Teaching undergrads how to write an analysis.

My students have been accepted into our university through a competitive vetting process. Many are top in their schools which vary from large urban, to small rural, to large centralized rural, to small town, to well-endowed suburban. They are the product of the current testing environment of K-12 which in New York state means they have had to write essays since 3rd grade (whether it is developmentally appropriate is another question). So I would expect that they would have at least minimally good writing skills. While many are able to string together content in a grammatically correct manner, over the last five years I have noticed their perplexed looks when I ask them to write an analysis. They can report, they can describe, but they have not been trained to analyze and support their writing with relevant examples and content from assigned readings.

So this year, I decided I would teach all my classes how to write an analysis. This is the type of writing businesses are complaining graduates are lacking. After reading Deanna Mascle's lastest blog post asking what we as teachers are doing to teach writing, I decided to share the document I created to help explain to my students how to write an analysis. Feel free to share this.

How to write an effective analysis

An analysis takes concepts we’ve learned in class and the assigned readings and applies them to activities we do in class. In the analysis you will:

• Draw some of your own conclusions
• Support those conclusions with examples from the readings and your own experience

This is probably different from other academic writing you have done which either is a description or a reflection (your own opinion). However, this is a very important skill to have when you enter the workforce.

Process

As you do the assigned reading for class, identify some of the key concepts from the reading. You may note these down on evernote, word, or a trello.com card. After you have completed the readings assigned for the analysis, review your notes. Are there any common themes? You may come up with 1-3 themes for the readings as a whole.

Example: Group development is difficult; communication can make or break a group; getting things done in a group is complex.

Once you have your theme, review your readings again and identify what the authors have written about your theme. Identify specific examples/quotes from the reading that discuss the theme and highlight them. Now reviewing the highlighted section, think of your experience both in class and outside of class. What conclusions can you draw about the content learned in class in relation to those themes you identified? You may find that the readings contradict themselves or your experience. What is your explanation for this?

Example: Teams that work on a structured task may not go through stages of development, but teams that are working on more social tasks will. According to Tuckman, our group activity should not have been easy to accomplish because our group was in the forming stage (one of Tuckman’s stages). However, we were able to accomplish it because we have worked on similar projects in the past. Our group was more like Gersick’s teams because our task was so structured. So the communication did not rely on our feelings towards the other team members but rather we shared specific information to achieve the task.

You should integrate all of the assigned readings into the analysis.

Some guidelines

If you use information from one of the readings, you should identify it (for the analysis you may, but don’t have to, formally cite the information, but you must identify the author’s name as in the example above*.)

1)Don’t describe or reword the reading. However, you may use quotes or identify concepts from the reading.

Poor example: (Don’t do this)
Tuckman’s 5 stages of group development are forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjoining. In forming, groups will introduce each other.

Notice this does not have any examples that demonstrates that you understand what happens in each stage, nor does it have any of author’s conclusions about group formation and communication.

Good example: (Do this)
Groups communicate differently as they develop as Tuckman observed. Our group started off introducing ourselves and tried to learn about each others strengths and weaknesses.

In this example, the author identifies Tuckman’s article and gives examples that support the author’s conclusion that groups communicate like Tuckman wrote.

2)Don’t just give your opinion. You want to put in your analysis, but your analysis should be based on experience and your understanding of the reading.

Poor example: (Don’t do this)
I think groups should introduce themselves to get the group going. We did this and it helped us to complete the activity.

There is no supporting information from the reading, nor is there anything about conclusions the author has made about group communication.

Good example: (Do this)
As Tuckman wrote in his article, introducing yourself to your group members helps to set the atmosphere for effective group communication from the beginning. Setting this atmosphere helps to establish trust. When we did our first activity, we started to create trust using the same methods outlined in Antony’s article (establishing rules for speaking, setting an agenda, giving due dates).

Notice how the author gives the opinion that setting the atmosphere created trust, but supported it with information from both readings and the group’s experience.

3)Make sure your writing uses college level writing standards including, making sure the paper is typed (double spaced), stapled or paper clipped, proper grammar, paragraphs, capitalization and punctuation. Also, you should check for spelling errors, sentence structure (no fragments or run on sentences). Any information taken word for word from a reading should be in quotes with the page number following.

Remember to put your name and the class number at the top. You may also want to number the pages in case pages fall off.

