A while back, I read a research article that really hit home with me. I have been searching for this article now but can’t seem to find it. When I do, I will link it. Until then, I will describe it, why I remember it, and what is so important about it.
This study was not done by a major player in the field of writing research, that I remember. In fact, I believe it was a probably not even considered an overly influential study. I found it fascinating for a few reasons. One, I have wanted to do something like it because of a job I have held now since 2002. Two, it justified my own thoughts about my experience with writers and that job.
Now to the specifics.
The research article looked at timed writing samples and compared the style of writing done on it with the score received. Style may not be the correct word, but the research was looking at how students scored and if they used some kind of writing shell or formula, like a 4 or 5 paragraph essay with a 2-3 point thesis. Writing shells are very common in timed writing exams, especially by students outside the U.S. whose first language isn’t English.
After coding thousands of papers in this way, the results indicated that the students with the higher scores often did not use any type of formulaic writing. However, the students with the lowest scores also did not use any type of formula or shells. The students in the middle used formula type writing. The author indicated that better writers do not need formulas but that poor writers could benefit from using a formula.
I found this article very interesting because it is exactly what I have seen in my many years of scoring essays online. I have been doing this now since 2002, and cannot even begin to guess how many essays I have scored over the years. I can average roughly 120 essays in an 8 hour shift. Sometimes more.
As a researcher, I would never be able to say something like - yes that was my experience. Research likes to look at the bigger picture. My experience is merely that, just my experience. However, as a writing teacher, blogger, and now research exposer, I’m coming out of the lab and saying - yup that is exactly what I have noticed about timed writing as well.
Good writers do not need a shell nor do they need to resort to formulaic writing. The good writers are the ones that score highly on these exams. Some may use a 4 or 5 paragraph structure but content in the essays is stronger than that normally seen in essays that stick to a strong formula. Poor writers, those that score low, often have no structure at all, as well as very limited development. Those that rely on a shell sometimes do not know what to put between the parts of the shell that they know.
Most of the middle range essays are very traditional 4 or 5 paragraph essays. When I teach, I call them grocery lists because to me that is what they read like. For example, if the prompt asked if all politicians were corrupt. The grocery lists agree or disagree and then list the reasons followed by some development. However, for timed writing, that’s not a bad place to be. It means you pass, and for some, that’s all that matters.
What does this mean for my teaching?
It might mean that you may want to take the time to teach a shell or formula to students that seem to struggle with writing. Normally, I do not like to have students rely on formulas but for some, it might be necessary. Good writers realize that writing is not one-size-fits-all. Poor writers need that structure and step by step assurance that they are doing the right thing. It might take the burden off of them enough to work on the content and development more if they don’t have to focus on the organization. Students who struggle with writing just can’t focus on all of those different particulars. Something will have to give.
Writing should help students learn content but if they are too bogged down in how to write then they will never get to the important parts of writing - that is what they can learn by writing about a topic.
No comments:
Post a Comment