Helping Students to Improve Their Writing Skills

June Bode

Introduction

A worldwide survey of 20,000 academics (Aubert 1992 cited in Candlin et al 1998) found that most university lecturers express general dissatisfaction with the written language skills of their students. In addition, the Australian Association of Graduate Employers, surveying 150 of the largest public and private employers, found that the greatest perceived deficiency in graduates is in written English, a worrying fact since Australian employers rank written and oral skills as a top priority (Illing 1994, cited in Candlin et al 1998). There is an obvious need then, to help students improve their writing skills, but there are some difficulties inherent in this process. This paper aims initially to identify briefly some of the problems that academics face in helping students write.  Secondly, it will highlight some of the issues discussed in an inter university project on student literacy (and later in the paper, look at the application of these ideas and techniques in the school of Education at James Cook University [JCU]). Lastly, it will present a number of suggestions about how lecturers can provide meaningful and constructive feedback on student writing. Essays are the most common task I assist students with as a Learning Adviser at JCU, so writing for this group is the basis of the discussion

A major problem facing academics wishing to help students with their writing is the fact that higher education has become mass education. Larger classes reduce opportunities for individual feedback on written work and students often have very little contact with their lecturers, especially during their first two years of tertiary education.  In addition, changes in teaching and assessment methods present difficulties. For instance, Gibbs (1992a) believes that as continuous assessment becomes the norm, it produces short-term reading patterns and simplified writing tasks, so students do not get a wide experience of writing.  Australia’s multicultural society is a further complication facing lecturers in helping students with their writing skills. In some states, for example, one student in four does not use English as a first language (Kaldor et al 1998). In the face of such problems, ways of providing assistance to students to improve their writing skills becomes an issue worthy of discussion.

Framing Student Literacy Project

Concerns with student writing skills prompted the project ‘Framing Student Literacy: Cross-Cultural Aspects of Communication Skills in Australian Settings’, which ran during 1995 and 1996. Four universities took part in the research: Curtin, Macquarie, Western Australia and Edith Cowan and each was responsible for a separate area of investigation. The work of the four teams was governed by two broad questions: what literate behaviour is currently required of university students; and how is that behaviour affected by disciplinary and other cultural differences? (Candlin et al 1998). I shall discuss here the work undertaken by Kaldor et al (1998) at the University of Western Australia (UWA), who focused on literacy. Specifically, they used 174 examples of expository writing by 1^st to 4^th year students in four disciplines to develop diagnostic tools with which to analyse text in order to better locate problem areas facing writers. I will discuss this work in more detail later in this paper, especially relating it to work done in the school of Education at JCU. 

The four research teams involved in the literacy project shared some basic premises. The first was that literacy is ‘situation specific’ and needs a wider definition than ‘being able to read and write’, as all university students are of course ‘functionally’ literate. The concept of literacy used in the project is broader and involves having the ‘ability to use resourcefully, in specific situations, the written language system through which knowledge is most fully accessible in our own society’ (Candlin et al 1998 px).

The second premise of the project was that theories of framing are useful in making sense of findings about literacy. Kaldor et al (1998) argue that learning about an academic subject means learning within a received disciplinary frame, yet academics do not clearly show students the frames that are required of them or how work should be written. “Criteria of adequacy, let alone excellence, tend to be assumed rather than articulated by many teachers. The pedagogical frame generally remains invisible and this is a major difficulty for students who are trying to discover what they must do.” (Kaldor et al 1998 pxi). Underlying frame analysis is the understanding that interpretation requires the ability to recognise the framing devices (mainly linguistic) that convey meta-messages - ‘messages about messages’. Candlin et al (1998) believe that students are often judged to have poor literacy skills because they are unfamiliar with the frames that academic communities operate with, or they do not recognise the implicit common sense assumptions underlying literary practices.  Differences in social or cultural background can also result in a students’ failure to recognise cues or in a mismatch of frames. Academics therefore have to ‘demystify’ these practices. A major message of the project is that there is a need to make the implicit explicit, and to reveal the underlying requirements of academic writing.

