ESSAY WRITING CONCEPTIONS, APPROACHES, OUTCOMES A.A.R.E. Conference Newcastle, November, 1994 Darcy Anderson, Richard Walker, Cathrine Neilsen University of Sydney Introduction This project arose out of a need to understand student difficulties with essay writing with the purpose of improving the quality of writing of tertiary students. Essay writing constitutes a major part of the work effort of many tertiary students especially in an era in which cumulative assessment has replaced assessment soley by written examination. As a learning activity essay writing is a demanding task and this has been recognised through a variety of attempts by tertiary staff to assist students in their efforts.While assistance in the more technical aspects such as making a plan and acknowledging sources appropriately can be readily dispensed and understood by most students, it is more difficult to assist students in the substantial tasks of writing reflectively and developing and presenting a convincing argument or viewpoint. These aspects are closely interwoven with a student's conception of an essay, of the nature of learning , the approach taken to the task and the metacognitive skills of the student. Research on the above aspects has established that individual students differ considerably along these dimension (e.g., Marton and Hounsell, 1984). Other researchers have shown that students may have markedly different conceptions of an essay from that of their lecturers and that these conceptions lead to approaches and outcomes that are disappointing to their teachers (Scardamalia and Bereiter, 1982, Biggs, 1988). It has also been found that contextual factors are significant in influencing approaches to particular learning tasks. (Ramsden, 1988) Aims This project aimed to examine relationships between student conceptions of / approaches to essay writing generally and in relation to a specific task and quality of outcomes on an essay assignment. The sample consisted of 16 second year undergraduate students enrolled in a core education course. Students perceived difficulties were also investigated. Theoretical /Research Background Two related strands of research were combined. The first was from recent research from a phenomenographic perspective in which a detailed examination is made of extensive interview data intended to provide a description of key aspects of the learning process. This approach focuses on the perspective of the learner rather than the more traditional perspective of the detached investigator (Marton, 1984). Marton and Saljo (1984) drew attention to two different approaches learners adopt when presented with learning tasks. These were termed surface and deep approaches. The surface approach is associated with rote learning, the memorisation of unconnected facts to be reproduced on a subsequent occasion such as for an exam. The deep approach involves an intention to make sense of material, to gain understanding and to integrate ideas. These aspects have been investigated in some detail in the last decade (Marton, 1988., Prosser and Trigwell, 1991). The second strand is from Biggs and Collis (1982, 1988), who developed a tool for the analysis of the levels of thinking displayed in a student's responses to learning tasks in terms of the structural complexity of the response. The Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome (SOLO), is a taxonomy developed by these researchers using a Neo- Piagetian perspective which was used in this project as a measure of quality of outcome.In the SOLO taxonomy these outcomes range from unistructural and multistructural at a lower level of abstraction and complexity, both associated with surface approaches, to relational and extended abstract responses at a higher level. The latter are associated with deep approaches to the task. Biggs(1988) presented a model in which parallels were suggested between the well established distinction between surface and deep approaches to learning in general and to the task of essay writing. As with learning tasks in other contexts, conceptions of the task of essay writing are claimed to influence approaches to the task, which in turn help to determine the quality of the outcome. Bigg's suggests deep approaches show a strong awareness of the underlying structure of the essay or the genre implicit in the question. He also suggests a parallel between actual outcomes on the SOLO and the discourse structure envisaged at the planning stage (Biggs,1988, p197). Researchers have also utilised the SOLO taxonomy in research on the relationship between approaches to learning and quality of outcomes at the course level (Prosser, and Trigwell, 1991), while most recently phenomenographic research and systemic linguistics perspectives were combined in a study relating the process and products of essay writing at the undergraduate level (Prosser and Webb,1994). In the latter study one of the findings was that there was a very close relationship between conception and approach with surface approaches associated with multistructural outcomes and deep approaches associated with relational outcomes as has been found in other kinds of