Academic Writing Research

7/30/2019 Academic Writing Research

1/20

The Writing Approaches of University StudentsAuthor(s): Ellen Lavelle and Nancy ZuercherSource: Higher Education, Vol. 42, No. 3 (Oct., 2001), pp. 373-391Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3448002

Accessed: 13/09/2009 16:50

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Springeris collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toHigher Education.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3448002?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springerhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springerhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3448002?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/20

HigherEducation 42: 373-391, 2001. 373? 2001 KluwerAcademic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

The writing approaches of university studentsEFTl N LAVEfT,E1& NANCY ZUERCHER21Department f EducationalLeadership,SouthernIllinois University-Edwardsville, .S.A.(E-mail: [email protected]);2Departmentof English Universityof SouthDakota, U.S.A.

Abstract. Universitystudents'beliefs aboutthemselvesas writers andabout the experienceof learning n writingwere investigatedas related to writingapproachesas measuredby theInventoryof Processes in College Composition(Lavelle 1993). General findings includedsupportfor the deep and surfaceparadigmas well as variation n students'conceptions ofwriting, in their attitudes about themselves as writers, and in their felt need for personalexpression n writing.Implications or instructionand further esearchareincluded.Keywords:interviewmethodology, ertiaryoruniversity earning,writingapproaches,writingbeliefs

IntroductionAlthoughcognitivemodels havefocused on describing he writingprocessesof college studentsin terms of problemsolving (Flower and Hayes 1979),memory (McCutchenson1996), and cognitive development (Bereiter andScardamalia1987; Fitzgeraldand Shanahan2000), writing theoryremainssomewhat imited.One shortcoming nvolves the reductionisticnatureof thetraditionalcognitive perspective,which results in isolating processes suchas planning,translatingand revision (e.g. Flower and Hayes 1979); doingviolence to thenatureof writingas anintegrativeprocess(Luria1981).Alongthe same line, the assumptionthatwriting processes occur in a tidy, linearsequence is questionable. Additionally,the role of writers' intentions andbeliefs as relatedto writing processes has not been a majorconsideration.Writing is the externalizationand remakingof thinking (Applebee 1984;Emig 1977), and to consider writing as separatefrom the intentions andbeliefs of the writer is not to addresscomposition as a reflective tool formakingmeaning.In the area of universitylearning,researchershave describedstudents'approaches o learningas reflective of the relationshipbetween the studentand the task (cf. Biggs 1999; Martonet al. 1997), and the same notion hasbeen applied to college writing (Biggs 1988a, b; Hounsell 1999; Lavelle1993, 1997) and to writing at the graduate evel (Biggs et al. 1999). The


3/20

ELLEN LAVELLEAND NANCY ZUERCHER

emphasisis on variation n how it is that studentsgo aboutmaking meaningin writingto includeconsiderationof writingintentions as relatedto writingstrategies,ratherthan on the acquisitionof skills as independentprocesses(e.g. Hayes and Flower 1980). Here beliefs about the function of writing,andaboutthewritingsituation,are linked to writingprocessesandoutcomes.The primary goal of the presentresearchis to examine university writingapproachesas measuredby the Inventoryof Processes in College Composi-tion (Lavelle 1993) in relation o students'beliefs aboutthe natureof writing,and about themselves as writers, thus extending the writing approachesparadigm.A secondary goal is to use interview data to furthervalidate theInventoryof Processes in College Composition (IPIC). Previous validitystudies (Biggs et al. 1999; Lavelle 1993, 1997) supportedvalidity usingquantitativemethods,but it was felt that the interviewstrategywould offeran additionaldimensionof support.WritingapproachesModels of individual variation n studentlearninghave offered a compre-hensive and sensitive perspective on how it is that students engage inacademic taskssuchas reading(MartonandSaljo 1976), studying(Schmeck1983), and academicwriting(Biggs 1988a, 1988b; Hounsell 1997; Lavelle1993, 1997;ProsserandWebb1994).The assumptionhasbeenthatstudents'beliefs affect their choices of strategies, which, in turn, affect learningoutcomes(cf. VanRossumandSchenk1984).However, heprocessis largelya reciprocalone in writingbecauserevision,as both a reflectiveandbehavi-oral undertaking, learly serves to reshapeboth thinkingand product.Theterm "approach"was originally used by Marton to describe the quality ofstudents' processing, and later the same notion was extended to includeemphasison students' ntentionsasrelated o thequalityof processes(Martonet al. 1997). The basic distinction is between a deep, meaningful approachbasedon seeingthetask as a whole andproactiveengagement n learning,anda surfaceapproachbased on reproduction f informationand memorization.In a psychometricstudy, Biggs (1987) elaboratedthat paradigmto incor-porate motivationalfactors (intrinsic,extrinsic and achievementoriented)as linked to study strategies,and extended it to include the student'slevelof focus (high, low or alternating)as related to the structureof learningoutcome. The approachperspective is dynamic, with learning processesservingas an interfacebetweenthe situationof learning,or teachingcontext,andstudent actorssuch as intentionalityand motivation.Whenthe student'sgoal is just to comply with task demands,the learning activity involves alow level of cognitive engagement (e.g. memorizing or repetition)and asuperficial,linear outcome (listing or organizing),a surface approach.On

374


4/20

WRITINGAPPROACHESOF UNIVERSITYSTUDENTSthe otherhand, when the intentionis to fully engage the task based on aneedto know,the focus is at a higher conceptual evel, gearedtowardmanip-ulating layers of meaning, a deep approach.It is the activity of learningthat affects the quality of the learningoutcome. Thus, approachesare notconsistentpersonaldifferences,as stylisticmodels such as those of KolbandSchmeck(as cited in RaynerandRiding 1997) would suggest, nor are theyentirelydeterminedby context(cf. MartonandSaljoas citedin Biggs 1999).Rather,approaches epresentan interactionbetweenthe learnerand the situ-ationof learningwith strategiesservingas a negotiating ink leadingto taskoutcomes.