 The third and final premise underlying the project was that academic literacy is linked with cultural and disciplinary differences. As with the term ‘literacy’, ‘cross cultural’ was broadly interpreted in this study, but mainly centred on comparisons between different academic disciplinary ‘cultures’. Candlin et al (1998) state that ‘Different academic disciplines foster different attitudes with regard to literacy, tacitly or openly encouraging students to approach communication skills in one way rather than another’ (p xii). A significant finding from a student writer’s perspective, therefore, is the project’s conclusion that ‘Universities need better information…about the current range of pedagogic practices in various fields of study’ (p xii). I believe these have to be explicitly imparted to student writers so they can become ‘effectively literate’.

Lecturers commonly have the expectation that students should somehow just ‘pick up’ specific writing practices as they go along. However, as I have already indicated, an important message from the ‘Framing Student Literacy’ project is that students must be told many things explicitly; especially that academic writing is discipline specific. This view is reflected in the writings of many other academics. Clanchy and Ballard (1997) explicitly alert student writers to be aware of differences in content, vocabulary, special interest, and style between disciplines. For example, they comment on the use of ‘I’ in writing (an issue frequently raised by students consulting the Learning Advisers at JCU) explaining that its use is acceptable in literary criticism where, for example, there is greater reliance on subjective response as a basis for argument that there is in other disciplines, but it may not be acceptable elsewhere.

Chanock (2000) also discusses discipline specific writing in a paper examining the problems of students misunderstanding what tutors write on essays. She asked students and lecturers at La Trobe University what they thought was meant by a common marking comment “too much description, not enough analysis”. Almost 50% of the student respondents did not interpret this comment in the way their tutors intended it. Chanock argues that what lecturers understand by ‘analysis’ is “description that makes a point (p 97). Reasons for the lack of agreement, she believes, include ambiguity in the term ‘analysis’, and differences in its meaning for different disciplines.

The problem centres around the fact that what constitutes ‘a point’ is different in different disciplines. For example, disciplines such as Art History and Archaeology are much more descriptive than say Politics or Philosophy.  Art History essays, for example, consist mainly of visual analysis, which is a close detailed description of art works, so students are expected to establish exactly what is seen, including small details of the picture. An Art History student using the same writing technique for Politics, however, would receive the criticism, ‘too much description’. “What is analysis to an insider can look like description to an outsider (and we must remember that first year students are not insiders in the disciplines they study)” (Chanock 2000, p. 97). Chanock relates an instance where a student came to see her with two essays he got back on the same day, one in English and one in History. His History tutor had written, “‘Identify names, places, events. Don’t assume that I know what you’re talking about’. The English tutor had written, ‘Don’t tell me what happens. I have read the book’. Chanock (2000, p. 98) comments: ‘If History wanted to know what happened, why didn’t English? Much of my time advising students is taken up with explaining differences of purpose and approach’.

It is interesting to reflect on the way students gain insight into the writing that is required of them. The concept of ‘disciplinary apprenticeship’ is useful here. Candlin et al (1998) argues that concepts such as ‘discourse communities’ and ‘communities of practice’ assume members share systems of value and belief, ideological positions, and activities. Both terms imply some “gradually mentored pathway to membership referred to explicitly by Berkenkotter and Huckin (1995, cited in Candlin et al 1998 p 21) as a process of ‘cognitive apprenticeship’. The idea of apprenticeship into the practices of the academy is often mentioned. The process of cognitive apprenticeship involves mentors (lecturers) firstly ‘modelling’ to make their tacit knowledge explicit and to reveal their problem solving activities; secondly, ‘coaching’ students and supporting them to undertake new tasks; and thirdly, ‘fading’ after having empowered students to work independently (Candlin et al 1998). Although there is debate about the extent that disciplinary or cognitive apprenticeship is achieved in universities, I find this concept useful when considering how to help students improve their writing. Particularly, I like the way it supports the idea that I have been emphasising throughout this discussion, of making tacit knowledge explicit; but I also like its emphasis on ‘modelling’ academic activities.