learning tasks (Prosser and Webb,1994, p128). Specific Objectives More specifically, the objectives of the project were to: 1.assess student conceptions of an essay set within a secondyear Education course and their approaches to the task 2. ascertain student perceptions of their completed essays 3. judge the quality of the responses to the essay tasks using the SOLO taxonomy as a measure of outcome 5. compare markers' grades with the SOLO ratings 6. analyse relationships amongst the above variables 7. identify any other factors of interest from the available data. Methodology For the first part of the project, a combination of phenomenographical and semi structured interview approaches was utilised. The phenomenographical approach focuses directly on the student's experience of learning. Researchers using this perspective highlight the importance of examining the studentÕs viewpoint in understanding the nature of learning. Procedure The data was obtained following completion of a 2,000 word essay in a core course in Educational Psychology by second year students. The essay topics chosen by the participants were: TI ÒDiscuss the constructivist approach to learning and evaluate the implications ofthis approach for classroom teaching.Ó T2 ÒCompare and contrast psychometric and constructivist approaches to intelligence. In your answer give particular emphasis to the role of knowledge in intellectual functioning.Ó T3ÓOutline the attributional approach to achievement motivation. To what extent does the relevant research support the view that attribution interventions may enhance student achievement? Ò The sample was obtained from volunteers who were offered a small monetary incentive for their time after the marked essays were returned. Thirty minute interview sessions were conducted with each of the 16 participants, based on open ended questioning techniques intended to provide a detailed picture of the individual student's perception of and approach to the task of essay writing. The interview schedule included 10 key questions intended to elicit responses relating to particular aspects such as conceptions of the task, approaches to writing the essay, and difficulties and perceptions of influences on approach. Where appropriate, follow up questions were utilised to probe responses. It was envisaged that this semi structured approach would facilitate the analysis of the responses in terms of Bigg's framework of approaches and outcomes while retaining flexibility to incorporate other aspects of students' thinking in relation to the task. The interviews were tape recorded, transcribed and analysed. This part of the analysis involved describing and identifying the conceptions/approaches articulated and then classifying the interview transcripts in terms of the conceptions and approaches identified. In the second part of the project the essay transcripts were categorised according to the SOLO taxonomy. This was done independently by two of the researchers and without reference to the grades assigned by the markers. Agreement was evident in 14/16 ratings (88% inter rater consistency). Comparisons were then made between the level of abstractness and complexity of the essays on the SOLO criterion and the actual grades assigned by the markers. Other aspects arising from the content analysis of the interview transcripts were also noted. Table 1 Interview schedule Question 1. Generally speaking, what do you understand by essay writing in your university courses? What do you try to do when you write an essay set in a university course ? Question 2. When lecturers set essay assignments do you think they have common expectations about what they want you to do?If so, what do you think your lecturers expect of you in providing a response to an essay topic? Question 3. Which topic did you choose for the course 2002, The Psychology of Teaching and Learning? What did you set out to do in responding to this topic? Describe your approach to writing this particular essay. What do you think the lecturers in this course wanted students to do in writing this essay. Question 4. Did your approach to this essay writing task differ significantly from your approach to essays written for other courses? If so in what ways? Question 5. What difficulties if any did you experience in writing your essay for this course? Are the difficulties similar or different? Question 6. Aside from the particular topic and the task of essay writing generally are there other factors which influence the way you approach essay writing? Question 7. Were you disappointed with the grade you received on your essay? If so why did you feel this way? Question 8. For you what is the most difficult part of writing an essay for university courses? Question 9. What did you learn from this essay writing task? Question 10. What are your strengths as an essay writer? Results and Discussion 1. Questions one and two were intended to tap students' conceptions of essay writing, their approaches to the particular task and their perceptions of lecturer expectations (refer Table 1). There were three categories of conceptions identified (A,B,C,)both in relation to essay writing generally and in relation to the specific task: A. An essay as information oriented activity; a presentation of factual material based on reading and with some reference to structure and the drawing of conclusions. This conception in terms of the function of the activity did not appear to coincide with the development of an argument or with much reflective activity (2/16 essays). Examples of students responses to questions relating to students conceptions/ approaches are outlined below: ÒI understand that you have got to approach it so you can show what the facts are needed and you can show discussion... like draw your own conclusions from it....