I've become intrigued with the concept of "deliberate practice" as defined by Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Romer (1993). There is also a popular book written on this topic, called "Talent is Overrated" by Geoff Colvin.
The gist of deliberate practice seems to be that just logging hours at an activity is not enough-- the work has to be directed toward specific improvement goals, and feedback is a critical component.
Which leads me to my issue/question: I am certain that my scientific writing could improve dramatically if I were getting regular feedback on my work. My advisor is willing to provide comments on my writing, but her time is limited. Tutors at our university writing center are students like me, at a similar level of mastery. Does anyone have other suggestions for getting regular feedback on writing? Submitting papers for publication is one idea, but the turnaround time is lengthy and immediate rejection without feedback is a real possibiliy (although I encourage fellow psychology students to take a look at nspb.net, a journal from my department that reviews and publishes student work).
Are there retired professors out there or other experts who would be willing to read a student's clumsy, mish-mash prose, and offer a few comments or suggestions? It would be terrific to get this kind of feedback, but I know it is difficult and thankless work. Ideas, anyone?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Education
- Higher Education
- Academic Writing