Pedagogical conceptions about teaching academic writing in postgraduate studies: a literature review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56294/mw2025410Keywords:
academic writing, graduate education, critical pedagogy, epistemic justice, academic literacyAbstract
Introduction
Postgraduate academic writing instruction remains a field of pedagogical tension, especially between normative approaches and critical, inclusive models. This integrative review aimed to analyze current pedagogical conceptions and teaching strategies for academic writing in postgraduate education, with emphasis on critical and sociocultural approaches.
Methods
An integrative literature review was conducted following a systematic protocol. Academic databases were searched using keywords in English and Spanish. A total of 812 records were identified. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 28 peer-reviewed articles published between 2021 and 2025 were selected for in-depth analysis.
Results
Findings revealed two dominant pedagogical conceptions: traditional models focused on textual correction and standardized formats, and critical approaches that view writing as a situated, dialogic, and epistemically just practice. In addition, technical and sociocultural teaching approaches were identified, often coexisting in postgraduate programs. Persistent tensions were found between formal normativity and creative, critical expression, especially in contexts with high epistemic diversity.
Conclusions
The review confirmed the need to shift from prescriptive teaching models to more reflective and inclusive practices that support students' epistemic agency. It emphasized the importance of institutional support, teacher training in critical pedagogies, and evaluation systems that recognize process-oriented and context-sensitive academic writing.
References
1. Acosta Mareco SN. Educación inclusiva en la educación superior en Paraguay. Rev UNIDA Científica. 2025;9(2):94–104. https://doi.org/10.69940/ruc.20251206
2. Ahmad J, Shaukat B. From the culture of silence to the culture of expression: a meta-analysis of the pedagogies adopted at higher education institutions. Glob Sociol Rev. 2023;VIII(1):307–15. https://doi.org/10.31703/gsr.2023(viii-i).30
3. Nystrand M, Greene S, Wiemelt J. Where did Composition Studies come from? An intellectual history. Writ Commun. 1993;10(3):267–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088393010003001
4. Prior PA. Writing/disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the academy. Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1998.
5. Bracho-Fuenmayor PL. Ética y moral en la Educación Superior. Una revisión bibliométrica. Rev Cienc Soc. 2024;30(3):553–68. https://doi.org/10.31876/rcs.v30i3.42695
6. Ferrari R. Writing narrative style literature reviews. Med Writ. 2015;24(4):230–5. https://doi.org/10.1179/2047480615Z.000000000329
7. Ferra M. Caminos y derivas para otra investigación educativa y social. Rev Complut Educ. 2021;32:499–500. https://doi.org/10.5209/RCED.74202
8. Guevara LRM. La auto-socio formación en el posgrado: experiencias del Colectivo de Escritura Académica. RECIE. Rev Electr Cienc Investig Educ. 2022;6:e1657. https://bit.ly/48c8spQ
9. Osorio M, Marín T, Gómez M. Escritura académica ¿un factor de exclusión en los procesos de formación posgradual? Delta Doc Estud Ling Teor Apl. 2023;39(4). https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-460x202339456233
10. Navarro F. Más allá de la alfabetización académica: las funciones de la escritura en educación superior. Rev Electr Leer Escr Descubrir. 2021;1(9):4. https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/led/vol1/iss9/4/
11. Guerrero Tejero IG. Significados sobre escritura académica en un curso de actualización docente a distancia. Rev CPU-e. 2023;(36):85–112. https://doi.org/10.25009/cpue.v0i36.2836
12. Pozzo M, Rosso F. Representaciones de estudiantes sobre la escritura y su evaluación en el posgrado. Cuad Investig Educ. 2023;14(2). https://doi.org/10.18861/cied.2023.14.2.3462
13. Deserti EO, Pulido RS. La acción tutorial en el posgrado. Reflexiones y principales desafíos en la formación investigativa. S Flor J Dev. 2021;2(4):5689–99. https://doi.org/10.46932/sfjdv2n4-054
14. Ariza-Pinzón V. Analysis of MA students’ writing in English language teaching: a systemic functional linguistic approach. Profile Issues Teach Prof Dev. 2021;23(1):75–88. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v23n1.82598
15. Hincapié R, Gutiérrez-Ríos M. Concepciones acerca del pensamiento crítico en la enseñanza primaria y secundaria. Una revisión bibliográfica. Rev Innova Educ. 2023;5(2):91–107. https://doi.org/10.35622/j.rie.2023.02.006
16. Durand Villalobos JP, Gutierrez IM. Las experiencias formativas y trayectorias profesionales de egresados de la Maestría en Innovación Educativa (2011–2021). Rev Investig Acad Sin Frontera. 2025;1(43). https://doi.org/10.46589/riasf.v1i43.774