Modelling is fundamental to learning and is especially so in the apprenticeship process. Traditionally, an apprentice to a trade develops the practical skills necessary to carry out the range of tasks an expert in the field can do by observing and copying the example of the expert. Many researchers maintain this process is equally valid in acquiring academic skills. George (1998), for example, advocates the use of generic models as part of instruction before an assignment is attempted, and then suggests specific models be discussed after the assignment has been marked. Similarly, Newbel and Cannon (1989) believe models used early in the course show students the standards expected of them. Cox (1994) argues that providing model answers can be an important part of formative assessment and stresses the need for ‘clear, explicitly stated criteria’ on which students can base judgements (p 87). Gibbs (1992a) acknowledges that in many courses, lecturers model forms of academic discourse including essays. He emphasises the importance of modelling writing even in difficult situations such as in very large classes. (An example of an essay modelling activity devised by Gibbs that can be undertaken in a large lecture theatre is given in Appendix 1.)

To summarise what I have been saying up to this point: I have been arguing that academics must do several things in order to assist students with their writing. I have emphasised firstly the importance of making the implicit explicit, and of openly expressing the tacit understandings that academics use when they ‘frame’ ideas. Secondly, I have touched on the fact that much academic writing is discipline specific and that this is another facet of the writing task that academics need to disclose to their student ‘literary apprentices’. And thirdly, I have stressed the vital role of modelling in helping students to improve their writing. All three factors figured strongly in JCU’s School of Education Bridging Course for ED 1421 & ED 1401, which took place during the first half of the year 2000. I will now discuss this project in more detail, showing how these three factors were integrated in the project, but also introducing the argument that there is a need to diagnose writing errors explicitly to student writers if they are to improve.

The School of Education staff acknowledge that although research undertaken in the school suggests that students who enter with an OP of 16 or below will have serious difficulties with first year literacy, many students accepted into their courses have OP scores in this range. Furthermore, these students are often unprepared for university culture and work. It was therefore decided to offer a bridging course to support these students in their first year of study. The JCU Equity Office funded the course. A letter of invitation to join the course was sent to all students entering JCU School of Education, who had an OP of 17 or below. The bridging course was intended to provide a point of entry for students to begin participating in an academic community. These views were made explicit to students, and it was emphasised that participation was the key to their development. The staff involved in the project were Margaret allan (Project Manager and lecturer in ED1421); Elizabeth Hirst (Project Officer responsible for project design and administration and June Bode (Learning Adviser).

Bridging Course Stages

Stage 1 involved designing the bridging course content and guidelines for Education course essays; and creating a diagnostic sheet using both the work of Kaldor et al (1998) and authentic materials (essays written in 1999 by students in the School of Education). Since most writers discussing providing useful feedback to student writers emphasise the need to diagnose clearly ‘what is wrong’, a major task facing Allan and Hirst was to develop a diagnostic tool, which could be used with large numbers of students, to discover what was obstructing the readability of student texts. Four levels of analysis were used by Kaldor et al (1998) to diagnose flaws in writing - macrostructure, content, rhetorical mapping and vocabulary. The diagnostic test developed by Allan and Hirst has five levels of analysis. The fifth level examines whether the student’s use of grammar creates problems with readability.

In Stage 2, students attended a one-day writing course presented by Elizabeth Hirst and the author. In the first part of the day, I outlined some generic writing skills including the macrostructure of an essay, paragraphing, and conventions of referencing and using academic language. Elizabeth Hirst asked students to make explicit their concepts of an essay macrostructure and then discussed the ideas raised. She also analysed two students’ essays, seeking to show how the writers had successfully (or not) achieved their writing goals. (A summary of the main findings of this class is presented in figure 3. This clearly summarises the results of this discussion and shows the expected structure of an Education assignment, together with paragraph form, the content organisation, and the appropriate vocabulary and word function). Finally, a short reading was given to the students, who were required to write a mini essay of three to four paragraphs, to be submitted by the first week of semester. Students then received feedback by individual consultation using the diagnostic sheets developed in stage 1.