Ó ÒI see this as an extended response to the question that they are asking...I do the readings I underline things and go back to read the question again and then go and look at my points and start doing a plan. They are looking for you to answer the question, not to muck around, maybe look for extra references..identify the key points and look for more information on them, then write your essay.Ó B. The essay as reflective writing, without reference to the coherence or integrated nature of the whole. In two cases the essay was aso conceptualised as a means of demonstrating understanding of course material (6/16). ÒIthink they want us... to make sure weÕre not just taking it in and blurting it out that we are really are thinking about it that your essay shows you are really thinking about it and being critical and analysing what they are teaching us.Ó ÒWell basically Itry to answer the question and I think its just a concise way of writing down what you believe the points to be saying and what you understand by the question. Just writing it in a brief like 2000 words and just expressing your own ideas and viewpoints...Ithink that they like you to do lots of research and to get a good understanding of the whole issue of the essay rather than just maybe writing down what some other person has put in their reading and putting quotation marks around it.Ó C. An essay as an integrated argument - analysis, evaluation required supported by evidence and involving reflective activity. The importance of structure to the whole essay is highlighted (8/16 essays). ÒSo generally speaking what do you understand by essay writing? (No response)..What do think an essay is?Ó ÒThat you have showed an argument and that you have supported the argument enough to express what you are saying ...Ó ÒIwould say it is a formal presentation... Like you argue your case and you argue it from the other side as well and you arrive at a conclusion.Ó The above conceptions of essays and the related approaches associated with these conceptions, relate to Biggs' "planned discourse structures" discussed earlier. Category A is similar to a multistructural conception which amounts to a listing of points or ideas without any integration of these into an overall theme or argument. Categories B and C correspond to a relational conception. Most of the respondents indicated they thought lecturers held common expectations for essay assignments and these perceptions tended to be similar to the studentsÕ conceptions of essays as stated in the interviews. In addition, points frequently mentioned included having an adequate structure to the essay (viewed frequently as an introduction, body and a conclusion), showing evidence of preparatory reading and discussing readings. A few students indicated that there were disparities in expectations across different subjects. 2. Other questions were intended to elicit students approaches to this particular essay writing task, their planned discourse structure (multistructural or relational, after Biggs, 1988) and the individual approach to the task. These included Questions three and four (Table 1). Responses to the above included comments in some instances on the meaning of the question, and deciding on an overall approach to the task or planned discourse structure, while in other instances comments were directed to a sequence of activities such as consulting references in the library and making notes from readings. In the former case conceptions tended to parallel approaches in several instances with essays conceptualised as reflective writing or as integrated arguments being associated with approaches that emphasise thinking about what was read and presenting viewpoints. 3. Relationships between conceptions and outcomes Table 2. Student/Topic Conception of this task SOLO Grade 1 T1 Integrated argument Relational/ extended abstract Distinction 2 T1 Integrated argument Relational High distinction 3 T1 Reflective writing Multistructural/ relational Credit 4 T1 Integrated argument Multistructural Pass 5 T1 Integrated argument Multistructural Pass 6 T3 Reflective writing Relational High Distinction 7 T2 Refeclective writing Multistructural/ relational Credit 8 T2 Factual/ structured Multistructural Fail 9 T2 Reflective writing Relational Distinction 10 T3 Reflective writing Relational Credit 11 T3 Factual/ structured Multistructural Pass 12 T3 Reflective writing Multistructural Pass 13 T3 Integrated argument Relational Credit 14 T3 Integrated argument Relational