17. Ramirez G, Mosquera E, Aranda L. Círculos de escritura y estrategias de regulación en tesistas de la maestría en educación de la Pontificia Universidad Javeriana (Bogotá, Colombia). Zona Próxima. 2024;40:10–42. https://doi.org/10.14482/zp.40.121.258
18. Bernal A. Concepción pedagógica para el desarrollo de la escritura de textos científicos en la formación de posgrado: una mirada integral desde el centro de estudios. Educ Pensam. 2021;27:48–55. http://www.educacionypensamiento.colegiohispano.edu.co/index.php/revistaeyp/article/view/118
19. Lesmes B, Melo A, Barragán L, Torres J. Estado del arte sobre estrategias y dispositivos didácticos para la escritura en posgrados. Lenguaje. 2024;52(1):e20312829. https://doi.org/10.25100/lenguaje.v52i1.12829
20. Mariscal Orozco JL, Molina Roldán A. Propuesta de modelo para implementar la retribución social en programas de posgrado. Rev CPU-e. 2025;(40):4. https://doi.org/10.25009/cpue.v0i40.2902
21. Ruiz-Bolívar C. Enfoque tecno-pedagógico post COVID-19: una propuesta para las instituciones de educación superior de América Latina. Investig Postgrado. 2023;36(2):9–23. https://doi.org/10.56219/investigacinypostgrado.v36i2.2257
22. Purdy D. Opinion: A polemical history of freshman composition in our time. Coll Engl. 1986;48(8):791–6. https://doi.org/10.2307/376724
23. Pytlik BP. A short history of graduate preparation of writing teachers.
24. Sullivan PA. Writing in the graduate curriculum: literary criticism as composition. J Adv Compos. 1991;11(2):283–97. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20865796
25. Manathunga C. Helping doctoral students write: pedagogies for supervision. Teach High Educ. 2008;13(6):685–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510802045410
26. Strachan W. Writing intensive: becoming W faculty in a new writing curriculum. Logan (UT): Utah State University Press; 2008.
27. Pollet MC. From remediation to the development of writing competences in disciplinary context. En: Thaiss C, editor. Writing programs worldwide: profiles of academic writing in many places. Anderson (SC): Parlor Press; 2012. p. 93–103. https://difusion.ulb.ac.be/vufind/Record/ULB-DIPOT:oai:dipot.ulb.ac.be:2013/137282
28. Lu X, Casal J, Liu Y. Towards the synergy of genre- and corpus-based approaches to academic writing research and pedagogy. Int J Comput Assist Lang Learn Teach. 2021;11(1):59–71. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijcallt.2021010104
29. Mecenas J, Wilber Y, Kwast M. Antiracist and faith-based: critical pedagogy-informed writing and information literacy instruction at a Hispanic-serving, Lutheran liberal arts university. Radical Teacher. 2021;(121):14–23. https://doi.org/10.5195/rt.2021.901
30. Muñoz C. Developing higher education’s academic literacy in English through tutorials in a Spanish-speaking country. Rev Int Leng Extranjeras. 2022;(16):84–102. https://doi.org/10.17345/rile16.3266
31. Li Z, Makarova V, Wang Z. Developing literature review writing and citation practices through an online writing tutorial series: corpus-based evidence. Front Commun. 2023;8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2023.1035394
32. Liu Z, Zhang R, Liu H. Promoting writing competence of the “Results & Discussion” section with genre analysis activities in EAP thesis-writing class. Engl Lang Teach Linguist Stud. 2023;5(1):116. https://doi.org/10.22158/eltls.v5n1p116
33. Déri C, Tremblay-Wragg É, Mathieu-C S. Academic writing groups in higher education: history and state of play. Int J High Educ. 2021;11(1):85–94. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v11n1p85
34. Whittemore R, Knafl K. The integrative review: updated methodology. J Adv Nurs. 2005;52(5):546–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x
35. Torraco RJ. Writing integrative literature reviews: guidelines and examples. Hum Resour Dev Rev. 2016;15(4):404–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484316671606
36. Snyder H. Literature reviews as a research strategy: an overview and guidelines. J Bus Res. 2019;104:333–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
37. Acosta DD. Más allá de las palabras: inteligencia artificial en la escritura académica. Rev Escritura Creativa. 2023;4(2):37. https://ojs.nfshost.com/index.php/escritura_creativa/article/view/44
38. Zagoto I. From drafting to publication: a systematic review on genre-based pedagogy in EFL academic writing instruction. Anglophile J. 2025;5(1):29–40. https://doi.org/10.51278/anglophile.v5i1.1894
39. Déri C, Tremblay-Wragg É, Mathieu-C S. Academic writing groups in higher education: history and state of play. Int J High Educ. 2021;11(1):85–94. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v11n1p85
40. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
41. Suri H. Meta-analysis, systematic reviews and narrative syntheses. En: Biddle ID, Lewin K, editors. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology. Londres: SAGE Publications; 2020. p. 327–44.
