Teaching Writing Skills - Case Study Example

Running Head: A critical analysis Of the teaching Of writing A critical analysis of the teaching of writing of the of the institution] A critical analysis of the teaching of writing Introduction Writing skills are socially valuable, and thus educators are naturally tasked with teaching these skills. Teaching writing skills, however, is a difficult endeavour because the cognitive processes underlying writing skills are inherently difficult to measure and therefore improve (Doyle, 1983; Flower & Hayes, 1981; Olson, 1976). By viewing writing as a general problem-solving activity (e.g., articulating and establishing a position on a problem, organizing relevant information, and creating an effectively supported argument), it becomes apparent that insight about teaching writing skills can be gained from cognitive theories about learning (Frederiksen, 1984). The acquisition and integration οf basic technical knowledge with knowledge gained through repeated experiences in a specific task domain is important to expertise development (e.g., Anderson, 1982; Boshuizen & Schmidt, 1992; Riesbeck & Schank, 1989; Schank & Abelson, 1977; Tulving, 1985). Teaching writing skills should therefore include repeated practice in writing within a specific task domain. Educators have adopted writing programs such as Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) and Writing in the Disciplines (WID), in part because they are consistent with this perspective. Instructors in these types οf programs emphasize the importance οf repeated, contextualized experiences for the development οf writing skills (e.g., Herrington, 1981; McLeod & Maimon, 2000; Parks & Goldblatt, 2000; Royster, 1992; Russell, 1992). Researchers have examined the effectiveness οf these programs at a general-program assessment level (see, e.g., White, Lutz, & Kamusikiri, 1996; Witte & Faigley, 1983). However, there is little research on the underlying cognitive theory for these programs (i.e., testing whether repeated practice in writing within a specific task domain actually results in improved writing skills). The purpose οf this study was to provide such evidence. Specifically, we investigated (a) whether repeated practice improves students’ writing skills and (b) after controlling for repeated practice, whether writing within a specific task domain improves students’ writing skills. From a curriculum-design perspective, it is important to distinguish these effects because WAC–WID programs have been implemented based on the belief that repeated, contextualized experiences are helpful in improving students’ writing skills. Our research design allowed us to separately test these effects, which contribute to our understanding οf the extent to which contextual-versus general-writing experiences lead to improved writing skills. As such, through this study we contribute to the larger literature on expertise development in applied settings (e.g., Anderson, 1982; Berninger, Fuller, & Whitaker, 1996; Boshuizen & Schmidt, 1992; Glaser, 1976) and provide evidence about the educational outcomes associated with writing programs. We investigated factors underlying writing-skill improvement in the context οf professional business writing in the field οf accountancy. Contrary to popular belief, accountants’ jobs rely extensively on written communication skills as opposed to mathematical skills (Arthur Andersen & Co. et al., 1989). Administrators and instructors at our institution (University οf Wisconsin—Madison School οf Business) have established a business-school writing program, embedded within a university-wide program, to encourage the development οf writing skills. The business-school writing program was implemented within a business-communications course in which students practice their writing skills using general business-oriented writing exercises. Although the business-communications course is required οf all business-school students, our graduates’ employers reported dissatisfaction with accounting graduates’ writing skills. In response, we developed an Accounting Department writing initiative that requires accounting students to practice their writing skills within a very specific, contextually rich domain. Although accounting students were learning the technical details οf accounting topics, we also required them to write about topics similar to those encountered by professional accountants and to use a professional form (e.g., professional reports and memoranda). Within this educational setting, we had a unique opportunity to test whether repeated writing practice in a specific task domain improves students’ writing skills. We were able to compare (a) writers with different levels οf general experience, (b) writers with differential task-specific writing experiences, and (c) writers in alternative curricular structures, while holding institution-wide features constant. We used a between-subjects field experiment to test whether our Accounting Departments writing initiative affects students’ writing skills. We compared writing skills οf