Getting Started

Often students ask me how to begin. One way to start your analysis is to develop a research question which your analysis will answer. It is possible that an instructor may give you the "prompt" to use, but most of the time we will only give you a topic. So take that topic and create a question that you think the professor or you want to answer about that topic. The best questions will use question words such as how or why. These question words will help you to write a paper that is more than just a description. You can also use that question to begin a conversation with your instructor if you are not sure you have understood the assignment. An instructor will know what you are thinking of if you bring a How or Why question than it you say simply, I don't understand the assignment.

For example: Topic is group communication in teamwork.

A good question: How does group communication help or hinder a team's work processes? Why do some types of group communication help a team to be productive and others hinder it?

A poor question: What is good communication? Does group communication help teamwork?

Notice in the poor questions that the answer would tend to be simple and descriptive, whereas the good questions require you to think and make some generalizations about the topic.

Notes: *While an academic paper would require formal citations, I'm trying to teach my students how to write a "professional" analysis that may be used in the workplace. Most workplaces would not require (or even want) formal citations with a full bibliography, however, I think it is important to train students to identify where their information is coming from. This means they should use a modified citation in which the author and perhaps date are identified in text or as a "source". For some of my writing assignments I do require an approved citation method, which most are adept at (at least in one method, either MLA or University of Chicago).

Tips on revising: Overview

Introduction
My original intent was to have one comprehensive post. But as I was putting the finishing touches on the post, I realized it was a lot of reading (especially for #acwrimo participants who may not have time to read it all in one sitting. So I have decided to divide this into a daily post over the next week. Hope it is helpful.

Making Revisions

All writing will need revisions. Hopefully in the previous two posts, you have identified when to get feedback and the tasks and roles in the editing process. Now you need to take the feedback and make revisions. This can be difficult. The first thing to do is to identify what you will change. You don't have to take all recommendations, but you do need to review and evaluate feedback.

Because the revision process can be emotional, you may need to take a few days between the time that you read over the feedback and when you actually make the revisions. This will allow you to evaluate the suggestions and address how you will approach revisions you need. You may also want clarification about the feedback also during this time. Finally, revision can be tedious and tiring. After all of the work, there still might be the feeling that you have not accomplished much. One of the suggestions on #acwrimo was to set a page goal (3 pages revised a day, for example). This will make you feel as if you have been productive.

Finally, set a deadline. Allow yourself only a short time to make revisions (i.e. 2 weeks). This will help prevent you from overthinking your revisions and trying to create the "perfect paper" which never gets published or presented to the appropriate audiences. You may need to make revisions a 2nd or 3rd time, but leave that decision up to the reviewers. Remember, now that you are revising, the focus will be on the reviewer/reader as much as your own ideas. Therefore, it is important to check back with them during the process if you have a question. But you do still have control over the process. Revision then becomes a balancing act of pleasing the reader and making the paper what you perceive as perfect. Let go of your concepts of perfection and give yourself over to negotiated expectations!

The series:
Major revisions
Troubleshooting:
Abstract/Executive Summary
Introduction and Background/Lit review
Body of Writing and Visuals
Conclusion
Final Edits

Where I've been

The last few months I have not been posting much because I am finishing up my Ph.D. dissertation, along with teaching 3 different classes, and helping my daughter look for colleges and helping my son navigate his first regular year of college. This doesn't mean that I don't have a number of topics that I want to work on once I have finished the dissertation/Ph.d. process. Some of these include:

Pew's study on social media and health
Growing use of twitter among the 13-17 years old, a new trend?
New trends in technology
New models of education and the continued attack on the education profession
The role of editing in workplace writing and workplace ownership
What happens when training is ahead of technology and innovation?

In the meantime, you can follow me on twitter at comprof1. Hopefully this Ph.d. will be completed by the end of summer. Then on to job search! oh yeah!

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.

Feedback on my preliminary findings

I presented my findings to the communication department's proseminar on research that faculty and graduate students participate in. Interestingly enough, the one idea that people seem to be latching on is the fact that the participants in my study created a secondary channel of communication when they were instructed by those in authority that discussion should be ended. I didn't see the importance of this until one of the professors that I was presenting my preliminary findings to asked the question,"Why did they continue? If the power structure and those in authority deemed the discussion irrelevant, why did they continue the conversation? If you can answer this question you will come away with a really important insight."

Thinking this through, and looking back at the data, the reason was that the group wanted to understand what their group members where doing because all the group members had a vested interest in the document they were writing. They all felt a sense of ownership of the document, but more so, that document would be the basis of their future work. Their work would reflect on them, in some cases within their department, in others, within the organization, and, still with others, in their profession. I think I need look further into the Social Identity theory and what the communication and learning implications are to groups continuing the dialog, even after they appear to be finished or they have been told to finish their discussion.