Credit 15 T3 Integrated argument Multistructural Pass 16 T3 Integrated argument Multistructural Pass The table illustrates that the majority of students (14/16) responses reflected what many lecturers would consider adequate conceptions of an essay. In 11/16 cases, the conceptions of the essay task are consistent with the related category of outcome i.e., integrated argument/ reflective writing conceptions associated with outcomes rated "relational" and factual/ structured conceptions associated with outcomes rated "multistructuralÓ (if transitional caes are included). Of interest in this study is the inconsistency in some instances between students' conceptions of an essay and their actual essay performance . In 5/16 instances, cases 4,5,12, 15 and 16, students appeared to articulate adequate views of the nature of an essay and its discourse structure but the associated outcomes were at a lower level (multistructural) than their apparent conceptions indicate. However the approaches to the task were more consistent with the quality of the outcomes on both the SOLO and the grades. A possible explanation for the above incongruence may be that some students are able to reiterate in a concise and seemingly convincing way what their lecturers have told them about the nature of essays without an adequate understanding of what was said. A more likely explanation, however, is the lateness of the studentsÕ efforts to begin the task resulting in surface approaches intended to "get by" in the circumstances. In many instances students indicated that the essay task was commenced only a few days prior to submission. Work pressures from university assignments and part time work obligations were cited as reasons for tardiness. e.g., ÓWell it was a weekend , night before effort and when it got to 2 a.m. in the morning I wasnÕt thinking too clearly, so it could have been a bit better.I had quite good aims in it but I tended to write and not look back to those aims and really think to myself and say what I am meant to be saying about those aims and how I can support them.... I just pretended to talk on them you know. ....If I knew I had an essay due in a monthÕs time and I started it a month beforehand I would write down my own ideas and I would make sure I had an understanding of the question before I started to answer it. Whereas when I am doing it two nights before the essay is due you really donÕt have time to work out your own opinions and things like that and you basically just write what youÕve found in the readings.Ó As previous research has shown, perceptions of being pressured coupled with limited time to meet deadlines, work against deep approaches to learning and the associated extended reflective activity that facilitates deep processing and the personalisation of knowledge ( Biggs ,1988). By contrast, an awareness of the value of giving time to reflective activity is evident in the following comments by a student who received high outcome measures (Participant 9 - see Table 2). "First ponder on the question, divide it up, look and see what you can find, then its a long tour to actually engage in the writing of it. So if I can do a decent job,its usually sitting on the information for a fair while and just thinking about having it there and that's sort of a few days or weeks before I start on the actual essay." Question : "What do you try to do when you are actually writing?" "I know the big idea is a plan .... , I can't do that, filling in an introduction and all that sort of thing ... once you start your idea going, I never start off with an introduction, it's always better straight into it ... you know write the contents, the bulk of it and then by the end I have come to some real conclusion about what I have written so its in the process of writing the actual essay that I come to a decision, then I will go back and adapt it to the decision ..... I think the process of writing is what it's all about." In the above comments an awareness of the value of writing as a means of clarifying one's thinking is also evident. 4. Relationships between SOLO ratings and markers' grades The table below provides a summary of the relationships between the two kinds of outcomes with the numbers of essays within the 2 by 2 table indicated in the cells. Grades High(CR+)Low(P-) Multistructural 0 7 SOLO Ratings Relational 7 2 The above indicates that there were no multistructural essays graded as Credit level or above. Most of the essays rated as relational were graded by markers as Credit level or above. In the case of the two graded at Credit level, the SOLO ratings were transitional Multistructural / Relational indicating that the raters found them harder to categorise. The above table is indicative of a strong degree of agreement between the awarded grade and the SOLO ratings. The proportion of grades at Credit level or above, 9/16, with4/16 at Distinction level, is higher than the proportion awarded across the course as a whole where about 40% - 50% received higher grades. The participants, while including a range of essay writing levels appears to include a disproportionately high number of better essay writers. 