students with varying general-writing experience and varying task-specific writing experience. Our participants were students from one academic institution, which helped to control for between-institution variation usually associated with field-based investigations οf writing skills. Inherent in our design were the strengths and weaknesses associated with a field experiment (e.g., see Kerlinger, 1986; Patel, Groen, & Norman, 1993). This is in contrast to a laboratory experiment, the method often used to investigate cognitive theories οf writing-skill development (e.g., Benton, Corkill, Sharp, Downey, & Khramtsova, 1995; McCutchen, 1986). We acknowledge that our experimental design limits the specificity οf our conclusions, but we think that the “real-world” insight from this study compensates for this limitation. Anderson (1982) developed a theory οf the acquisition οf cognitive skills, providing insight on the process by which writing skills can be improved using repeated practice. According to Anderson, individuals begin developing a cognitive skill by receiving instruction and practicing the skill. In the developmental stage, the focus is on learning about the skill. Through repeated practice, a process called knowledge compilation occurs, which enables the individual to transfer knowledge about the skill into knowledge about how to successfully complete a task involving the skill. Essentially, Anderson stressed the “learning-from-doing” aspect οf skill acquisition. Schneider and Shiffrin (1977) and Shiffrin and Schneider (1977) provided further insight on learning from doing, illustrating that the process οf performing a cognitive skill becomes more automatic (i.e., less effortful) after repeated practice. Other researchers have used these types οf fundamental theories to explore various instructional interventions that might be beneficial in fostering skill development (e.g., Bonner & Walker, 1994; Davis & Solomon, 1989; Doyle, 1983; Frederiksen, 1984; Johnstone & Biggs, 1998; Stone & Shelley, 1997). In addition to repeated practice, researchers studying a variety οf applied contexts have demonstrated that experience in contextually rich, professionally relevant task environments is important to the development οf expertise in performing cognitive skills (Bedard & Chi, 1993; Boshuizen & Schmidt, 1992; Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989; Doyle, 1983; Patel et al., 1993). For example, Boshuizen and Schmidt (1992) characterized expertise development in physicians as a process οf acquiring and integrating basic technical knowledge with experience-based knowledge. They demonstrated that experienced physicians remember their basic technical knowledge within the context οf particular experiences. Thus, it seems important to provide students with meaningful task-specific writing experiences. In a business-writing context, task-specific writing (e.g., a business memorandum summarizing a technical analysis) can be more relevant and engaging to students than general writing (e.g., a term paper). Furthermore, aligning educational writing experiences with professional writing demands may facilitate subsequent recall and application οf writing skills. Repeated, contextualized experiences in the development οf expertise are important across a wide variety οf complex tasks. Flower and Hayes (1981) proposed a cognitive process theory οf writing that is consistent with the research described previously; they linked expertise development specifically to the process οf writing-skill improvement. Flower and Hayes characterized a writing experience as an iterative process involving the writers long-term memory, the task environment, and the actual writing processes. The writers long-term memory includes knowledge οf topic and audience and writing plans developed through prior writing experience. The task environment involves the specific rhetorical problem that a writer encounters (e.g., topic and audience). Writing processes involve planning, translating, reviewing, and monitoring subprocesses. As a writer repeatedly proceeds through this iterative process, his or her writing skills are predicted to improve. Furthermore, the interaction between the writers long-term memory and the task environment is also likely to be important to the improvement οf his or her writing skills. For example, writers whose long-term memory is activated and updated in a rich, meaningful task environment should achieve greater gains in writing skills than writers who practice their skills in a sparse task environment. On the basis οf the evidence we just reviewed, we predicted that (a) repeated practice would be associated with superior writing skills and that (b) after controlling for repeated practice, writing within a specific task domain would be associated with superior writing skills. Main Part As part οf a larger curriculum revision, instructors in the Accounting Department at our university (University οf Wisconsin—Madison School οf Business) implemented a writing initiative within the departments courses. The writing initiative was οf particular