained as they were written and we have indicated changes made by using square brackets.

Challenging assumptionsSome workshop participants took to the visual approach quite readily. Many of the Engineering students were quite comfortable with diagrams and sketching since these are common in the discipline but they were less comfortable with the metaphors and play activities. The Arts & Humanities students were mixed in their responses but most had not used diagrams or sketching before. One student commented:

Yesterday I was still a bit sceptical but when I left early for a class I found myself thinking this workshop was more productive than the lecture I was in. I

8

don’t often draw, but I found drawing my relationship to my work both fun and interesting. (A&H 3/11)

Increasingly students began to value these activities because of they began to see how the visuals challenge assumptions they had taken for granted:

The mind map without words opened my eyes to the perspective of thinking about this research creatively and with more thought in the ways in which words and images collide in one’s mind as one thinks about research. (A&H 3/11) These [activities] make me think more about my research and my writing from a different perspective. (Eng 7/12)

The idea of writing with coloured papers, coloured pens—that kind of got me [thinking] outside the box. (Interview A&H 7/12)

Not all students found visual thinking easy:

It [was] interesting and enable[d] me to think through different point[s] of view into my research. Sometimes even launched new ideas. At first, I fe[lt] that it was hard. (Eng 7/12)

Generally, all found the visual approach to be useful cognitively but also in articulating their research. As one multilingual student said:

I was surprised at the very useful (very colourful) conceptual map which was the base of a successful and productive meeting with my supervisor. (A&H 5/11)

Confidence buildingRather than focusing on what other researchers had to say, the visual thinking techniques encouraged students to look at what they thought about their research. Although they drew on their literature reviews, key concepts and “guru” thinkers, ultimately the visual element meant that they had to focus on themselves first. Alongside “content” activities, was a range of visual activities about their emotional journeys as researchers, their current research path and about their relationship to their research. All of these activities served to build confidence in their identities as researchers, in what they knew and in what they were trying to do.

The most important thing I have learned about my research [in this workshop] is to follow my feelings on how to solve a problem and not others’ [feelings]. Following others may be useful and guide you to the solution but you will never understand why they chose this method/technique until you try this yourself. (Eng 5/12)

I think I am getting more focused on what is important in my research and what I want to do. Instead of feeling overwhelmed about all the pieces and how

9

they are going to fit together is becoming more refined in my mind. (A&H 3/11)

I was able to make an interesting leap in conception for a paper this week from mapping these things in a coherent way, thinking of my arguments and literature as evidence. (A&H 3/11)

DialogueIt is important to note that the visual activities took place within the group community. All activities were shared in smaller groups. The dialogue and discussion provided feedback on substantive issues and process issues. In both cohorts, students came from vastly different disciplines and they were surprised at the value to be gained from explaining their research to someone who was not in their field:

I thought I knew the details about what I was going to do in my research before, but now I changed my mind. There are so many more ideas I have never thought of. I started to think further of how my research can be applied. I also started to notice that there are so many concepts which I thought I was so familiar with, but that is not true. When I speak them out [to a partner], I realised that I am not sure about the principle. (Eng 3/12)

Explaining my research for my partner helped me to find a way to explain my research more generally. (Eng 3/12)

The groups also served as discourse communities who checked research validity in terms of discourse audience requirements. The comment from the student below is said within the context of sketching what was on her mind and then assessing her understanding in relation to the group. She could practice and adjust her language according to how well her audience understood her:

What I have learned in these two days is how to arrange my ideas and let my ideas come from my mind easily. [Before] sometimes I would like to explain something but I could not, or be sure if this was the best way to explain it. This made my writing very bad. (Eng 3/12)

Relation to writingSince the purpose of the visual activities was to aid students in their writing, it was not surprising that students found the visual thinking helped them to sort through content, group, organise, identify gaps, and plan how and what to write.

Yesterday’ s activities w[ere] fun and strange! At first glance it was easy but it was not, because you have to look at things in a different way and also I found it useful for my writing last night. (Eng 2/12)

I loved the [concept] maps because I had never seen such creative non-linear maps. I had done them before with words so it was an amazing surprise to see

10

the possibilities […] and the clarity and organization it brings to an organic/chaotic writer. (A&H 3/11)

I have a better understanding of my research topic and what needs to be done. The thesis does not have to address all topics in my research area just one. But especially I feel I have a better sense of my reader and how they may respond to the things I write and what to expect from my writing. (Eng 4/12)

I think my papers are probably more entertaining to read now, my marks went up considerably last semester. (Interview A&H 7/12)

Situated writingWhile the course was a “generic” course in that it was not discipline specific (for example, philosophy in Arts & Humanities; or signal processing in Engineering), the emphasis on academic literacies allowed us to highlight, for students, the situated-ness of academic writing. The visual elements meant that students could work holistically with their research problem, methodologies, findings and the substantive issues of their topics, as well as the broader disciplinary discourses.