Another factor that came up was the implication of different understanding of design on organizational learning. I need to articulate better what the differences in "design" understanding is, how it affects communication and group learning, and perhaps even how different designs from different professions, departments, and organizations impact training, group documentation, and the creation of shared mental models. I have a feeling also that these differences in "design" are at the heart of the differences in "genres". "Design" can be defined as the way in which different people organize information and "knowledge", either through processes or product (genres). Therefore, can "design" be used for training?

Professions and expertise

My current research has made it obvious that in the workplace expertise in the profession is equated with "knowledgeable" or "intelligent." A specialist often is hired over a generalist. However, is this truly the best use of organizational resources?

My husband was complaining that the last 3 consultants (specialists) that his department had hired have not worked out. Why? Because they are not able to take initiative and see the big picture. They can do their small piece as long as they receive direction outside of their specialization. They don't take the time to figure out what is needed outside of their small scope of work.

In looking at cross specialization, I have found that there is a long time frame for those from different professions and specialties to create shared knowledge. The reason is that initially each person comes in with their own sense of what is viable knowledge, often based on their profession. Even if these divergent ideas can be combined, there is also a need to create a shared understanding of the task and knowledge from the various departments.

It would seem to me that the first step in any group work should be to create a shared understanding of knowledge, standards, and group processes. This means that any use of a wiki or google docs for example, should begin with some discussion as to what and whose standards for knowledge will be used. This may take some time, but I would think the outcome would be a much deeper understanding and creation of knowledge.

Unfortunately, I am finding in our fast paced world, this is not considered good use of time. It is hard to measure "outcomes" especially if the group will not stay together. Of course, if an instrument were developed to measure the impact the knowledge would have on company production (like the multiplying effect in economics), then this time spent would have some economic basis.

What I learned from transcribing

As I have written before, I have been busy transcribing taped interviews for my dissertation. Interestingly enough, through the process of transcription, I have made a number of observations about language, how we interpret messages, and even perhaps, how easy it is to miscommunicate by hearing what we think rather than what another's words actually are.

These observations include:

1) There are filler words that we tend to tune out in listening. There were many times when "like", "you know", or "I mean" were in a sentence and I had to slow the tape down in order to identify those words. I knew I was missing something, but without slowing down the tape, I had trouble "hearing" the words as it seemed my mind ignored them. It makes me wonder what other things I don't hear in conversation for the same reason.

2) I just finished transcribing a tape which I found was extremely difficult. The person who was talking placed words such as adverbs (really, very, actually) in odd places. As a result, I found myself lost at times, trying to understand the meaning of the sentence. I remembered how tiring this interview was and thought it was because there was very little interaction between myself and this person (which was an accurate perception after completing the transcription). Now, however, I feel it was the non-traditional use of word placement that was difficult to follow.

3) I found often that I would type those words that seemed to make sense to me rather than really hear the words. As a result, those who spoke the same way I do were the easiest to transcribe. In other words, I often anticipated and filled in words rather than truely listening to the speaker. I wonder how often we do this which then leads to miscommunication (but I thought you said...). The transcription has made me more aware of my listening skills (which others have told me are good, but obviously can be improved).

4) I have always had trouble listening and writing at the same time. I was always a person who took very brief notes if at all. I could usually remember what was said. However, I realized that I missed a lot of information from the interview because I focused on certain concepts. Even stopping to take general notes made me miss some important things being said. I believe that taping lectures might be more effective for some students and note-taking might be more of a hinderance than helpful.

5) People who work together closely do begin to use similiar terms. But in distributed groups, these terms might be understood differently. In exploring this in my interviews, I was surprised how those who worked in immediate proximately had almost the same definiation to the word, but those who worked within the group but a different office differed in the meaning of the words they were asked to define.

Teaching business writing

Tony Karrer had a post on what makes "good writing" which sparked a great conversation. In response to his post, I thought I would post a section of the paper written and presented at AERA by myself and Marilyn Easter (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.)

Teaching Business Writing

Because of the diverse academic backgrounds in the field of business communication, there is little consensus on what and how business writing should be taught (Alpern et al., 2004; Pultsky, 1996). In this section we will look at the methodologies used to teach writing and try to define the attributes of good business writing as identified by academics and professionals in the field.

