Design, Genres, and Culture in Writing

I'm currently trying to work out some ideas that have come out of my dissertation analysis. These are still just the seeds of ideas. However, I am hoping by writing this post that I will be able to flesh out some of these ideas.

Current Writing Theory: Genres

In the current theory put forth by Gee and his colleagues, the design of writing is based on a form called genre. These genres are acceptable formats created by a discourse community which help to represent the communication structure, values, and knowledge contained within a discourse community.

Gee advocates teaching the genres, especially to those that are outside of the mainstream discourse communities (cultural minorities, those in the lower classes, marginalized groups within a society). This allows those outside of the mainstream to access the skills they will need to communicate within the mainstream. Since the genres are tied to the culture of the mainstream, it is also necessary to teach the genres in the context of the cultural values and discourse rules for that culture. Once those outside of the culture, understand the culture and are part of the mainstream discourse community, they can begin to change and influence the culture to include more features of the minority community. However, without this knowledge of the mainstream genres, those excluded from the mainstream will remain outside of it.

At the base of this theory is the culture, which influences genres (a reflection of the discourse within the community) and design of writing.

Critical Pedagogy

Critical Pedagogy is similar in recognizing the power of writing and literacy to the access and change of power structures within cultures. However, there are some differences in approach.

Freire advocated the teaching of literacy as a way to access the power structures within a culture. According to Freire, literacy helped to open up the underpinnings of a culture and social system, thus empowering those who were oppressed to change the culture and society.

Like genre theory, critical pedagogy begins with the culture. Writing allows access to the culture and discourse communities, but then critical pedagogy advocates the negotiation of meaning. Writing is a tool for that negotiation and access to understanding. Accessible written formats are imposed by those in power to suppress those outside of the power structure. So to understand how the power structure works and change culture, it is important to learn to write and use this tool to make changes to the culture. Design of writing, again, will come out of the culture and discourse communities.


Process approach to writing

Flower and Hayes studies identified the importance of the process in writing. While the format might be established, it was important for children to learn what was behind the format. In other words, the design of writing was based on a process that inserts information into a standard form. The focus would not be on the finished product or even the form, but rather the process of creating the finished product. Design of the writing would be design of the process. The process would be culturally bound, with the negotiation of meaning as students go through the writing process.

Extending this into the work place, the process approach would focus on HOW collaborative writing would take place, rather than what the form will look like. However, it is assumed that the format will not be as important as the process of writing. In fact, by putting process before form, it is assumed that the format will be assumed and agreed upon in the beginning.

A new way of looking at writing

So, what would happen if design came first? One impact that technology has had on writing is that it does not necessarily have to conform to a strict standardized format. Also, there is much greater written dialogue between and within discourse communities. In the past, discourse communities would be more isolated, and as a result, their formats would have less outside influences. Mainstream discourse communities would be heavily influenced by schooling, organizational cultures, and/or mass media. However, today, electronic tools allow people to belong to multiple discourse communities and for each community to continually change at a much faster pace than they did previous.

If we look at design as placement of writing rather than categories of writing, then how would that impact collaborative workplace writing? Buchanan (1992) describes placement of design as:

“Placements have boundaries to shape and constrain meaning, but are not rigidly fixed and determinate. The boundary of a placement gives a context or orientation to thinking, but the application to a specific situation can generate a new perception of that situation and, hence, a new possibility to be tested. Therefore, placements are sources of new ideas and possibilities when applied to problems in concrete circumstances (p. 13).”

The implications of this is that there might be more flexibility in the design of writing which could lead to more creativity and knowledge creation in the workplace. However, it could also mean more impact on the organizational culture.

With the advent of new technology, and greater access to diverse discourse communities, starting with the "design" of writing could also be threatening to the organizational culture, group members, and workplace processes. I think of the current complaints, for example, from the media, "experts", and the general population about the "poor writing skills" of the current generation of university students. However, is it perhaps a difference in discourse? Values reflected in the forms and formats chosen to be used in a given context? Or a threat to the power structures by engaging in discourse communities outside of the status quo?

Although it is outside of the scope of my current dissertation, I think it is important to look at what the potential for new designs that technology has generated has impacted or will impact culture. One way to look at this is to look at how other writing technologies (i.e. printing press, typewriter, ball point pen, pencils) have changed the design (placement) of writing in the past and the impact this had on culture, formats/genres, and power structures/discourse communities.