Biggs (1988a, b) extendedthe approachparadigm o addressuniversitylevel writing.Drawingon studies of text comprehension e.g. Kirby 1988;MartonandSaljo 1976), Biggs (1988a) articulated Processx Levels frame-work to include considerationof writers' levels of ideation (e.g. thematic,paragraph,sentence, word level, grammatical)as related to processes inwritingalong a deep and surfaceapproachcontinuum.Lavelle then drew onthe approaches o writingmodel to formulate he Inventoryof Processes inCollege Compositionas a measureof writingapproaches.The actor structureof universitywritingWorkingfrom a psychometric perspective,Lavelle (1993) factor analyzedstudents' responses to 119 items reflecting writing strategiesand writingmotives to operationalize he approaches-to-writingramework. tems weredesignedto reflectthe deep and surface continuumas definedin models ofcollege learning(Schmeck 1988; Biggs 1987), as well Bigg's adaptationofthat model to college writing, and Hounsell's (1997) conceptualanalyses.In particular, tems were written to mirrorwriters' intentions,conceptionsof the function of writing, levels of focus, as well as common writingstrategies (outlining,grammar, evision). Writingprocesses had previouslybeen linked to the beliefs of college studentsregardingwriting (Hounsell1997; Ryan 1984; Silva and Nicholls 1993) and to the structureof writingoutcomes(Hounsell 1997; Biggs 1988a,b; Biggs and Collis 1982). Dimen-sions parallelingthe deep and surfacedichotomy had also been identifiedby composition researchersworking with children:reactive and reflective(Graves1973), symbolizersand socializers(Dyson 1987), knowledgetellingv. knowledgetransforming Scardamaliaand Bereiter1982), and, in youngadults,reflexive and extensive(Emig 1971) (AppendixA).Based on thisbroadframework, 12 items weredevisedto reflectthe coretrends n the literature.The inventorywas administeredusinga true and falseresponseformatto 423 undergraduatesnrolled n generaleducationcoursesat a majorMidwestern(USA) university.Based on a scree test and on an

375


5/20

ELLENLAVELLEAND NANCY ZUERCHER

interpretability riterion,the numberof factorswas adjusteddownwardandthenrotated o the varimaxcriterion.Five factors,thoughtto be reflectiveof the writingapproachesof collegestudents,emerged(AppendixB). The first factor"Elaborative"s markedbya search for personal meaning, self-investment,and by viewing writing assymbolic,a deep personal nvestment.The focus is highemployingtools suchas visualization,manipulationof audience andvoice, andextensionorgoingbeyond the bounds of the assignmentin general.The Elaborativeapproachreflectsself-referencing,a strategybasedon using writingas a tool for one'sown learningor bringingoneself to the situationof writing: "Writingmakesme feel good.""Iputa lot of myself in my writing."A similardimensionhadbeendefined n college learning,an Elaborative rocessingstrategy,nvolvingapplyingnew information n a personalmanner(Schmeck et al. 1991), andSilva and Nichols (1993) have subsequentlydefineda similarwritingfactor,"Poeticqualityandpersonal aste."High scoreson theElaborative cale havebeenrelated o thedegreeof personal nvolvement n writinganarrative ssay(Lavelle 1997) but were not predictiveof competence in academic writing(Lavelle 1993).Thesecondfactor"LowSelf-Efficacy"describesa highlyfearfulapproachbased on doubtingabilityandthinkingaboutwritingas a painfultask. It is asthoughstudentsscoringhigh on this scalehavea high degreeof learnedhelp-lessness. These writersappearneedy: "Studyinggrammarand punctuationwould greatly improve my writing.""Havingmy writing evaluated scaresme."Thisapproachevolves aroundpoor writingself-concept,accompanyingperceptions of skill deficits, and little, if any, awareness of the functionof writing as a tool of meaning and of personal expression. The focus islow involving grammarand sentence structure,surface concerns. Collegewritingperformancehas been associatedwithself-efficacy(Meieret al. 1984;Zimmermanand Bandura1994) and self-esteem (Daly and Wilson 1983),and it may be thatself-efficacy providesa criticallink to acquiringskill andmasteringvariousgenres(Lavelleet al. 2001)."Reflective-Revision," he third approach, describes a deep writingprocess based on a sophisticatedunderstandingof revision as a remakingor rebuildingof one's thinking,similarto Silva andNicholls' (1993) logicalreasoning factor.Reflective-Revisionimplies willingness to take charge inwritingto makemeaningfor oneself andfor the audience. The level of focusis high involvingthematic and global concerns,andideationis hierarchical:"Inmy writing, I use some ideas to supportother,largerideas,"similartoHounsell's"essayas argument"onception(1999). Thestrategy s to get it allout in a roughdraft or revisionrather hanto dawdleat the sentence level: "I(do not)completeeach sentenceandrevise it beforegoing onto the next." tis