42. Torraco RJ. Writing integrative literature reviews: guidelines and examples. Hum Resour Dev Rev. 2016;15(4):404–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484316671606
43. Snyder H. Literature reviews as a research strategy: an overview and guidelines. J Bus Res. 2019;104:333–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
44. Asfaw G, Ferede A, Maru N. Critical pedagogy: exploring EFL instructors’ cognitions in teaching writing. ERJSSH. 2025;11(2):152–74. https://doi.org/10.4314/erjssh.v11i2.9
45. Kavenuke P, Muthanna A. Teacher educators’ perceptions and challenges of using critical pedagogy: a case study of higher teacher education in Tanzania. J Univ Teach Learn Pract. 2021;18(4). https://doi.org/10.53761/1.18.4.10
46. Ahmad J, Shaukat B. From the culture of silence to the culture of expression: a meta-analysis of the pedagogies adopted at higher education institutions. Glob Sociol Rev. 2023;VIII(1):307–15. https://doi.org/10.31703/gsr.2023(viii-i).30
47. Zagoto I. From drafting to publication: a systematic review on genre-based pedagogy in EFL academic writing instruction. Anglophile J. 2025;5(1):29–40. https://doi.org/10.51278/anglophile.v5i1.1894
48. Lee R. Supporting literacy through the justice and dialogic education (JADE) framework. Read Res Q. 2025;60(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.70062
49. Eybers O. Transforming academic literacy: centering indigenous identities in the classroom. Genealogy. 2025;9(1):19. https://doi.org/10.3390/genealogy9010019
50. Mecenas J, Wilber Y, Kwast M. Antiracist and faith-based: critical pedagogy-informed writing and information literacy instruction at a hispanic-serving, lutheran liberal arts university. Radic Teach. 2021;121:14–23. https://doi.org/10.5195/rt.2021.901
51. Eager B, Brunton R. Prompting higher education towards AI-augmented teaching and learning practice. J Univ Teach Learn Pract. 2023;20(5). https://doi.org/10.53761/1.20.5.02
52. Kotsis K. The role of ChatGPT in academic writing: pedagogical and ethical dimensions. EthAIca. 2025;4:420. https://doi.org/10.56294/ai2025420
53. Li Z, Makarova V, Wang Z. Developing literature review writing and citation practices through an online writing tutorial series: corpus-based evidence. Front Commun. 2023;8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2023.1035394
54. Lu X, Casal J, Liu Y. Towards the synergy of genre- and corpus-based approaches to academic writing research and pedagogy. Int J Comput Assist Lang Learn Teach. 2021;11(1):59–71. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijcallt.2021010104
55. Ariza-Pinzón V. Analysis of MA students’ writing in English language teaching: a systemic functional linguistic approach. Profile Issues Teach Prof Dev. 2021;23(1):75–88. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v23n1.82598
56. Meng D, Meng C. A study of corpus-based academic formulas and its postgraduate teaching. Int J Educ Curric Manag Res. 2023;4(2). https://doi.org/10.38007/ijecmr.2023.040210
57. Mary S. Dissertation acknowledgements in Cameroon English: a semantic analysis. Glob Acad J Linguist Lit. 2023;5(3):46–55. https://doi.org/10.36348/gajll.2023.v05i03.002
58. Chen J. A genre theory contextualization for academic writing in Chinese higher education. J Adv Res Educ. 2024;3(3):20–7. https://doi.org/10.56397/jare.2024.05.04
59. Saidi M, Talebi S. Genre analysis of research article abstracts in English for academic purposes journals: exploring the possible variations across the venues of research. Educ Res Int. 2021;2021:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/3578179
60. Veerappan V, Ahmad M, Aris M, Suan W. Genre analysis of introduction section in electrical engineering undergraduate laboratory reports. F1000Research. 2022;11:163. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.73461.1
61. Liu Z, Zhang R, Liu H. Promoting writing competence of the “Results & Discussion” section with genre analysis activities in EAP thesis-writing class. Engl Lang Teach Linguist Stud. 2023;5(1):116. https://doi.org/10.22158/eltls.v5n1p116