Teaching Approaches

As discussed in the previous section, students come into the business communication class with varying preparations. Their perceptions of what constitutes good writing is often formed in primary and secondary schools. In fact, the approach and writing curriculum in which they were instructed creates the basis for their writing skills (Hillocks, 2002; Layet al. 1999; Sengupta & Falvey, 1998).

The traditional way of teaching business writing in the last century was to provide a format in which student would plug in information. Business writing used formulaic genres depending on the location and purpose of the written form (Amidon, 2004). Since business writing often doubled as legal documents, there was little variation of the form within a given country. However, with the advent of the internet and a growing reliance on written communication in the workplace, the genres began to become more flexible and less static (Amidon; Diaset al. 1999; Paltridge; 2004).

Research in the area of applied linguistics and contrastive rhetoric has allowed writing instruction to cross cultures, situating genres in cultural and social processes (Conaway & Wardrope, 2004; Hanna & de Nooy, 2003; Martin, 1993; Matsuda, 2001). It is no longer sufficient to teach genres without establishing the social processes that affect and are affected by particular genres (Kress, 1993).

Electronic communication, for example, has created a more informal genre in which there is flexibility in register and organization. On the other hand, formal reports still embed cultural and social processes that make it situated in the power structure of an organization. In other words, students are taught the parameters of a genre based on the interaction of the reader and writer. In some cases, there is flexibility and in others there is none.

One shortcoming to this approach is that students may not have the writing experience on which to base their genre choices. As such, they may continue to use outmoded or inappropriate genres. In addition, those who have limited access to diverse discourse communities may be limited in their ability to accommodate their writing to conventions and genres used by other groups (such as the business community or an international business organization) (Diaz et al., 1999).

The most common methods of instruction for writing, especially in the US, either takes the form of grammar/structure (a traditional approach) or process (prewriting, drafting, revision, and edit). The grammar/structure approach focuses on the minimization of grammatical errors. Students are taught grammar rules, rhetorical structures (i.e. narratives, expository, persuasive), and mastery of English (Hartman & Tarone, 1999; Hillocks, 2002; Layet al. 1999; Martin, 1993; Sengupta & Falvey, 1998). This approach does not necessarily take style or audience into consideration (Sengupta & Falvey; Syrquin, 2006). As a result, the reader may feel disconnected from the writing and have difficulty in understanding the writer’s message, although the writing conforms to a standard format and may be error free.

The process approach came out of research by Flowers and Hays (Saunders & Scialfa, 2003; Thorson, 2000). For most, the process approach includes prewriting planning, drafting, revising, and editing. In business communication or academic writing, these processes may include audience analysis (Alpern, et al.; Rogers & Rymer, 2001;Thorson), task analysis (Rogers & Rymer; Saunders & Scialfa); message design (Alpern, et al.); identifying and organizing supporting information (Myles, 2002; Saunders & Scialfa; Thorson); collaborating and revising during drafting (Saunders & Scialfa; Diaset al. 1999); and editing according to the guidelines for style defined by the university, the instructor, or a professional organization (such as APA or American Marketing Association). While many students may be taught the steps of the writing process, not all are given the time to develop these skills in class (NEAP, 2005).

Within foreign language instruction and business communication is a fourth approach to teaching business writing. The communicative approach focuses on minimizing misunderstandings. Writing is approached as a negotiated dialog between the reader and the writer. An outgrowth of the process approach and foreign language teaching, students spend a great deal of time trying to understand their readers’ situations, assumptions, and abilities (Alpernet al. 2004; Myles, 2002; Rogers & Rymer, 2001). They focus on the most effective way to encode and transmit their message while minimizing interference that could cause misunderstandings as readers decode their message. Just as important as the development of the message is feedback that the reader gives to the writer. This interaction between the reader and writer is what distinguishes the communicative approach from the process approach. Non-standard English is an error when it is distracting to the reader, thus interfering with communication (Rogers & Rymer, 2001). As a result, there is much more flexibility in the parameters of proficient business writing standards with the level of proficiency situated in the context of the reader and writer.

Defining Good Business Writing

As mentioned in previous sections, the business communication profession has multiple definitions of good business writing, depending on the field from which instructors were trained. There have been numerous studies of writing instructors’, business communication instructors’, and business professionals’ perceptions of errors and business writing (Beason, 2001; Gilsdorf & Leonard, 2001; Hairston, 1981; Plutsky, 1996; Rogers & Rymer, 2001; Saunders & Scialfa & Scialfa, 2003). The results from each of these studies have been surprisingly consistent, with the most disruptive errors being run-on sentences or sentence fragments, poor organization, poor development of ideas and arguments, and grammar errors that act as a social marker (i.e. he brung; Hairston) (Beason, Gilsdorf & Leonard; Hairston; Rogers & Rymer; Saunders & Scialfa & Scialfa) .