376


6/20

WRITINGAPPROACHESOF UNIVERSITY STUDENTSas thoughthese studentsadoptthe "sculptor" ather han"engineer" trategy(cf. Biggs et al. 1999). Writingand revision are intertwined n a dynamicprocessgeared owardmakingmeaning:"Revision s finding heshapeof myessay."Reflective-Revisionscale scores predictedhigh gradesin a freshmancompositioncourse(Lavelle 1993).The fourth factor, "Spontaneous-Impulsive,"rofiles an impulsive andunplannedapproach imilarto Biggs' Surface Restrictiveapproach 1988a).TheSpontaneous-Impulsivepproach epresentsoverestimating kill and fearof fully dealingwith whatthe writerperceivesas limitations; heapproachsdefensive. It is as thoughyou just do it and then it is done, "Whenwritingan essay or paper,I just say what I would if I were talking!"The focus is atthe surface evel: "Revision s makingminoralterations,ust touching thingsup.""Inever think abouthow I go aboutwriting."The "Procedural" pproach nvolves a method-driven trategybased onstrictadherence o therules and a minimalamountof involvement,similar oSilva andNichol's methodologicalorientation 1993), Berieter'scommunic-ative (1980), or Bigg's Surface-Elaborative pproach 1998a). Such writersask themselves,"Wherecan I put this information hatI just came across?"The strategy s listing orprovidinga "sequenceof ideas, an orderlyarrange-ment" which is reflective of Hounsell's "essayas arrangement"onception.If writersare unsureof themselves,therules and"arranging"maykeepthemafloat,oras Stafford 1978) says in Writing he AustralianCrawl:But swimmersknow that if they relax on the water,it will prove to bemiraculouslybuoyant:andwritersknowthata succession of little strokeson thematerialnearest hem,withoutanyprejudgments bout hespecificgravityof the topic or reasonablenessof theirexpectations,will resultincreativeprogress.(p. 23)The proceduralapproachreflects wanting to please the teacher rathertheintentionto communicateor reflect.It is as thoughwriting s to be managedandcontrolled oward hatend. Similarapproachesbasedon striving o mani-fest competence have been identified in studying (Biggs 1987; Entwistle1999). Procedural cale scores were predictiveof the complexityof writingoutcomes when writers wrote under a timed condition (Lavelle 1997).Perhapsthe proceduralemphasis on "control" n writing,not allowing foremergent actorssuch as voice andtheme,keepswriterson task as limitedbytime demands.Reflective-Revision and Elaborative represent deep approaches withProcedural,Spontaneous-Impulsiveand Low Self-Efficacy interpretedassurfaceapproaches.Reflective-Revisionrepresentsa deep thinking,analyticcomponent while Elaborativerepresents the more personal and affective

377


7/20

ELLENLAVELLEAND NANCY ZUERCHERdimensionin writingsimilar to Silva andNicholl's aestheticand expressivegoals orientation 1993) (AppendixC).However,Webb(1997) has warned that the binarynotion of "deep"and"surface"may be too crude, noting that some learnersmay take surfaceapproachesfor deep purposes (although that would be predictablegiventhatapproachesare largely modifiablegiven the writing/learning ituation).However, rom a processingperspective, t is useful to think aboutthealtern-ating levels of focus in writing as writersconstantly shift between macroconcerns (theme, voice, audience), and micro concerns (words, sentences,punctuation, ndsyntax (Biggs 1988;Biggs et al. 1999)), although he dicho-tomy may be a bit crude for describingwriters' beliefs or conceptions ofwriting.Writingapproachesare relational in nature and modifiable.Biggs et al.(1999) foundincreasedElaborative cale scores anddecreasedSpontaneous-ImpulsiveandProcedural coresforgraduate tudentswriting n Englishas aSecondlanguagewho were enrolled n a two dayacademicwritingworkshop.Studentsmayuse spontaneouswritingas a tool to get it all started, hen movetowardrefining via genre familiarityand procedures,and hopefully movetowarda deep outcome.Althoughthe originalassumptionwas for consistency amongthe factors,a stylistic perspective, it is possible to interpret he factor scores as eitheran outcomeof a particular eachingenvironmentor as a more stablestudentcharacteristic r trait(Biggs et al. 1999). However,writingis aboutchangeand the assumption that students are driven by personal characteristicsis a dangerous one given the potential impact of instruction. The styleinterpretation"encouragesteachers to take student differences as given"while the approachesperspective"addresses he challenges of teaching",aninstructional antagepoint (Biggs et al. 1999, p. 296).In the present study, we wanted to investigateStudents'experiences ofwriting as reflected in personal interviews, and as related to their writingapproachesas measuredby the IPIC.Queryingstudents as to the natureoftheirwritingexperienceshadpreviouslybeenusedin college writingresearchby Hounsell (1984) to supportconceptionsof the academicessay as relatedto writingstrategiesandessay outcomes,by Biggs (1988b) to furtherdefinewriting approachesin term of level of ideation, and by Entwistle (1994)in investigating the 'knowledge object', an emergent structurereflectingstudents'understandingn preparing orwrittenexaminations.Here the inter-view methodology was used to furtherdifferentiateand expand categoriesof writing processes. Similarly,Prosser and Webb(1994) had interviewedstudentsand supporteddeep and surface approaches n terms of students'conceptionsof academicessay writing,andRyan(1984) linkedepistemolo-

378


8/20

WRITINGAPPROACHESOF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

gical beliefs to college students' definitionsof coherence in writingand towritingoutcomes.Now we soughtstudents'commentson developingknowl-edge as per writing approachesas measuredby the IPIC with the goal ofelaborating he writing approachesparadigm,as well as offeringadditionalvalidity for the writing approachesmodel. In line with earlierresearchonthe role of selfhood in writing (cf. Daly and Wilson 1983; Lavelle 1997;Meier et al. 1984), we also wanted to examine the relationshipof students'personal nterpretations f themselves as writersto theirwriting approachesas measuredby the IPICinventory.We felt thatthe interviewstrategywouldprovidean additionalmethodto support he inventoryandthus lend validity.Inparticular,we hypothesized,basedonLavelle'spsychometric esearch, hatstudentsadoptinga deep approachn writing,as measuredby the Reflective-Revision and Elaborative cales of the IPIC,would be more likely to viewthemselvesas writers,ownwriting,havea morepositivewritingself-concept,and describe the experience of writing as involving learningand changesin thinking.We also suspected that there would be less concern for howmuchtime the writingtasktook amongReflective-Revisionand Elaborativewritersthan among writersscoring high on the surface level scales (LowSelf-Efficacy,Procedural,Spontaneous-Impulsive).