What surprised me is that great findings come from simple ideas. For example, I have developed many algorithms with various complexity but I still find the simplest one is almost as efficient as the most complex one. (Eng 5/12)

What I’ve learned is to isolate complex problems and [make them] simple and individual, so [they] can be easily solved. Then assemble them together. Make research easy and do it with fun—no stress. Plant today to seed tomorrow. (Eng 5/12)

LanguageWe did not ask students to comment specifically on how the visual thinking impacted on writing in English but throughout the workshop, we emphasised that they could use the visual thinking to work in any language they wished, and instead of focusing on language they should look at the “big picture” components of their research such as the argument, evidence, concepts, key influences, methodology and so on. In sorting through the bigger issues, they were able to get a clearer idea of what to write, when and how.

It is more easy for me to play around with the research I’m undertaking, with colours and images, than to use academic language. (A&H 3/11)

I think the main [turning] point for me is not concentrating on the language in the first draft [but focusing on the components necessary]. (Eng S/12)

The survey results indicated that students used these visual techniques during the break between the two parts of the workshop and the interview data showed that those students interviewed continued to find the visual thinking useful months after the workshop ended.

11

I have a big huge white board […] in my office for my work so I can sketch out what I need to do, it’s really helpful. […] I never sketched things out before. […]And I do like using colours and I find using colour pen and colour papers really helpful too. I don’t know why it just helps me [...] if there’s a blockage I can just draw a picture of it or do a free write. (Interview A&H, 7/12)

ConclusionsWriting and images are governed by different logics (Kress, 2003). Writing is based on a chronology that is linear and sequential and when we write we have to write one thing and then another to create meaning. Visual representations rely on placement or spatiality for meaning. In other words, how items are placed in space and relate to one another create meaning. This fundamental difference in thinking helped the participants in this research 1) cognitively; 2) emotionally; and 3) linguistically.

Cognitively, we found that using play and visuals allowed students to construct or deduce relationships, to select or exclude material and to make the many choices and decisions that need to be made in order to write coherently and appropriately for a discourse community. Visual thinking also enabled students to apply generic writing concepts to the situated knowledge in their research. Visuals helped students to scaffold ideas, to organise thoughts, to shape meaning in terms of their discipline and to ultimately make suitable rhetorical decisions. Furthermore, visuals helped to describe abstract, complex and integrated thinking. Emotionally, we found that the visual activities that encouraged play helped turn feelings, concerns, attitudes, and worries into something tangible (Buckley & Waring, 2013). Since thinking and feeling are difficult to separate and compartmentalise, we established that confidence in one’s research epistemology or methodology went hand-in-hand with authority in writing and developing researcher identities. For all students but multilingual students particularly, the visual and play techniques helped linguistically by allowing them to concentrate on the genre, discourse and substantive issues without having to worry about language especially in the early stages. Being more confident about one’s position, argument, thesis, translates in overall confidence as a researcher/writer. The errors in language become relatively minor language details and because the larger researcher/identity has been satisfied. This is not to say that language issues disappeared but that they become manageable because the researcher was more confident about his or her research claims. The added layers of visual activities, play and metaphor opened students’ eyes to the nexus of researcher identity and the “culturally shaped nature of writing” (Starke-Meyerring, 2011, p. 78). No longer totally invisible, students were able to see the writing choices available to them.

Authentic academic writing is risky (Vickers, 2002, p. 619) and it is “…rare to find a productive scholar whose work is unconnected to his or her personal history”. Using play and visual activities assisted participants to connect their life experiences to their intellectual work and enabled them to see their own unique contribution. In a context, where students are often focused on external sources for validation, opportunities to link the self, research content and research literacies are limited. Yet, the opportunities of combining research and creativity “are potentially transformative as they provide us with the ability to look at the world in new ways, to look through different prisms and lenses” (Arnold, 2012, p. 11).

12

Acknowledgements Memorial University of Newfoundland supported this research with an Instructional Development Grant (2011-12). Ethical approval was granted by the Interdisciplinary Committee on Ethics in Human Research at Memorial University of Newfoundland.

ReferencesArnold, J. (2012). Practice led research: Creative activity, academic debate and

intellectual rigour. Higher Education Studies, 2(2), 9-24.Badenhorst, C. M. (2007). Research writing: Breaking the barriers. Pretoria: Van Schaik. Badenhorst, C. M. (2008). Dissertation writing: A research journey. Pretoria: Van

Schaik. Badenhorst, C. M., Moloney, C., Rosales, J., & Dyer, J. (2012). Graduate research

writing: A pedagogy of possibility. LEARNing Landscapes, 6(1), 63-80.Badenhorst, C. M., Moloney, C., Rosales, J., Dyer, J., & Murray, M. (forthcoming).

Thinking creatively about research. In T. Lillis, K. Harrington, M. Lea & S. Mitchell (Eds.), Working with academic literacies: Research, theory, design (pp. 227-254). Parlor Press: South Carolina.

Badenhorst, C.M., Moloney, C., Rosales, J., Dyer, J., & Ru, C. (2014). Beyond deficit: Graduate student research writing pedagogies. Teaching in Higher Education. 20(1), 1-11.