62. Muñoz C. Developing higher education’s academic literacy in English through tutorials in a Spanish-speaking country. Rev Int Lenguas Extranjeras. 2022;(16):84–102. https://doi.org/10.17345/rile16.3266
63. Acosta Mareco SN. Educación inclusiva en la educación superior en Paraguay. Rev UNIDA Científica. 2025;9(2):94–104. https://doi.org/10.69940/ruc.20251206
64. Durand Villalobos JP, Gutiérrez IM. Las experiencias formativas y trayectorias profesionales de egresados de la Maestría en Innovación Educativa (2011–2021). Rev Investig Acad Sin Frontera. 2025;1(43). https://doi.org/10.46589/riasf.v1i43.774
65. Lesmes B, Melo A, Barragán L, Torres J. Estado del arte sobre estrategias y dispositivos didácticos para la escritura en posgrados. Lenguaje. 2024;52(1):e20312829. https://doi.org/10.25100/lenguaje.v52i1.12829
66. Osorio M, Marín T, Gómez M. Escritura académica ¿un factor de exclusión en los procesos de formación posgradual? Delta. 2023;39(4). https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-460x202339456233
67. Ramirez G, Mosquera E, Aranda L. Círculos de escritura y estrategias de regulación en tesistas de la Maestría en Educación de la Pontificia Universidad Javeriana (Bogotá, Colombia). Zona Próxima. 2024;40:10–42. https://doi.org/10.14482/zp.40.121.258
68. Hincapié R, Gutiérrez-Ríos M. Concepciones acerca del pensamiento crítico en la enseñanza primaria y secundaria: una revisión bibliográfica. Rev Innova Educ. 2023;5(2):91–107. https://doi.org/10.35622/j.rie.2023.02.006
69. Ruiz F. Estrategias para fomentar la creatividad y el pensamiento crítico en el aula. BIJ. 2023;2(1):34–42. https://doi.org/10.62943/bij.v2i1.26
70. Peralta M. Dificultades sociodiscursivas para la escritura académica en estudiantes universitarios de pregrado y posgrado. Lengua Soc. 2023;22(2):335–56. https://doi.org/10.15381/lengsoc.v22i2.23883
71. Pozzo M, Rosso F. Representaciones de estudiantes sobre la escritura y su evaluación en el posgrado. Cuad Investig Educ. 2023;14(2). https://doi.org/10.18861/cied.2023.14.2.3462
72. Reid L. Disciplinary reading in basic writing graduate education. J Basic Writ. 2018;37(2):6–34. https://doi.org/10.37514/JBW-J.2018.37.2.02
73. Pollet MC. From remediation to the development of writing competences in disciplinary context. Thirty years of practices and questions. In: Writing programs worldwide: profiles of academic writing in many places. 2012. p. 93–103. https://difusion.ulb.ac.be/vufind/Record/ULB-DIPOT:oai:dipot.ulb.ac.be:2013/137282/Details
74. Prior PA. Writing/disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the academy. Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1998.
75. Manathunga C. Helping doctoral students write: Pedagogies for supervision. Teach High Educ. 2008;13(6):685–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510802045410
76. Sánchez-Pástor FM. Educación compleja y transformación educativa universitaria [Complex education and university educational transformation]. Cognopolis Rev Educ Pedagog. 2024;2(3):63–76. https://doi.org/10.62574/m3s20317
77. Bracho-Fuenmayor PL. Diálogo de saberes como método disruptivo en enseñanza-aprendizaje y evaluación del derecho a través de la investigación. Rev. pedagog. univ. didact. Derecho. 2025;12(1):139-54. https://doi.org/10.5354/0719-5885.2025.75475
78. Bustos Acevedo A, García Guiliany J, Paz Marcano A, Boscán M. Integración de la metodología Lean en proyectos de construcción en México (2016–2022). REV VENEZ GERENC. 2025;30(13):311-34. https://doi.org/10.52080/rvgluz.30.especial13.21
79. Boscan M, Vilca RAL, Espinoza CGO, de Mavárez AA. Competencias tecnológicas y gestión administrativa en instituciones educativas públicas ecuatorianas del nivel de bachillerato, en escenarios de pandemia. Revista Ibérica de Sistemas e Tecnologias de Informação. 2021;(E44):315-329. https://www.risti.xyz/issues/risti44.pdf.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Pedro Luis Bracho-Fuenmayor , Mariby Coromoto Boscán Carroz , Claudia Patricia Caballero de Lamarque , Juan Manuel Quintero Ramírez (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