1. MethodSampleThe sample consisted of 30 students enrolled in two freshmancomposi-tion classes at a mediumsized Midwestern(U.S.A.) university.Of the totalseventeenweremale and thirteenwere female.InstrumentationThe Inventoryof Processes in College Composition(previouslydiscussed)is a 74-item scale measuring ive college writingapproaches AppendixB).Reliabilityestimatesfor the scales were consideredacceptable(0.83-0.66),andcontent,concurrent ndpredictivevalidityweresupportedn theoriginaldevelopmentof the scales (Lavelle 1993, 1997).ProceduresThe IPICwas administered uringa regular50-minuteclassperiod.Studentswere instructedto respond on a four-level Likert format on computerizedanswersheets.Participationwas anonymousandvoluntary.Thirteen tudentswere chosen for interviewsbased on high scores on the scales (scores lying

379


9/20

ELLENLAVELLEAND NANCY ZUERCHER

beyond 1 s.d. above the mean). Participantswere not informed as to theirscores so as not to bias theircomments, to add truthvalue (Merriam1988)to the researchprocess. Interviewswere conductedby the researchers n aprivateoffice andtaperecorded ortranscription.InterviewormatA semi-structured nterviewformat,in line with previous writingapproachresearch(e.g. Entwistle and Entwistle 1991; Hounsell 1997; Biggs 1988b),was used to allow maximum opportunitiesfor depth, interpretationandexpansion.Ourstrategywas to alternate everalopen questionswith severalspecific(safe)questions n order oprovidea supportiveramework.Theopenquestionsweregeared o reflectstudents'emergingcommentsregarding heirwriting self-concepts and their experiences of learningin the writing situ-ation. The minorquestions involved students'perceptionof time as relatedto engaging in writing task and writing preferences.Focus on "how longit takes" had been associated with surface learning, and a preferencefornarrativewritinghad been related o the Elaborative pproach Lavelle 1997).However,preferencesfor variousgenres as related to writing processes hasnot largelybeen addressedby researchers.After introducingherself, the interviewer ndividuallyaskedpermissionto taperecordthe interview for transcription ndthenproceededto ask eachstudent he following:1. Who areyou as a writer?2. Whattypes of writingtasks do you prefer?Why?3. Describe your experience of writing. Does your thinking change inwriting?Your nterpretation f the task?4. Are you concernedabout how much time your writingtask takes?

2. ResultsTable 1 shows IPIC Scale means,standarddeviationsandrange,andTable2indicates individualstudents'scores. Interestingly, tudentsscoringhigh onmore thanone scale reflected eitherthe deep or surfacedichotomywith oneexception,Matt,who also scoredhigh on Procedural, surfacescale.Albert Low Self-Efficacy/ProceduralKathy Elaborative/Reflective-RevisionTara ElaborativeBob ProceduralJoe Low Self-Efficacy/ProceduralBarb Elaborative

380


10/20

WRITING PPROACHESFUNIVERSITYTUDENTSTable1. Means andstandard eviations or the IPICscale scores

Scale Mean sd. RangeElaborative 16.3 4.5 8-24Low Self-Efficacy 5.9 2.7 1-10Reflective-Revision 10.5 3.9 4-22Spontaneous-Impulsive 8.8 3.3 2-15Procedural 6.6 2.1 3-10

Table2. studentswithhigh scores on the inventoryof processesin college compositionStudents Elab. L.S.E. R.R. S.I. Pr.Kathy 21 12Carol 14Mary 14Barb 24Joe 9Albert 9 9Bob 10Tara 22Christa 18Jack 22Mike 9Melanie 10 15Matt 21 12 10

Carol Reflective-RevisionMary Spontaneous-ImpulsiveMatt Elaborative/Reflective-Revision/ProceduralMike Low Self-EfficacyCrista Reflective-RevisionMellanie Low Self-Efficacy/Spontaneous-ImpulsiveJack Elaborative

A pervasive trend involved students' awarenessof the role of processin writing as related to their writing approaches.Those scoring high onElaborativeandReflective-Revision,both deep approaches,articulatelyandconsistentlyvoicedprocessasa criticalcomponent, nseparable romproduct.Inparticular, ighElaborative corers inkedprocessto self-expression.Barb,

381


11/20

ELLEN LAVELLEAND NANCY ZUERCHERan Elaborative scorer, stated "... I pick up an idea and start ... the topicmay changeas I go but it's still the way thatI think,it expresseswho I am."Interestingly, ll studentsadoptinga deep approachwerecomfortable n fullyarticulating heirwritingprocesses, and studentsscoring high on any of thesurfacescales (Low Self-Efficacy,Spontaneous-Impulsive nd Procedural),were not similarly nclined.Those students scoring high on both the Elaborativeand Reflective-Revision scales describedwritingas primarilyrelatedto changingone's ownthinkingaboutthetopic,a feeling of satisfactionandwholeness(cf. Entwistle1994). One "Elaborative" elt that often his thinkingchanged so much inwriting that he readily developed ideas for subsequent papers. Matt, whoscored high on the Elaborative,Reflective-Revisionand Proceduralscales,stated,"Sometimes changedirectionandI changeas anindividualbecauseitgives me a newlook, it changes my life."Similarly,Kathy,also anElaborativeandReflective-Revision corer,stated,"Ideasdevelopin writingasI go. I startwith one idea but finishin a differentdirection."Carol,whose approachwasalso Reflective-Revision laimed"My deasaboutwritingchangewhen I lookat what others have written;class evaluationis very important."Althoughneitherdeepnor surfacewritersconsistentlycited classroom revisionorpeercommentsas criticalto theirprocesses,both Reflective-RevisionandElabor-ativeapproachwritersexpresseda willingness to fully engage the topic, andconcernfor an intricatestructure.Writersadopting he Elaborativeapproachmore consistently cited meaning as personally relevant, and spoke to thegenerativenatureof writingand to the impactof writingon theirlives.Along the same line, Elaborativewritersreportedhavinga strongaware-ness or feeling as to the completenessof theircomposition.Tara,an Elabor-ative,stated"It's ikeyourclothes,maybethecolorsorstyle are notright, ts afeeling thatyou get whensomething'smissing."Similarly,Jackdescribedhisprocess,"Ifthe conceptis large, writingsimplifies it. I see the taskchangingandhavea feeling if somethingis missing; it kindaevolves."The awarenessof what's missing has been described as a critical componentof the emer-gent"knowledgeobject"anorganizational tructure f knowledge(Entwistle1994).It is likely thatthis"intuition"s related o theElaborative pproaches'emotionalconnectionto product.Studentsscoring high on Elaborative eemto bringan strongaffectivedimension to theirwriting,one thataffordsthemskill in troubleshooting.Surprisingly, nly two students saw themselves as writers n responsetotheprompt"Who areyou as a writer?"Again, bothscoredhigh on the Elab-orativescale. Jackreported"It'snot easy but I know what I'm doing,"andMattclaimed"I'mconfident,I wear the hat. I feel fineaboutwritingpapers;see myself as a good writer." t is, perhaps hispersonalorientation f seeking