More importantly, my current dissertation is leading me into a new way to envision collaborative writing from past writing research. If we begin with a design or placement of writing which creates formats based on knowledge placement, which can then be used to engage discourse among and between communities (within departments, professions, the organization, and/or stakeholders), will we be able to change cultures, have a better understanding of the culture and/or power structures, and better harness workers' creativity, critical thinking skills, and/or knowledge? It seems to me also that by beginning with design rather than format or culture, there is a more dynamic model of collaborative writing. Not only will the organization be able to react to new influences from a diverse workforce, but they will also be able to establish a shared vision through collaborative design of writing and formats within the workplace. Both the organization and individual and group forces within the organization will have an impact on the organizational culture through the process of co-creation (co-design) of document formats and final written products using those formats.

Types of Writers

As I mentioned before, I am busy transcribing interviews for my dissertation and correcting papers. However, I thought I would upload another part of the paper I wrote with my colleague, Marilyn Easter, a couple of years ago for the AERA conference. This section defines different types of writers that can be found in the college classroom. This is different than the workplace writer. However, I think I will need to start to define the different types of workplace writers for dissertation, so hopefully I'll have those profiles by the end of the year!

The Students

Unlike the universities of the last century, today’s colleges are filled with a diverse population. This diversity includes differing socio-economic levels, ethnicity and languages, life-styles and experience, educational background, with an ever growing representation from communities that were not traditionally represented in the past (Lay, Carro, Tien, Niemann, & Leong, 1999). With this diversity comes a more dynamic learning environment that can present both opportunities and challenges in the professional writing classroom.

In order to understand the professional writing skills of this diverse population, we looked at research for teaching writing at the secondary, tertiary, and professional levels from the fields of composition, business communication, and second language learning. We looked at the three levels of education in order to get an idea of the challenges for the students as they transition from the various levels (high school to college to the workplace), each requiring different types of writing (Berkenkotter & Huckin, 1995; Dias et al. 1999; Harklau, Siegal, & Losey, 1999; Lay et al. 1999; Paltridge, 2004; Rogers & Rymer, 2001; Selber, 2004; Valdés, 1991). The field of composition addresses the academic writing needs for these students, while the field of business communication addresses the professional writing needs. Additionally, in the last two decades, our colleges and universities have seen a growth in non-native, non-standard, or bilingual English speakers resulting in unique challenges for writing instruction (Chiang & Schmida, 1999; Harklau et al. 1999; Myles, 2002; Lay et al.; Syrquin, 2006; Valdés).
In reviewing the literature, four categories of writers emerge: the non-native writer, the poor (or non-proficient) writer; the poorly prepared student; and the good (or proficient) writer. Each group approaches the writing task differently and has a unique skill set that they bring to the classroom. These skills can provide both learning opportunities and unique challenges.

The Non-Native Writer

The literature on the non-native writer can be divided into three categories: international students of English, ESL, and, more recently, minority language speakers. It is important to define each of these labels since the needs and experiences of each group differ, creating different challenges in teaching writing for its members (Harklau et al. 1999; Valdés , 1991).

There are two reasons for students outside of English speaking countries to study the language: the first is for academic purposes and the second is for practical purposes (Myles, 2002; Valdés , 1991). English may be used as the currency for further study outside of the country, access to higher education within the country, or demonstration of academic ability. As a result, the focus on English language study is on the written language for academic purposes. The goal of instruction in English to students outside of English-speaking countries, therefore, often is to minimize syntactic and grammatical mistakes (Artemeva, 1998; Hartman & Tarone, 1999; Sengupta, & Falvey, 1998; Myles; Valdés).

International students motivated by practical purposes, on the other hand, are interested in learning specific genres for limited purposes. Often they learn English as a requirement for official business (when English is the governmental or official second language) or to participate in the global economy (Valdés, 1991). Written communication may be limited to informal e-mail correspondence or a very formal official genre (Ngeow et al. 2003; Valdés). Outside of specific situations in which they have been trained, these non-native speakers have very little need for written English.

Because international students have limited or no access to native-speaking English discourse communities, they often lack the cultural background that allows them to write as a native speaker. A member of a discourse community develops the rhetoric, lexicon, genres, registers, and interactive rules (both written and spoken) that is gained through socialization in that community (Paltridge). Since discourse is a dynamic social process, the rules and structure are both created by and influence the individual members. The current focus on syntax and grammar and the minimization of error by foreign language instructors does not prepare students to participate in these communities thus affecting their writing ability in English (Hanna & de Nooy, 2003; Hartman & Tarone, 1999; Valdés, 1991).