The purpose of activities in stages 1 and 2 was to equip students better to face the first major assignment required of them in ED1421; an essay of 1500 words discussing language variety in Australia. Students who failed the assignment received individual feedback using the diagnostic sheet and were offered the chance to resubmit their paper for a pass grade on condition they attended a writing course provided by the Learning Adviser. In this session, a model essay provided by Margaret allan (the most successful essay submitted) was used. Students were reminded of the macrostructure of an assignment, of the need to sequence ideas clearly, and of how to write introductions and conclusions. Students then reviewed their own essays and critiqued them against the model.

Allan and Hirst (pers. com.) presented some of their preliminary findings in an education seminar on the 2^nd June 2000, and are currently writing up this project for publication. Full details will be available in their forthcoming paper, but some of the findings they presented verbally were:

The results of resubmitted assignments are not yet available. Interestingly however, all but one of the 10 students who attended the first workshop (and it is worth noting that these students had very poor OP scores) passed the major assignment. While this is obviously too small a sample to be statistically significant, some interesting questions have arisen that Allan and Hirst hope to investigate. For example, it will be interesting to see if writing skills learned in one context are transferable to another.

The School of Education Bridging course has been discussed at length to show how certain techniques (modelling, being explicit in stating what is required in a specific disciplinary context, giving accurate textual diagnosis and providing individual feedback) were used to help students improve their writing. There are other ways lecturers can assist students improve their writing, and I will briefly discuss three of these in the remainder of the paper.

1  Individual Conferencing

Most writers accept that the most effective method of helping students with their writing is by individual conferencing, as was employed in the Education bridging project. Walvoord (1982) believes, however, that lecturers “should not use the conference merely to say what they would otherwise write; the personal conference opens up other possibilities which should be exploited” (p. 27). In particular, lecturers should engage the student in a fuller and more personal discussion of their paper, and let the student share the reading and evaluation process. For example, students can sit beside the lecturer and look on as the lecturer reads the paper, or the student can read parts of the paper aloud to the lecturer. It is important that the lecturer voices his or her opinion when reading the paper.

Steps that can be followed in conferencing include:

Encouraging the reader by praising what is good. George (1998) says it is easy to focus on negative aspects of writing, on what has been missed rather than what has been achieved. Although the focus of feedback is on ways to improve, this should be done in the context of positive comments about progress achieved. Begin feedback by looking at aspects of the assignment that have been handled well, and then discuss areas that need improvement. Walvoord (1982) notes that it is easy to fall into the habit of ‘silently noting the well-written sections but … writing only on the faults’ and warns that this throws away an excellent instructional tool - telling students what they have done right. ‘A student often hits on good writing only half consciously … the teacher ought to describe a paper’s successes so that the student can repeat them more consciously next time’ (p33).

Become a transparent reader. A lecturer should openly express what he or she thinks and feels about the student’s writing. This openness or ‘transparency’ can be done at one of several levels, depending on the student’s ability and the reader’s own expertise. If a student is capable of finding his or her own solutions to writing problems, the reader may respond only on a basic level by giving a response to the paper. There is no analysis, and no solutions to writing problems are offered. Students are forced to find their own solutions. Comments used at the basic level could include: ‘I had to read this three times to understand it’ or ‘Here you repeat the same idea as before’. At the second level, the lecturer can offer analysis but no solutions, commenting for example: ‘This page avoids monotony because you vary sentence length’ or ‘This statement is ambiguous’. At a third level, the reader identifies the problem, and suggests ways to improve the writing. This level is used when the student needs more guidance or lacks specific writing skills. For example, the reader may say: ‘Try inserting a word or phrase to clarify the meaning between these two ideas’ or ‘Turn this sentence around so these ideas come first.’ As a transparent reader progresses through the text, they should state explicitly what they think of each paragraph, point out features such as the correct use of evidence, and express praise or pleasure at what they read. Finally, the reader should make what, in a written evaluation, would be the final comment, by giving verbally an analytical summary of the paper, highlighting priorities for improvement.

The lecturer has provided the writing feedback discussed so far to the student. One of the great drawbacks to this process is the time this takes. Allan and Hirst (pers. com.) acknowledged this disadvantage in their seminar. A way to overcome this problem is using alternative methods such as self-assessment and peer editing.