382


12/20

WRITINGAPPROACHESOF UNIVERSITYSTUDENTS

self-expression hat eadsone to developinganidentityas a writer.Jack states"I think of myself as a writer. won't say it comes easy. Writing s forme andif someone else doesn't like it that is theirbag. It's aboutpersonalgrowthoftenthroughreadingandhavinga revelation."Here, a basic distinction may be made between Reflective-Revisionand Elaborativeapproaches nvolving personalrelevance and the role thatself-referenceplays. AlthoughReflective-Revisionapproachemphasizesthesynthesis of information,extensive revision, process awareness, studentsscoring high on the Reflective-Revisionscale did not reporta greatdeal ofconcernfor personalexpressionor for theirpersonalrelationship o writing.Theircommentsweremore factualandconcise, whereasElaboratives eemedmore inclined to "tell the story"of theirwriting.Elaborativesalso referredto their feelings about writing and to personal ownership of their docu-ments more thanReflective-Revisionapproachwriters.Barb stated"Writingexpresses who I am. I like to pick my topic; things that I have experiencewith."She also keeps a journalas does Tara.Tarastated"I feel thatwhat Iwrite s my opinion.I thinkwriting s therapeutic,t calmsyou andhelps yourealizethingsmore,because in yourhead it's a mindrace,andwritingmakesmy own understandingmore clear."Elaboratives' interviews were longerandmorein-depth.OnlyReflective-Revisions pecificallycited makingtheirideas clear to the audience, but it may be that Elaborativestake this forgranted.The validity of the three surface scales (Low Self-efficacy, Procedural,Spontaneous-Impulsive)was confirmedby the interviews. Writersscoringhigh on Low Self-Efficacy reported disliking writing. For example, Mikesaid "I hate writing,I only write if I have to,"andJoe said, in a low almostinaudible one,"IwritebecauseI haveto, Iputmy thoughtsonpaper, t seemsto take a long time."Similarly,Bob, a highProcedural, esponded,"I havenowritingpreference.If thereis a process, it's just prettyunorganized. writestuff down. Writingjust rolls off the top of my head, and then I reorder."Mary,a Spontaneous-Impulsivecorer,commented"Ijust sit down with noplanningand organizea bit after; t usuallytakesme 15 minutes to an hourfrom startto finish."No writersscoring high on the surface scales reportedemphasizingrevision, understandingheir own process, or a need for self-expression.Most spoke in a very low tone andanswered n briefresponses,although he interviewermadeeveryeffort to help them to feel athome. Oneexceptionwas Albert,a Low Self-Efficacy/Procedural riter.Statingthathewrote betterwithoutpressure,he cited his attempt o organizewith the goalof meeting the requirements.He claimed that he had come a long way, andhe was concernedwith how much time his assignmentstook. He preferredwritingby handbut was easily distracted.Alberttook pride in his progress

383


13/20

ELLENLAVELLEAND NANCY ZUERCHERwhich may be a key to helpingbasic writers.His attitudewas fairly positive,andhe was ableto acknowledgehis shortcomings n writing. Self-acceptanceaccompaniedby a certainreliance on the rules may serve to keep surfacewriters "afloat."Similarlya certaindegree of reliance on proceduremay, asStaffordhasarticulated, eep poorwriters"afloat"Stafford1978) asperhapsa criticalsteptowardmaturity n wrinting.

3. DiscussionAlthough our writing approachesmodel is not yet fully crystallized,inter-views with studentwritershave extended the basic frameworkalong severalimportant lines. Generally writers' perceptions of the writing situation(including writing self-concept, and beliefs about the function of compos-ition) emerged as critical process components which serve to supportthebasic deep and surfacecontinuum,and to more fully extend thatparadigmto writing. Most notably,the Reflection Revision approachmay be furtherdistinguished rom the Elaborativeapproach n terms of the former mplyinga morecritical,structural, imension,andthelattera morepersonal,affectivedimension involving a high degree of connection and self-reference andfeeling in writing. It is the writer's relationshipto writing which servesas a defining motivational factor with the Elaborativeapproachlinked tofeeling andwriting self-concept,andthe Reflective-Revisionapproachmorethe detached, analytic, and critical dimension. However, both representaproactivestance aimedatmakingmeaning,awarenessof writingas a learningtool, hierarchical tructureand a high or alternating evel of focus; a deepapproach.Theinterviewdataconfirmed hethree surfaceapproaches.Here,a dislikeand a general fear and avoidance of writing situations was a trendin thecomments of studentsscoring high on the Low Self - Efficacy approach.Similarly,writersscoring highon theProceduralapproach eported mphasison organizationand a concern for how much time writing tasks take, andthose scoring high on the Spontaneous- Impulsive scale, reportinga "getit all out and be done" strategy.None of the surface approachesreflectedawarenessof processas related o outcome,a senseof involvementorfeelingsof completeness,wholeness in writing,nor the experienceof findingoneselfor learning n writing.Thekey to facilitatingwritingat the university evel is found in designinga high quality writingclimate to include deep tasks, emphasis on revisionand meaning, scaffolding, modeling and integratingwriting across contentareas (relevance).While these themes may be familiar, the approaches-to - writing frameworkbrings a new understandingof these tactics. Here