interest to our graduates’ employers because the employers felt that accounting students’ writing skills were not adequate. The authors οf the study were the “champions” οf the writing initiative. We directly participated in and supervised the writing initiative because we teach the courses containing the writing initiative. Therefore, we had the ability to closely monitor the experimental treatment. As instructors in the writing initiative, we required students to practice writing in contextually relevant settings. In proceeding through the writing-initiative courses, accounting students completed eight writing assignments over a series οf four courses. The authors developed the assignments and specifically tailored them to the writing initiative. Students gathered information related to the course topic, identified the relevant accounting literature for the topic, and developed a critical analysis οf the issue based on their research when they completed the writing assignments. For each assignment, students prepared a written report containing their analysis (e.g., a memorandum or a professional report). The courses containing the writing initiative began during the first semester οf the students’ junior year οf college and ended after students completed a 3-month professional internship during the last semester οf their senior year. Students were required to assume the role οf accounting professionals in each writing assignment and were required to write as professionals for a professional audience (for additional discussion οf this type οf approach, see Mansfield, 1993). For example, in one assignment, students assumed the role οf accounting consultants writing a report for a client. Writing in a professional context was an integral part οf our departments writing initiative. In addition to supervising the coordinated series οf courses that contained the writing initiative, we also implemented three other important “logistical” elements οf the writing initiative. First, at the beginning οf each course in the writing-initiative sequence, we provided a brief lecture to students emphasizing the importance οf writing in the accounting profession, describing the writing initiative, and detailing the specifics οf the writing assignments and available resources. We believed that this logistic element was important because it gave students a sense οf perspective and purpose regarding the writing initiative. Second, we ensured that the feedback that students received on the eight writing assignments was the result οf a consistent assessment process. Two “graders” evaluated a particular component οf each writing-initiative assignment. One grader was an English or Journalism Department PhD student, and the other was either the course instructor or an Accounting Department PhD student. Grades on the written component οf each assignment reflected students’ appropriate use οf grammatical conventions, organization, and professionalism οf presentation. Grades on the accounting component οf each assignment reflected students’ technical accuracy and the quality οf analysis. Third, we provided students with reference materials that specifically addressed writing in the accounting profession. These materials included an accounting writing reference guide (May & May, 1995) and an Internet Web page tailored to the writing initiative. The Web page contained accounting-specific writing techniques, tutorials on using relevant financial databases, and links to other writing resources on campus. All business students at our institution completed a business communications course during their junior or senior year οf college. Nonaccounting business students at our institution also completed various writing assignments in other nonaccounting courses. However, these assignments were not part οf an integrated writing initiative. Thus, the “package” οf experiences that accounting students received (i.e., the eight realistic writing assignments, a coordinated writing initiative, lectures on the purpose and operation οf the writing initiative, high-quality general and technical feedback on writing assignments, and extensive reference materials) represented a treatment intended to improve accounting students’ writing skills. We used a between-subjects quasi-experimental design to assess whether students’ repeated writing practice was associated with superior writing skills and whether, after controlling for repeated practice, students’ writing within a specific task domain was associated with superior writing skills. In a between-subjects experimental design, two groups οf participants (a treatment group and a comparison group) complete the experiment at a single point in time, and the researcher compares their performances (e.g., Cook & Campbell, 1979). Three groups οf students who were at different points within the accounting curriculum completed a writing-assessment instrument. The first accounting group completed the instrument at the beginning οf their junior year before receiving any writing-initiative treatment (the sophomore treatment group). The second