Banks, M. (2007). Using visual data in qualitative research. London: Sage.Barry, A.M.S. (1997). Visual intelligence: Perception, image, and manipulation in visual

communication. Albany: State University of New York Press.Buckley, C. A., & Waring, M. J. (2013). Using diagrams to support the research process:

Examples from grounded theory. Qualitative Research, 13(2), 148-172. Burke, P. J. (2008). Writing, power and voice: Access to and participation in higher

education. Changing English, 15(2), 199-210.Buzan, T. & Buzan, W. B. (2006). The mind map book. London: BBC.Collins, B. (1996). Introduction to poetry. The apple that astonished Paris. Fayetteville,

Ark: University of Arkansas Press. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/poetry/180/001.html

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2008). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper Perennial.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K. & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Davies, M. (2010). Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: What are the differences and do they matter? Higher Education, 62(3), 279-301.

De Freitas, E. (2012). The classroom as Rhizome: New strategies for diagramming knotted interactions. Qualitative Inquiry, 18(7), 557-570.

Deem, R., & Brehony, K. J. (2000). Doctoral students’ access to research cultures: Are some more equal than others? Studies in Higher Education, 25(2), 149-165.

Eisner, E. (1997). The Promise and Perils of Alternative Forms of Data Representation. Educational Researcher, 26(4), 4-10.

Elkins, J. (2007). Visual literacy. New York: Routledge.

13

Emmel, N., & Clark, A. (2011). Learning to use visual methodologies in our research: A dialogue between two researchers. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 12 (1/36). Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/

Felten, P. (2008). Visual literacy. Change, November/December, 60-63.Fernsten, L.A. (2008). Writer identity and ESL learners. Journal of Adolescent & Adult

Literacy, 52(1), 44-52.Fredrickson, B.L. (2006). The broad- and built-theory of positive emotions. In M.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (Ed.), Life worth living: Contributions to positive psychology. Cary, North Carolina: Oxford University Press (pp.85-103).

Gooding, D. C. (2004). Envisioning explanations – the art in science. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 29(3), 278-294.

Gourlay, L. (2009). Threshold practices: becoming a student through academic literacies. London Review of Education, 7(2), 181-192.

Heussi, A. (2012). Postgraduate student perceptions of the transition into postgraduate study. Student Engagement and Experience Journal, 1(3), 1-13.

Hurley, F. P. (2013). Visualizing images in writing: Pedagogical and professional implications of image analysis. (Doctoral dissertation, East Carolina University). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10342/4244

Hyerle, D. (2009). Visual tools for transforming information into knowledge. (2nd Ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Janks, H. (2012). The discipline and craft of academic writing: Building writing capacity in institutions of Higher Education. Reading & Writing, 3(1), Art#25, 1-9.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the New Media Age. New York: Routledge. Luke, C. (2003). Pedagogy, connectivity, multimodality, and interdisciplinarity. Reading

Research Quarterly, 38(3), 397-403.Manolopoulou, Y. (2005). Unformed drawing: Notes, sketches, and diagrams. The

Journal of Architecture, 10(5), 517-525. Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge:

Linkages to ways of thinking and practising. In C. Rust (Eds.), Improving student learning: Theory and practice ten years on (pp. 412-424). Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.

Mitchell, S. (2010). Now you don’t see it; now you do: Writing made visible in the university. Arts & Humanities in Higher Education, 9(2), 133-148.

Morgenshtern, M., Freymond, N., Agyapong, S., & Greeson, C. (2011). Graduate social work students’ attitudes toward research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 31, 552-568.

Olshansky, B. (2008). The power of pictures: Creating pathways to literacy through art. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Phillips, T. (2014). Developing resources for success: A case study of a multilingual graduate writer. In T.M. Zawacki & M. Cox (Eds.), WAC and second language writers (pp. 69-92). Anderson, South Carolina: Parlor Press.

Rosales, J., Moloney, C., Badenhorst, C.M, Dyer, J., & Murray, M. (2012). Breaking the barriers of research writing: Rethinking pedagogy for engineering graduate

14

research. Proceedings Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA12) Conference.

Sanders-Bustle, L. (2003). Exploring the value of the visual: Assessing and evaluating visual representation in classrooms. In L. Sanders-Bustle (Eds.), Image, inquiry, and transformative practice: Engaging learners in creative and critical inquiry through visual representation (pp. 154-180). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Stafford, B. M. (2007). Echo objects: The cognitive work of images. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Stanczak, G. C. (2007). (Ed.). Visual research methods: Image, society, and representation. Los Angeles: Sage.

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

Thomas, E., Place, N., & Hillyard, C. (2008). Students and teachers learning to see—Part 1: Using visual images in the college classroom to promote students’ capacities and skills. College Teaching, 56(1), 23-27.

Vickers, M.H. (2002). Researchers as storytellers: Writing on the edge–and without a safety net. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(5), 608-621.

Zerubavel, E. (1995). The rigid, the fuzzy and the flexible: Notes on the mental sculpting of academic identity. Social Research, 62(4), 1093-1106.

Zull, J. E. (2002). The art of changing the brain: Enriching the practice of teaching by exploring the biology of learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

15