384


14/20

WRITINGAPPROACHESOF UNIVERSITY STUDENTSthe emphasis is on the situationof writing to include focus on the cues,messages, interventionsandartifacts hat arepartof thewritingenvironmentas opposedto a focus on the discreteacquisitionof skills or on thepersistentcharacteristics hatwritersmight bringto the classroom.For example,well-defined tasks that engender deep processes such as analysis, perspectivetaking and self-expressionneed to be well-specified. Along the same line,clear evaluationrubricsshould incorporatedeep criteriasuch as structuralcomplexityto reflectthe dynamicnaturebetween structure ndmeaning(cf.Biggs and Collis 1982). Evaluatingwritingon a pointsystemfosters surfaceapproaches, ndbreakingwriting ntonumerous omponentpartsas commonin many rubrics is not in line with fostering writingas a tool of meaning.Instructors eedto valueperspective aking n writing,or movement n termsof ontological position as reflected in writtenwork. Along the same line,instructorsneed to provide meaningfulfeedback,and to generallymodel adeepreflectiveapproach o instruction hemselves.Perhaps he axiom "Phys-ician heal thyself' is applicablehere. Clearlyour system engenderssurfacelearningwith an abundunceof atomistic,or listing expectations,common intasksand assessments.

Writingacrossthecurriculummayberedefinedas a keyto relevance.Heretasks might be both academic as well as personalto foster both ReflectiveRevision and Elaborativewriting flexibility. For example, in addition toacademic essays, history courses might require journal-writing o reflectstudents'developingparadigms egarding riticaleventsandmovements.In terms of writing instruction, t is important o help writers to gain apositive identity in writing in conjunctionwith acquiring ncreased skills.Studentsneed to be familiarwithhow writingworksas a tool of learningandof self-expressionas well as to findpersonalvoice in expositoryand academictasks.Here, in addition to familiarizingstudentswith a varietyof academicgenres, essays on thenatureof writing,andopportunitiesor students o sharetheirownperspectiveson the role of processcould be important.Thismaybeespeciallycriticalfor those adoptinga Low Self-Efficacyapproach.Spontaneous-Impulsive nd Proceduralapproachesmay representpro-gress at an early stage of writingdevelopment.Indeed, "getting t all out"or free writing s a well respected nstructional acticin composition(Elbow1998), and,as Staffordsays "Relianceon the ruleskeeps you afloat." t is asthough writingis a dialectic between intention and form. Here, combiningthe two strategiesas a beginning step mightadvancewritingskills fornovicewriters, as well as for writers faced with masteringa new genre. Futureresearch houldfully investigate his hypothesis.Theoretical mplicationsdrawnfrom the currentstudyprovidea strongbasis for futureresearch.The present study servedto confirmand elaborate

385


15/20

ELLEN AVELLE NDNANCYZUERCHERthe original model particularly n terms of supportingthe basic deep andsurface paradigm.In particular, he bidimensionalnatureof deep writingprocesses to include bothan affective andcriticaldimensions,meritsfurtherexploration,as does therelationshipof approaches o writing o various ypesof tasks. Tests for cross - culturalvalidity using various studentpopula-tions (e.g. international tudents,community college or vocational trainingstudents,graduate tudents) houldalso be conducted o examine the culturalvalidityof the inventory.Futureresearchplans also include examinationof developmental rendsacross the scale scores both in longitudinaland instructional nvestigations.A preliminary nvestigationhas supported ignificantly ower ProceduralandSpontaneous cale scores,andhigherElaboration cale scoresgivena writingworkshop nterventionat the graduateevel (Biggs et al. 1999).Familiaritywith theapproacheso writingmodelmayhelpteachers o gaina more sensitiveunderstanding f thatprocess.TheInventoryof Processes inCollege Compositionalso providesa tool for students'personalassessmentandreflectionas well as a comprehensivemodel forteachersandresearchers.

Appendix ADeep andsurfacewritingapproachesof university tudents

Deep Writing SurfaceWritingMetacognitive,ReflectiveHigh oralternatingevel of focusHierarchicalorganizationEngagement,self-referencingActively makingmeaning (agentic)Audience concernThinksaboutessay as anintegratedwholeThesis-drivenRevisionTransforming, oing beyondassignmentAutonomousTeacher ndependentFeelings of satisfaction,coherenceand

Connectedness

Redundant, eproductiveFocusatthe local levelLinear,sequentialstructureDetachmentPassiveorderingof dataLess audienceconcernSees essay as anorganizeddisplayData-drivenEditingTellingwithin the given contextRule-boundTeacherdependent

386


16/20

WRITING PPROACHESFUNIVERSITYTUDENTSAppendix BInventoryofprocesses in college composition:samplequestions

FACTOR Elaborative1. Writingmakes me feel good. 0.622. I tend to give a lot of descriptionanddetail. 0.563. I puta lot of myself in writing. 0.544. I use writtenassignmentsas learningexperiences. 0.515. Writinganessay orpaper s makinga new meaning. 0.506. At times, my writinghas given me deep personalsatisfaction. 0.497. Writing s like ajourney. 0.488. It's importanto me to like whatI've written. 0.479. I think abouthow I come acrossin my writing. 0.45