In addition, those that have had some exposure to an English discourse community may be limited by that community’s writing conventions. British English, American English, Australian English, and the dialects of former British colonies such as Jamaica and India may have subtle differences that are not picked up by the non-native speaker. On the other hand, bilingual or non-standard English speakers may consciously use those subtle differences to situate themselves as part of a particular discourse community (Chiang & Schmida, 1999; Ngeow et al. 2003; Syrquin, 2006; Valdés, 1999; Villalva, 2006).

A growing body of work distinguishes the international student, educated and learning English outside of an English-speaking country and the bilingual, minority language, or non-standard language speaker who has learned the language within an English speaking environment and had some formal education in an English-speaking country (Harklau et al. 1999; Valdés, 1999). Unlike the international student, bilingual or language minority students are not necessarily literate in a second language. At the same time, they have learned English within an English speaking discourse community (i.e. school). These students are often placed in ESL classes initially (if they have no or limited proficiency in English) that augment content and skills development. They are, then, moved into mainstream classes with little or no support in learning standard English or writing skills. Because they come from communities and family backgrounds that are unable to support English writing skill development, these students must rely on English classes that assume knowledge of standard written English (Harklau et al. 1999; Valdés, 1999).

Native speakers of English, either second or third generation immigrants or speakers of non-standard English dialects such as African-American English or Caribbean English, have a similar experience in the learning of English writing skills. In addition, the communication patterns of these groups identify them as members of their community. As a result, the use of standard written English has socio- and psycho-linguistic connotations that go beyond the development of professional writing skills (Chiang & Schmida, 1999; Ngeow et al. 2003; Paltridge, 2004; Syrquin, 2006; Valdés, 1999).

For these students to be academically successful, they will need to be socialized into the academic writing required at most universities. Later, as they move into the workplace, they will need to be able to learn the business genres and writing skills appropriate for the discourse community in which they are working (organizational culture) (Alpern, Odett, & Pietila, 2004; Dias et al. 1999; Kress, 1993; Pultsky, 1996; Rogers & Rymer; 2001).

The Poor (Non-Proficient) Writer

It is important that we distinguish between a) students that have proficient writing skills in one context, yet difficulty modifying those skills for a different context, b) students that are still basic writers, unable to encrypt their thoughts into a written format, and c) poorly prepared students that are unable to write because they do not have writing, educational, and/or language skills.

In the first case, students may be proficient writers in other contexts, but as novices within the discipline, they may need more time to learn syntactic, lexical, and rhetoric conventions as established by that discourse community. If students have been limited in the communities in which they have interacted, they may not have experience developing new writing skills or be resistant to change (Berkenkotter & Huckin 1995; Layet al. 1999; Kress, 1993; Paltridge, 2004; Saunders & Scialfa, 2003). In other words, their perception of good writing, having been formed through home literacy beliefs, many years of schooling, and experience in the community (or communities) in which they belong may not correlate to instructors’ and workplace perceptions.

The second case ties into a student’s ability to transfer ideas into the written word. In his seminal work on student writing errors, Bartholomae (1980) recognized that basic writers, adults that were learning to write, in fact had sophisticated language structures and fairly advanced content knowledge. The problem was their inability to transcribe those ideas into an acceptable written format. He found that the greater the language aptitude, the more difficult it was for the student to learn to write since attempting linguistically complex written communication resulted in confusing structures for the reader. This can be especially problematic in professional writing which demands short and direct written structures.

We will look at the third case, the poorly prepared student in the next section. Unlike the other two cases, the poorly prepared student may have both writing and academic deficiencies that interfere with his or her ability to write.

The Poorly Prepared Student

Researchers have looked at the link between writing and learning (Paltridge, 2004). Students that are deficient in academic skills (critical thinking, literacy, organizational, analytical, rhetoric) will have trouble in the transition from high school to college to the workplace (Diaset al. 1999; Layet al. 1999). More importantly is the role of writing in the development of these academic skills (Kress, 1993; Saunders & Scialfa, 2003). Dias, et al. (1999) for example, found that most professional preparation courses expected students to be able to write using the genres of the profession, even though it was not explicitly taught. They also observed that interns that did not participate in the socialization process in the workplace, were not able to understand the nuances required when preparing written documents. These writers may then be perceived as non-proficient since the standards would not meet the expectations of the reader.

It is possible that students are not given practice to develop writing skills. This may be coupled with under funded schools, over crowded classes, poorly conceptualized writing and learning goals, and under achieving schools (Hillocks, 2002; Shiffflett, 2003). While many professional writing instructors believe this is the main reason why students cannot write (Pultsky, 1996), this might just be the most identifiable reason, especially given the current system of accountability and testing in the US.