5. Other aspects The difficulties listed below were cited by more than one student (related to Question 5 - Table 1): *Getting started *Writing an introduction *Understanding terminology *Selecting relevant material from a mass of content from readings *Integrating content *Developing an argument *Pressures leading to inadequate time being given to task. A significant difficulty experienced by the majority of participants was in formulating an introduction to an essay. Some students appeared to think this was a necessary part of "getting started" while others acknowledged the difficulty but began writing and left this aspect until they were well into the essay, presumably more familiar with the content and better able to develop an argument which could be overviewed in the introduction much later. The difficulties expessed by some students in writing an introduction seemed to be based on the mistaken belief that it is not appropriate to write an introductory paragraph until the overall argument is clear to the writer, a belief not shared by some of the more successful writers. Furthermore some students experienced difficulties in expressing ideas in written form and understanding terminology in readings, particularly journals. The problem of integrating material was often related to the task of developing an argument. Implications and Conclusion The perception of essay writing as a difficult, challenging task appears evident for many students. The provision of assistance through one or two seminars focusing on essay writing in a particular course, though helpful, appears insufficient to meet student needs in this area. Also the practice of providing an opportunity for submission of a preliminary draft for brief comment prior to formal submission does not address the problem of Òeleventh hour Òefforts. As the interview data indicate, this is a major difficulty for many students. The provision of experiences to help students to learn and develop as essay writers over time, seems appropriate. One response utilised by some which addresses this problem is the inclusion of an assessment structure which provides credit for the students completion of an essay plan and a preliminary draft as well as the final product of the process of essay writing.As well as ensuring that all students receive some feedback on preliminary drafts , such an approach highlights essay writing as a process in which reflection and editing at the level of ideas as well as the technical level is considered important. In addition, students may benifit from the provision of a series of essay writing tasks within a particular discipline area which are highly structured initially but more open ended as competence and confidence are attained. As second year students, the participants in this study had already completed several tertiary essays.This may have resulted in a higher frequency of relational type conceptions of essay discourse structure than would have occurred with first year students. Regardless of the validity of this speculation, it appears evident that students who can articulate higher level conceptions of the task do not always adopt approaches or produce essays consistent with their apparent conceptions. Suggestions intended to improve the quality of essays have included making topics clear and unambiguous, allowing for draft submissions with revision and providing clear constructive feedback which acknowledges strengths and points out weaknesses. These are clearly helpful guidelines. The above investigation however, suggests teaching and assessment practices that reduce pressure on students and discourage surface approaches to essay writing tasks are likely to improve the quality of students' essays, as has been found in other areas of learning. REFERENCES Biggs, J. and Collis, K. (1982) Evaluating the quality of learning: the SOLO taxonomy. New York: The Academic Press Biggs, J. (1988)"Approaches to learning and essay writing", in Schmeck,R. (Ed) Learning strategies: learning styles. New York: Plenum. Marton, F. Hounsell, D. and Entwistle,, N.(Eds.) (1984) The experience of learning. Edinburgh: The Scottish Press. Marton, F. and Saljo, R., (1984) ÒApproaches to learningÓ in Marton, F. Hounsell,D., and Entwistle, N. Marton,m F.(1988) ÒDescribing and improving learningÓ in Schmeck,R.(Ed.) Learning stategies:learning styles.New York: Plenum. Prosser, M. and Webb, C. (1994) Relating the process of undergraduate essay writing to the finished product. Studies in higher education . Volume 19, No. 2. Ramsden, P. (Ed) (1988) Improving learning:new perspectives. London: Kogan Page. Scardamalia, M. and Bereiter, C. (1982) ÒTeachability of reflective process in written composition. Assimilative processes in composition planning.Ó Educational psychologist.17, 163 - 171. Trigwell, K.and Prosser, M.(1991) Relating approaches to study and quality of learning outcomes at the course level. British journal of educational psychology., 61, 265 - 275. Van Rossum, E. and Schenk, S. (1984) The relationship between learning conception, study strategy and learning outcomes. British journal of educational psychology. 54, 73 - 83.