2  Self Assessment

Walvoord (1982) believed lecturers should teach students how to proof read their own work by reading their work aloud or listening as somebody else reads it.  Another useful suggestion is to ask students to list the six most common errors in their writing, and then to ask them to read specifically looking for those errors. Samson and Radloff (1992) also encouraged self-evaluation and offered a self-assessment form that covered three main areas: ‘Did I answer the question?’ ‘Were my strategies effective?’ And ‘How well did I carry out the task?’  They believe that students cannot be in charge of their own learning unless they reflect upon their own responses to completing academic tasks. They also emphasise that students should be encouraged to praise themselves, and to be positive about their own efforts.

3  Peer Assessment

Peer assessment should be considered as an alternative way of giving feedback on writing. However, Gibbs (1992b) believed it should only be used with formative, non-examinable assessment. Peer assessment can involve distributing students’ papers through the class and requiring students to comment on another student’s work. Students usually need both guidance in how to provide feedback and clear, explicitly stated criteria on which to base their judgements. They also need to understand that they must justify their judgements. The use of essay self-assessment forms on which students or peers justify their marking, helps monitor peer and self assessment (Gibbs 1992b).

Further support for peer assessment is provided by Camp (1982) who believed student response groups (small groups who provide feedback to one another about their writing) were particularly useful because they provided the student writer with a sense of audience. Students are actively involved with each other’s writing, ask questions, make suggestions and receive reactions - all during the writing process rather than afterwards. In addition, writing groups help develop awareness of readers’ needs, a characteristic of professional writers. Camp argued that encouraging students to use this form of peer assessment produced writing which was more specific, contained more examples, had more transitional and introductory phrases directed at the reader and resulted in more fluent, competent writers.

Most teachers of writing, such as Cox (1994) and Gibbs (1992a), agreed that self and peer assessment have additional benefits to student writers over and above improved writing techniques. Both techniques encourage active involvement in course material and assessment, while improving learning through exercise of critical and evaluative skills. In addition, they encourage qualities of independence and responsibility, attributes important in students’ future professional lives.

Teaching students to write well will remain an important objective of university teachers, both as a means of expressing ideas clearly, and also to fulfil employers’ demands that graduates, above all, can communicate well. This paper has shown that there are a number of ways students can be assisted with their writing and lecturers can employ a range of methods. I have stressed my view that to assist students with their writing, lecturers need to be explicit both in what they require of students in their disciplinary context, and in the feedback they provide. Using models has also been highlighted as part of the process of acquiring mastery of writing skills; just as trade apprentices modelled their skills on their master’s work. The ‘Framing Student Literacy’ project concluded that teachers should seek to develop diagnostic tools to identify what is good writing and what is not, and to use them to explain clearly to their students the difference between the two. The School of Education at JCU has attempted this and the paper that will accompany their Bridging Project report will make interesting reading.

References

Candlin, C.  Gollin, S. Plum, G. Spinks, S. Smith, V. 1998  Researching  Academic Literacies, Macquarie University, Sydney.

Chanock, K. 2000 ‘Comments on Essays: do students understand what tutors write?’ Teaching in Higher Education, vol. 5, no. 1, 95-105.

Clanchy, J.  Ballard,  B. 1997 Essay Writing for Students, Longman, Melbourne.

Cox, B. 1994 Practical Pointers for University Teachers, Kogan Page, London.

George, R. 1998 ‘Supporting Distance Students’ University of South Australia,  Flexible Learning Centre, Adelaide.

Gibbs, G. 1992a ‘Independent Learning with More Students”, Booklet No 5 in Teaching More Students  project, The Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, Oxford.

Gibbs, G. 1992b  Research into Student Learning, in B. Smith & S. Brown (eds) Research into Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, Staff Educational Development Association, London.

Kaldor, S. Herriman, M. Rochecouste, J. 1998 Tertiary Student Writing, The University of Western Australia Graduate School of Education. Nedlands W.A.

Newble, D. Cannon, R. 1989 A Handbook for Teachers in Universities & Colleges, Kogan Page, London.

Samson, J. Radloff, A. 1992  In Writing: A Guide to Writing Effectively at the Tertiary Level, Curtin University, Perth.

Walvoord, B. 1982 Helping Students Write Well, The Modern Language Association of America, New York.