The Good (Proficient) Writer

As mentioned above, the proficient writer is able to write for any context in an appropriate manner (Artemeva, 1998; Berkenkotter & Huckin 1995; Dias, et al.. 1999; Rogers & Rymer, 2001). What is appropriate in one context, such as academic essays, may not be appropriate in another, such as an on-the-job policy memo. In order to be proficient, therefore, students should be able to analyze the context, have the ability to access content, rhetoric, and stylistic conventions, and be linguistically flexible in order to change their writing to fit the context. At the same time, instructors need to recognize that even the most proficient academic writers may need a period of apprenticeship to adjust their writing to unknown contexts and professional requirements. Unfortunately, students are given the impression in their academic writing classes that there is a standard form of writing regardless of the context. Students are seldom exposed to different writing contexts (Amidon, 2004; Dias et al.).

In their study of the writing requirements for multiple academic and workplace professions, Dias et al. (1999) observed that proficient writers picked up the lexicon, syntax, and genres of a profession through interaction and observation. Often the genres were not explicitly taught, however, students successfully began to structure their writing to fit the requirements of the profession. In fact, it may be more difficult for proficient writers used to writing for one context to change their style. Berkenkotter and Huckin (1995) observed these difficulties in a case study of a doctoral student who was accustomed to writing professionally. It was difficult for him to change his writing habits in order to fulfill program expectations.

To cite anything from this post you may use: Yonkers, V. & Easter, M. (2007). College student perceptions of good professional writing in an international context. American Educational Research Association Conference: Writing and Literacies SIG, presented April 10, Chicago, IL.

Defining writing style: style vs. level

Ken Allen had an interesting post about "writing for the literacy level." I commented that there was difference between reading level and style. In the comment, I did a good job of describing reading level, but not such a good job of explaining what I see as "style" differences and how that is different than reading level.

When writing for a different level of reading, this usually means a writer must provide greater context and use a more common pattern of format, vocabulary, and grammar.

What are common patterns?

The common patterns will depend on the language (including the form of language, such as American English, British English, or International English). This means that there are certain writing, spelling, and punctuation protocols that are recognized by a large group of mainstream language speakers. Looking at a child's book, for example, this does not mean that sentences are simple, but they may be shorter. In American English, this means also that verbs are in an active tense, usually present, simple past, or simple future. More complex verb tenses (conditional, mixtures of time within the same sentence, and conditions such as might have gone if they had been there on time) would require high levels of abstraction (what is compared to what might be).

Likewise, language based on everyday life within the mainstream culture would be a common pattern. This is when defining reading level can put a member of a minority culture at a disadvantage. Younger members who might not be exposed to the mainstream cullture would not necessarily have the cultural knowledge needed to understand items written at a "lower" reading level. Therefore, it may be that a story, such as this one, written for a 5-7 year old, could be more difficult to an urban youth who has never been on a farm. Understanding the story might require a higher level of abstraction than a 5-7 year old is capable of.

Defining Style

Style on the other hand, has to do with the tone, register, genre or format, and organization of information that will be acceptable to the reader in the context of the audience.

Style may differ depending on profession, age, education, context, and (as my current research is indicating) power structures. For example, there is a different writing style for science, academic journals, business, managers, politicians, or a person's grandmother. The same content will be presented different ways, using different jargon and grammar, presenting information in different formats and order, and even giving a different visual representation of the writing (i.e. different fonts, spacing, pictures, use of white space).

Style won't have an effect on understanding a message, but it may have an effect on accepting the message or perception of the message.

Some examples

While Ken contends that he does not change his writing for the age group (as I have not seen what he writes for his students, I can't verify this) he does change his style depending on the top. For example, this post on the knol and this post on technology change style and format.

In fact, many of us change style depending on the circumstances, often unconsiously. A good writer fits the style to the message, the audience expectations, and the formats often provided by those within the power structures within which we work. Our style is often informed by feedback from readers, bosses, and coworkers/colleagues. We begin to think differently, formulating our ideas through the interactive process of writing, feedback, and editing.

I would bet that Ken maintains a "scientific academic" writing style regardless of the reading level. This is because he is introducing his students into the scientific community's communication protocols and structures. If he were to "dumb down" or use too simplistic formats in developing his written material, students would not be inducted into the scientific community. In other words, he would be doing his students a disservice. On the other hand, I am sure that he does make some "reading level" changes without even knowing it, using active voice for younger readers, including definitions with the jargon that older readers would not need. His choice of examples (the use of examples would be stylistic, the types of examples would be reading level) would depend on his students' prior knowledge.