Development and implementation of personal learning environment-based writing for publication scaffolding platform for Ph.D. Students

Universities increasingly require publications in high-ranked, English-medium journals, placing significant pressure on novice researchers, especially Ph.D. students. Challenges include limited mentoring, unfamiliarity with publishing protocols, language and socialization barriers for non-native English speakers, and practical constraints related to time, finances, and emotional well-being. Although institutions offer supports such as ERPP/EAP courses, writing groups, and mentorship, evidence on personal learning environments (PLEs) for scaffolding writing for publication is scarce. This study addresses the gap by designing and evaluating a PLE-based writing for publication platform (PLE-WfP) grounded in scaffolding theory and Vygotsky’s ZPD. The study investigates: (1) how PLEs can be developed and implemented to scaffold Ph.D. students’ writing for publication, and (2) students’ perceptions of the PLE-WfP platform. The platform integrates a weekly online writing course and comprehensive scaffolding across individual, group, and submission stages, aiming to enhance the quality, quantity, and competence of Ph.D. students’ publications.

The ERPP literature highlights complex demands on researchers, including criticality, voice, objectivity, discourse structure, and scientific reasoning. English proficiency correlates with scholarly productivity, yet non-native speakers face linguistic and socialization challenges, particularly in introductions and discussions, compounded by practical hurdles of time, cost, and emotional stress. Interventions span individual (skill development, tailored training), group (writing groups, mentorship, IMRaD-structured instruction), and external supports (open-access fees, retreats), underscoring a multilevel, holistic approach. Collaborative writing has risen, boosting productivity, mentorship, and community ethos, though it involves navigating group dynamics and equitable contributions. PLEs personalize learning and bridge gaps between student capabilities and publication demands; however, their effectiveness relative to traditional structures requires scrutiny. Scaffolding, rooted in sociocultural theory and ZPD, supports L2 writing through feedback, modeling, staged instruction, and peer interaction, improving fluency, accuracy, and confidence. Scholars argue scaffolding must extend beyond cognitive skills to include linguistic, emotional, and financial dimensions, covering the full research and publication lifecycle.

Design: Mixed-methods study integrating platform development, intervention, and qualitative feedback via reflective diaries to evaluate the PLE-WfP platform for Year-1 Ph.D. students. Ethical approval was granted by Stamford International University’s IRB (SIU202302); informed consent obtained. Participants: 13 first-year Ph.D. students in educational leadership (aged 27–32, mainly teachers/administrators from mainland China) and three supervisors, recruited via email. Purposive sampling aligned with qualitative saturation guidance. Instruments and data: (1) Platform development (three stages: individual, group, submission); (2) Intervention including a 48-hour online journal writing course over two months, collaborative manuscript drafting, workshops, peer review, and mentorship; (3) Reflective diaries addressing five targeted questions on platform utility, limitations of lectures, advantages of personalized guidance, role of academic community, and desired platform services. Procedure: Phase 1—construct PLE-WfP (registration and self-assessment; scaffolded learning materials; academic literacy test; proposal development and funding application). Phase 2—implementation (orientation; course; topic selection; proposal submission; team formation; project development with instructor and optional external reviews; revisions). Phase 3—reflective diary collection two weeks before project end and thematic analysis. Data analysis: Thematic analysis per Braun & Clarke (2006). Codes were co-developed and refined by multiple researchers; independent analyses followed by reconciliation achieved over 90% agreement on themes and codes, with a second coding cycle finalizing themes. Emotional and non-cognitive dimensions (e.g., stress, motivation, community) were documented through qualitative indicators in diaries.

Reflective diaries revealed five major themes (Table 4): (1) Preference for personalized writing guidance—valued for relevance to individual needs, customized problem-solving, timeliness of feedback, reduced stress, and comprehensive, end-to-end support including funding; (2) Limitations of lecture-based instruction—useful for theory and trends but insufficient for individualized, practical writing issues due to large audiences and fragmented knowledge; (3) Advantages of personalized guidance for skill enhancement—improved writing skills, increased confidence and emotional well-being; calls for stronger supports for team research and collaborative writing, including more frequent group interactions and matching by research interests; (4) Impact of academic community—emotional support, facilitation of collaborative writing (improving efficiency and shortening publication cycles), and resource sharing/networking; (5) Needs for an online guidance platform—robust technical tools (live streaming, meetings, real-time chat, plugins), community-building features, and a comprehensive scaffolding system covering topic selection, literature search, writing, revision, and publication. Coding reliability reached approximately 92% agreement after reconciliation. Publication outcomes: 11 manuscripts submitted by 13 participants; 4 accepted and published in Scopus-indexed journals.

Findings directly address RQ1 by detailing how a PLE-based scaffolding system, aligned with ZPD, can be developed and implemented across individual, group, and submission stages to support the full publication workflow, integrating academic, emotional, and financial assistance. Regarding RQ2, students strongly preferred personalized guidance over lectures, emphasizing relevance, customization, timeliness, and stress reduction. The platform’s academic community features enhanced collaborative writing, confidence, and resource sharing, suggesting that social and affective supports are integral to effective ERPP scaffolding. These results align with prior work on writing groups and structured instruction while extending the literature by foregrounding emotional and financial supports within digital, personalized environments. Suggestions for technical enhancements and community development indicate the importance of usability and collaboration in shaping positive perceptions of L2 academic writing. Generalizability may be constrained by the specific cohort and context, indicating a need to test adaptability across diverse settings.

The study introduces and evaluates the PLE-WfP platform, a comprehensive scaffolding system grounded in PLE concepts, scaffolding theory, and ZPD to support Ph.D. students’ writing for publication. It addresses not only content, structural, and linguistic needs but also emotional and financial dimensions, offering an end-to-end approach from proposal development to submission and APC support. Empirically, participants preferred personalized guidance, valued academic community engagement, and achieved tangible publication outcomes (11 submissions, 4 Scopus-indexed acceptances). Theoretically, the work extends scaffolding and ZPD applications to PLEs in ERPP contexts. Future research should examine the platform’s effectiveness across varied academic cultures, disciplines, and doctoral stages, incorporate additional data sources beyond reflective diaries, and leverage learning analytics to refine features and validate impact.

Findings derive from a small, purposively sampled cohort of first-year Ph.D. students at a single Thai university, limiting generalizability. Data rely primarily on reflective diaries, which may omit behaviors or contextual factors and introduce self-report bias. The study context (discipline focus, institutional collaboration including APC support) may not transfer uniformly to other settings. Further evaluation across different cultures, disciplines, and stages of doctoral study, and the incorporation of complementary methods (e.g., learning analytics, observational data) are recommended.