10. I often think aboutmy essay whenI'm not writing(e.g. late atnight). 0.4411. I sometimesget sudden nspirationsn writing. 0.4312. Writinghelpsme organize nformation n my mind. 0.4213. I cue thereaderby giving a hint of what's to come. 0.4114. I oftenuse analogyandmetaphorn my writing. 0.4115. I imaginethe reactionthatmy readersmighthave to my paper. 0.4016. Whenwritinga paper,I oftenget ideas for otherpapers. 0.3817. I compareand contrast deas to makemy writingclear. 0.3818. I visualizewhat I'm writingabout. 0.3719. Writingremindsme of otherthingsthatI do. 0.3620. Writing s symbolic. 0.3521. Originality n writing s highly important. 0.3322. I tryto entertain,nformorimpressmy audience. 0.3323. I use a lot of definitionsandexamplesto makethingsclear. 0.31FACTOR ILow Self-efficacy

1. I can writea termpaper. -0.542. Writinganessay orpaper s alwaysa slow process. 0.523. Studyinggrammar ndpunctuationwouldgreatly mprovemy writing. 0.474. Havingmy writingevaluatedscares me. 0.415. I expect good gradeson essays andpapers. -0.416. I need specialencouragemento do my best writing. 0.397. I do well on essay tests. -0.388. I can write simple,compoundandcomplex sentences. -0.379. My writingrarelyexpresseswhatI really think. 0.36

10. I like to work n small groupsto discuss ideas or to do revisionin writing. 0.35

387


17/20

388 ELLENLAVELLENDNANCYZUERCHER11. Themost important hingin writing s observingthe rulesof

grammar, unctuationandorganization. 0.3512. I often do writtenassignmentsat the lastminuteand

still get a good grade. -0.3313. I can'trevisemy own writingbecauseI can't see my own mistakes. 0.2914. If the assignmentcalls for 1000 words,I tryto write ust about

thatmany. 0.26FACTOR mReflective-Revision

1. I re-examineandrestatemy thoughts n revision. 0.522. There s one best way to write a writtenassignment. -0.453. I completeeach sentence andrevise it beforegoing onto

the next. -0.414. Thereasonfor writingan essay reallydoesn'tmatter o me. -0.395. Oftenmy first draft s my finishedproduct. -0.396. Revision is a one time processat the end. -0.397. Whengiven an assignmentcallingfor an argumentorviewpoint,I immediatelyknow which side I'll take. -0.398. My prewritingnotes arealwaysa mess. 0.369. I planoutmy writingandstick to theplan. -0.35

10. In my writing,I use some ideas to supportother, arger deas. 0.3311. It's important o me to like whatI've written. 0.3312. Revision is theprocessof findingthe shapeof my writing. 0.3513. The questiondictates the type of essay calledfor. 0.31FACTOR V Spontaneous-Impulsive

1. My writing'just happens'with littleplanningorpreparation. 0.512. I oftendo writtenassignmentsat the lastminuteand stillget a good grade. 0.47

3. I never thinkabout how I go aboutwriting. 0.454. Oftenmy first draft s my finishedproduct. 0.455. I usuallywriteseveralparagraphs eforerereading. 0.426. I just write 'off the top of my head' and thengo back andrework

the whole thing. 0.417. I startwitha fairlydetailed outline. -0.408. I plan,writeandrevise all the same time. 0.379. I ammy own audience. 0.30

10. WhenI begin to write,I have only a vagueidea of how myessay wouldcome out. 0.34


18/20

WRITING PPROACHESFUNIVERSITYTUDENTS11. Revisionis makingminoralterations just touching things

up andrewording. 0.3412. I can't revisemy ownwritingbecauseI can't see my own mistakes. 0.3313. Whenwritinganessay orpaper,I just writeoutwhatI would say

if I weretalking. 0.3214. Revisionis a one timeprocessat the end. 0.3115. I set asidespecific timeto do writtenassignments. -0.29FACTORV Procedural

1. Whenwritinganessay,I stick to therules. 0.542. I closely examine whatthe essay calls for. 0.523. I keepmy themeortopic clearlyin mindas I write. 0.434. I canusuallyfindone mainsentence that tells the theme

of my essay. 0.415. The teacher s the mostimportantaudience. 0.406. I like writtenassignments o be well-specifiedwith

detailsincluded. 0.347. My intention n writingpapersoressays is just to answer

the question. 0.338. The mainreasonforwritinganessay orpaper s to get a

good gradeon it. 0.319. An essay is primarilya sequenceof ideas, anorderlyarrangement. 0.2910. I worryabouthow muchtimemy essay orpaperwill take. 0.28

Appendix CApproaches to Writing

Approach Motive StrategyElaborativevoice To self-express Visualization,audience.Low Self-Efficacy Toacquireskills/avoid Studygrammar, ollaborate,

pain findencouragement.Reflective-Revision To makemeaning Revision,reshaping,drafting.Spontaneous-Impulsive Toget done Lastminute,no planningor

Revision,just like talking.Procedural Pleasethe teacher Observerules,organizeand

managewriting.