accounting group completed the instrument at the end οf their junior year, after they had completed the writing assignments in Intermediate Financial Accounting I and II (the junior treatment group). The third accounting group completed the instrument at the end οf their senior year, after they had completed the writing assignments in Financial Accounting I and II, Advanced Accounting, and the Accounting Internship course (the senior treatment group). The three comparison groups were composed οf other business majors (e.g., finance, marketing, management, or actuarial science) who completed the writing-assessment instrument at similar points in their respective curricula. The first comparison group completed the instrument at the beginning οf their junior year when they were enrolled in a business law or marketing course (the sophomore comparison group). The second comparison group completed the instrument at the end οf their junior year when they were enrolled in a business law or marketing course (the junior comparison group). The third comparison group completed the instrument at the end οf their senior year when they were enrolled in a business law or marketing course (the senior comparison group). Thus, there were three pairings οf student groups for which comparisons were made. The first pairing included the sophomore treatment group and the sophomore comparison group (notreatment = 1 if the student is enrolled in Intermediate Accounting; 0 otherwise). We expected no differences in the writing-assessment scores for this pair because no treatment occurred for either group. The second pairing included the junior treatment group and the junior comparison group. The students classified as the junior treatment group completed two οf the four courses in the writing initiative, so we expected to observe significantly higher writing-assessment scores for the junior treatment group versus the junior comparison group (Treatment 1 = 1 if the student completed the experimental treatment 1; 0 otherwise). The third pairing included the senior treatment group and the senior comparison group. The students classified as the senior treatment group (Treatment 2) completed all four courses in the writing initiative, so we expected to observe significantly higher writing-assessment scores for the senior treatment group versus the senior comparison group (Treatment 2 = 1 if the student completed the Experimental treatment 2; 0 otherwise). In the analysis following, we use the notreatment, Treatment 1, and Treatment 2 variables to capture the writing-in-context objective οf our writing initiative. To separate the effects οf general-writing practice from writing-in-context practice, we asked students to report the number οf prior writing assignments that they had completed within the business school (buswrite) and in all other university classes (otherwrite). The authors administered the writing-assessment instrument to students during special sessions that lasted approximately 60 min. Students were given extra credit, equal to 2% οf students’ grades across all participating courses and student groups, as an incentive for participating in the study. We developed the writing-assessment instrument so that it contained both direct and indirect tests οf students’ writing skills and ensured that it incorporated important contextual features οf the business environment (see Yancey & Huot, 1997). We required students to write a memorandum describing what it means to be a “business professional” for the direct test οf writing skills. We tailored the structure and topical content οf the direct test to professional writing in a general business context, which was the most appropriate way to conduct a direct test οf contextual-writing proficiency (Haswell & Wyche-Smith, 1994; Huot, 1990; Quellmalz, 1984). Two instructors who teach Developmental Writing in the English Department scored each memorandum, which was devoid οf any student-identifying information. The instructors used an analytic scoring technique to evaluate each memo on a 90-point scale and used examples from a pilot test to synchronize their scoring technique. The instructors identified traits important to high-quality writing in a given context and evaluated the extent to which a given piece οf writing contained the identified traits. We required students to complete 20 multiple-choice questions testing grammar, punctuation, and organization skills for the indirect test οf writing skills. We designed the context οf the questions in the indirect test to be familiar to all business students like we did for the direct test (a three-paragraph passage concerning the economic effects οf a consumer-product shortage). We designed the indirect test so that 55% οf the questions concerned grammatical skills, 25% concerned punctuation skills, and 20% concerned organization skills. We scored the indirect assessment on a 100-point scale. We used the combined scores οf the direct and indirect tests (writeskill; i.e., a total possible score οf 190 points) as the dependent variable in this study. Using a combination οf direct and indirect testing methods balanced the differences between the two methods in terms οf validity, reliability, and cost considerations (Veal & Hudson, 1983). The authors specifically designed the writing-assessment instrument for this study. We developed the experimental instrument with the assistance οf English Department personnel and extensively pilot tested it using 50 students in an upper level accounting course. On the basis οf pilot testing, we revised four οf the original indirect test questions to improve our ability to discriminate between levels οf student performance. Following data collection, we again measured the reliability οf the indirect questions and detected no problems. To make valid comparisons between the treatment and comparison groups, we added variables to statistically control for the impact οf various exogenous factors on students’ writing skills. Variables that we used to control for general cognitive ability and prior writing experiences included cumulative grade-point average, (GPA) university credits (credits), and whether students had taken the business-communications course (buscomm = 1 if the student took Business Communications; 0 otherwise). We also controlled for the fact that our sample was comprised οf students from special populations that could have differential writing skills. Specifically, we included variables for non-U.S. citizens (UScitizen = 1 if the student is a U.S. citizen; 0 otherwise) and students who transferred from other post-secondary institutions (transfer = 1 if the student transferred from another institution; 0 otherwise). We also controlled for student gender (gender = 1 if the student is female; 0 if the student is male) and age (age), because these types οf individual differences have been shown to affect writing skills (Berninger et al., 1996; Berninger & Swanson, 1993). Finally, we controlled for student effort, measured as the number οf minutes spent completing the writing-assessment instrument (time). The mean writing-skill assessment score (writeskill) was higher for accounting students than for other students (120.46 vs. 111.59, overall). This effect was particularly striking when comparing senior accounting students with other students (130.03 vs. 108.75). Importantly, accounting students’ writing scores increased at progressive points in their curricula (115.12 as sophomores, 126.51 as juniors, and 130.03 as seniors), whereas other students’ scores remained approximately equal (114.16 as sophomores, 109.76 as juniors, and 108.75 as seniors). Conclusion We had a unique opportunity to assess the effects οf repeated practice and contextual-writing experiences on college students’ writing skills because οf several features οf our quasi-experiment. First, we had access to a large number οf students with differing levels οf general-writing experience. Because οf the size and composition οf our student population, we were able to conduct a large-scale test οf our predictions on subsamples οf sophomore, junior, and senior business students. Second, we were able to ensure that participants in our study had differing contextual-writing experiences because we controlled the operation οf the writing initiative within our department and because no other department within our business school was conducting such an initiative. References Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition οf cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369–406. Arthur Andersen & Co, Arthur Young, Coopers & Lybrand, Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Ernst & Whinney, Peat Marwick Main & Co, Price Waterhouse, & Touche Rosse. (1989). Perspectives on education: Capabilities for success in the accounting profession. New York: Author. Ashbaugh, H., & Johnstone, K. M. (2000). Developing students technical knowledge and professional skills: A sequence οf short cases in intermediate financial accounting. Issues in Accounting Education, 15, 67–88. Bedard, J., & Chi, M. T. H. (1993). Expertise in auditing. Auditing: A Journal οf Practice & Theory, 12, (Suppl), 21–45. Belsley, D. A., Kuh, E., & Welsch, R. E. (1980). Regression diagnostics identifying influential data and sources οf collinearity. New York: Wiley. Benton, S. L., Corkill, A. J., Sharp, J. M., Downey, R. G., & Khramtsova, I. (1995). Knowledge, interest, and narrative writing. Journal οf Educational Psychology, 87, 66–79. Berninger, V. W., Fuller, F., & Whitaker, D. (1996). A process model οf writing development across the life span. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 193–218. Berninger, V. W., & Swanson, H. L. (1993). Modifying Hayes and Flowers model οf skilled writing to explain beginning and developing writing. In E.Butterfield (Ed.), Childrens writing: Toward a process theory οf the development οf skilled writing (pp. 57–81). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Bonner, S. E., & Walker, P. L. (1994, January). The effects οf instruction and experience on the acquisition οf auditing knowledge. The Accounting Review. pp. 157–178. Boshuizen, H., & Schmidt, H. (1992). On the role οf biomedical knowledge in clinical reasoning by experts. Cognitive Science, 16, 153–184. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989, Jan/Feb).Situated cognition and the culture οf learning. Educational Researcher. pp. 32–42. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft οf reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B.Resnick (Ed.), Knowledge, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor οf Robert Glaser (pp. 1–26). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Davis, J. S., & Solomon, I. (1989). Experience, expertise, and expert-performance research in public accounting. Journal οf Accounting Literature, 8, 150–164. Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review οf Educational Research, 53, 159–199. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory οf writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365–387. Frederiksen, N. (1984). Implications οf cognitive theory for instruction in problem solving. Review οf Educational Research, 54, 363–407. Frischmann, P. J., & Warfield, T. D. (1999). Multiple motivations and effects: The case οf trust preferred stock. Issues in Accounting Education, 14, 269–284. Glaser, R. (1976). Cognitive psychology and instructional design. In D.Klahr (Ed.), Cognition and instruction (pp. 303–316). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Haswell, R., & Wyche-Smith, S. (1994). Adventuring into writing assessment. College Composition and Communication, 45, 220–235. Herrington, A. J. (1981). Writing to learn: Writing across the disciplines. College English, 43, 379–387. Huot, B. (1990). The literature οf direct writing assessment: Major concerns and prevailing trends. Review οf Educational Research, 60, 237–263. Johnstone, K. M., & Biggs, S. F. (1998). Problem-based learning: Introduction, analysis, and accounting curricula implications. Journal οf Accounting Education, 16, 407–427. Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations οf behavioral research (3rd ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Mansfield, M. A. (1993). Real world writing and the English curriculum. College Composition and Communication, 44, 69–83. May, C. B., & May, G. S. (1995). Effective writing: A handbook for accountants (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. McCutchen, D. (1986). Domain knowledge and linguistic knowledge in the development οf writing ability. Journal οf Memory and Language, 25, 431–444. McLeod, S., & Maimon, E. (2000). Clearing the air: WAC myths and realities. College English, 62, 573–583. Myers, R. (1990). Classical and modern regression with applications (2nd ed.). Boston: PWS-Kent. Olson, D. R. (1976). Notes on a cognitive theory οf instruction. In D.Klahr (Ed.), Cognition and instruction (pp. 117–122). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Parks, S., & Goldblatt, E. (2000). Writing beyond the curriculum: Fostering new collaborations in literacy. College English, 62, 584–606. Patel, V. L., Groen, G. J., & Norman, G. R. (1993). Reasoning and instruction in medial curricula. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 335–378. Quellmalz, E. S. (1984). Designing writing assessments: Balancing fairness, utility, and cost. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 6, 63–72. Riesbeck, C., & Schank, R. (1989). Inside case-based reasoning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Royster, J. J. (1992). From practice to theory: Writing across the disciplines at Spelman College. In A.Herrington & C.Moran (Eds.), Writing, teaching, and learning in the disciplines (pp. 119–131). New York: Modern Language Association οf America. Russell, D. R. (1992). American origins οf the writing-across-the-curriculum movement. In A.Herrington & C.Moran (Eds.), Writing, teaching, and learning in the disciplines (pp. 22–46). New York: Modern Language Association οf America. Schank, R., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts plans goals and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1–60. Shiffrin, R., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190. Stone, D. N., & Shelley, M. K. (1997). Educating for accounting expertise: A field study. Journal οf Accounting Research, 35, (Suppl), 35–61. Tulving, E. (1985). How many memory systems are there?American Psychologist, 40, 385–398. Veal, L. R., & Hudson, S. A. (1984). Direct and indirect measures for large-scale evaluation οf writing. Research in the Teaching οf English, 17, 285–296. White, E. M., Lutz, W. D., & Kamusikiri, S. (1996). Assessment οf writing: Politics, policies, and practices. New York: Modern Language Association οf America. Witte, S. P., & Faigley, L. (1983). Evaluating college writing programs. Conference on College Composition and Communication. Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Yancey, K. B., & Huot, B. (1997). Assumptions about assessing WAC programs: Some axioms, some observations, some context. In K. B.Yancey & B.Huot (Eds.), Assessing writing across the curriculum: Diverse approaches and practices (Vol. 1, pp. 1–18). Greenwich, CT: Ablex. Read More