389


19/20

390 ELLENLAVELLE NDNANCYZUERCHERReferencesApplebee,A.N. (1984). 'Writingand reasoning',Reviewof EducationalResearch54, 577-

596.Bereiter,C. and Scardamalia,M. (1987). ThePsychologyof WrittenComposition.Hillsdale:LawrenceErlbaum.Biggs, J.B. (1987). StudentApproachesToLearningand Studying.Melbourne:Council ofEducationalResearch.Biggs, J.B. (1988a). 'Approachesto learning and essay writing', in Schmeck, R.R. (ed.),LearningStrategiesand learningStyles.New York:Plenum.Biggs, J.B. (1988b). 'Student approachesto essay-writingand the quality of the writtenproduct'.New Orleans,LA: AmericanEducationalResearch Association. (ERICDocu-mentReproductionService No. ED 293 145).Biggs, J.B. (1999). TeachingForQualityLearningAt University.BalmoorBuckingham,UK:

Open UniversityPress.Biggs, J.B andCollis, K. (1982). 'Thepsychological structure f creativewriting',AustralianJournalof Education26, 59-70.Biggs, J.B., Lai, P., Tang,C. andLavelle, E. (1999). 'The effects of a writingworkshopongraduate tudentswriting n Englishas a secondlanguage',BritishJournalof EducationalPsychology69, 293-306.Daly, J.A. and Wilson, D.A. (1983). 'Writingapprehension,self-esteem and personality',Research n the Teachingof English 17, 327-342.Elbow,P.(1998). WritingWithPower. New York:OxfordUniversityPress.Emig,J. (1971). TheComposingProcesses of TwelfthGraders.Urbana, L:National Councilof Teachersof English.Emig, J. (1977). 'Writingas a mode of learning', College Compositionand Communication28, 122-128.Entwistle,N.J. (1979). 'Motivation,styles of learningandthe academicenvironment'. ERICDocumentReproductionService No. ED 190 636).Entwistle,N. (1994). 'Experiencesof understanding ndstrategic tudying'.(ERICDocumentReproductionService No. ED 374 704).Entwistle, N. and Entwistle, A. (1991). 'Contrastingforms of understanding or degreeexaminations: The student experience and its implications', Higher Education 22(*),205-227.Dyson, A.H. (1987). 'IndividualdifferencesI beginningcomposing', WrittenCommunication4,411-442.Fitzgerald,J. andShanahan,T.(2000). 'Readingandwritingrelationsand theirdevelopment',EducationalPsychologist35, 39-50.Flower,L. andHayes, J.R. (1979). 'A cognitiveprocesstheoryof writing',College Composi-tion and Communication 7, 365-377.Good,T. andBrophyJ. (1990). LookingIn Classrooms.New York:HarperCollins.Hayes,J. andFlower,L. (1980). 'Identifying he organizationof writingprocesses', in GreggandE. Steinberg eds.), CognitiveProcesses In Writing.Hillsdale, NJ;LawrenceErlbaumAssociates Inc.Graves,D. (1973). 'An examination of the writing processes of seven year-old children',Research n the Teachingof English9, 227-241.Hounsell,D. (1997). 'Learningandessay-writing',in Marton,F.,Hounsell D. andEntwistle,

N. (eds.), TheExperienceof Learing. Edinburg:ScottishAcademicPress,pp. 106-125.


20/20

WRITING PPROACHESFUNIVERSITYTUDENTSLavelle,E (1993). 'Developmentand validationof aninventory o assess processesin collegecomposition',BritishJournalof EducationalPsychology63, 489-499.Lavelle, E. (1997). 'Writingstyle and the narrativeessay', British Journal of Educational

Psychology67, pp.475-482.Lavelle, E., Smith, J. and O'Ryan, L.W. (2001). 'The writing approachesof secondarystudents'.Manuscriptn progress orBritish Journalof EducationalPsychology.Luria,A.R. (1981). Languageand Cognition.New York:Wiley.Marton,F. andSaljo,R. (1976). 'Onqualitativedifferences n learning. I:Outcomeas a func-tion of the learner'sconceptionof the task', British Journal of EducationalPsychology46, 115-127.Marton,E, Hounsell, D. and Entwistle, N. (1997). The Experience of Learning (2ed.).Edinburgh: cottish Academic Press.McCutchen,D. (1996). 'A capacity theory of writing: Workingmemory in composition',EducationalPsychologyReview8, 299-325.Meier, S., McCarthy,P.andSchmeck,R.R. (1984). 'Validityof self-efficacyas apredictorofwritingperformance',CognitiveTherapyandResearch8, 107-120.Merriam,S.B. (1988). Case StudyResearchIn Education. San Francisco:Josey-Bass.Prosser,M. andWebb,C. (1994). 'Relating heprocessof undergraduatessay writingto thefinishedproduct',Studiesin HigherEducation19, 125-138.Rayner,S. andRiding,R. (1997). 'Towardsa categorizationof cognitive styles andlearningstyles', EducationalPsychology,5-27.Ryan,M. (1984). 'Conceptionsof prosecoherence:Individualdifferences n epistemologicalstandards', ournalof EducationalPsychology76, 1226-1238.Scardamalia,M. and Bereiter,C. (1982). 'Assimilatedprocesses in composition planning',EducationalPsychologist17, 10-24.Schmeck,R.R. (1983). 'Learning tyles of college students', n Dillon, R. andSchmeck,R.R.(eds.), IndividualDifferencesIn Cognition.New York:AcademicPress.Schmeck,R.R. (1988). LearningStrategiesand LearningStyles.New York:Plenum.Schmeck,R.R., Geisler-Brenstein,E. andCercy,S.P. (1991). 'Self-conceptandlearning:Therevised nventoryof learningprocesses',EducationalPsychology 11, 343-362.Silva,T.andNicholls,J. (1993). 'Collegestudentsaswriting heorists:Goalsandbeliefs aboutthe causes of success', ContemporaryEducationalPsychology 18, 281-293.Stafford, W. (1978). Writingthe Australian Crawl. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of

MichiganPress.VanRossum,E.J. and Schenk,S.M. (1984). 'The relationshipbetween learningconception,study strategyandlearningoutcome',BritishJournalof EducationalPsychology54, 73-83.Zimmerman,B.J. andBandura,A. (1994). 'Impactof self-regulatory nfluences on writingcourseattainment',AmericanEducationalResearchJournal31, 845-862.

391

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	mary-elizabethclinton
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Academic Writing Research

Documents