Beason’s (2001) research went further and identified how these errors affected a writer’s image. Through in depth follow-up interviews, she found that business professionals perceived writers as hasty, careless, uncaring, or uninformed if the reader identified multiple errors. This then influenced their image of the writer as a business professional who was: a) a faulty thinker, b) not a detail person, c) poor oral communicator, d) poorly educated, or e) sarcastic, pretentious, aggressive. Since writing in the workplace often takes the form of negotiation between various levels of power structures, these perceptions can have a serious impact on a graduating student’s career (Diaset al. 1999; Hairston, 1981).

Just as important as what constitutes good writing, was what the non-distracting errors were, especially since business professionals and instructors disagreed (Dias et al., 1999; Gilsdorf & Leonard, 2001; Plutsky, 1996). Gilsdorf & Leonard found that instructors tended to focus on the mechanics of writing, while business professionals focused on the style. For example, many of the errors that business professionals identified as distracting were, in fact, grammatically correct, such as beginning a sentence with but. On the other hand, business professionals overlooked errors that did not slow down their reading. It is possible, therefore, that even an error free piece of writing, could be perceived poorly if it does not conform to the organization’s style. Therefore, a focus on writing error free without taking into consideration style, organization, content, purpose, and audience, will produce graduates that are unprepared for business writing in the workplace.

The international workplace presents more challenges to what is considered good business writing. As Gilsdorf & Leonard (2001) point out, “No ready means exists to measure the influence of global English and e-mail on Standard English…These two pressures on the language, however do argue for an effort to measure again whether readers continue to perceive the various questionable usage elements as errors. (p. 2).”

Resources

Alpern, B., Odett, D., & Pietila, R. (2004). Improving MBA students’ communication proficiency: An orientation pilot study that incorporates technology and plagiarism issues. In Proceedings of the 2004 Association for Business Communication annual convention, pp. 269-280. Association for Business Communication.

Amidon, S. (2004). Change agents or followers: Analyzing genres in the business writing classroom. In Proceedings of the 2004 Association for Business Communication annual convention, pp. 121-126. Association for Business Communication.

Beason, L. (2001). Ethos and error: How business people react to errors. College Composition and Communication, 53 (1), 33-64.

Berkenkotter, C. & Huckin, T. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: cognition/culture/power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Conaway, R. & Wardrope, W. (2004). Communication in Latin America: An analysis of Guatemalan business letters. Business Communication Quarterly, 67 (4), 465-474.

Dias, P., Freedman, A., Medway, P., & Pare, A. (1999). Worlds apart: Acting and writing in workplace contexts. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Economist, (2006). Inculcating culture: The Toyota way. In The new organization: A survey of the company, pp. 11, The Economist, January 21, 2006.

Gilsdorf, J. & Leonard, D. (2001). Big stuff, little stuff: A decennial measurement of executives’ and academics’ reactions to questionable usage elements. The Journal of Business Communication, 38 (4), 439. Retrieved December 14, 2005 from Ingenta Expanded Academic ASAP Plus Database.

Hairston, M. (1981). Not all errors are created equal: Nonacademic readers in the professions respond to lapses in usage. College English, 43 (8), 794-806.

Hartman, B. & Tarone, E. (1999). Preparation for college writing: Teachers talk about writing instruction for southeast Asian American students in secondary school. In Harklau, L., Losey, K., & Siegal, M. (eds.) Generation 1.5 meets college composition, pp. 99-118. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hillocks, G., Jr. (2002). The testing trap: How writing assessments control learning. New York: Teachers College Press.


Martin, J. (1993). Grammar: A contextual theory of language. In Cope, B. & Kalantzis (eds.), The powers of literacy: A genre approach to teaching writing, pp. 116-136. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Myles, J. (2002). Second language writing and research: The writing process and error analysis in student texts. TESL-EJ, 6 (2), A-1. Retrieved December 20, 2005 from www-weiting.berkeley.edu/test-ej/ej22/al.html.

NEAP (2002). Writing Report Card. Retrieved October 10, 2005 from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2002/2003529c.pdf.

Paltridge, B (2004). Academic writing. Language Teaching, 37, 87-105.

Pultsky, S. (1996). Faculty perceptions of students’ business communication needs. Business Communication Quarterly, 59 (4), 69. Retrieved December 20, 2005 from Ingenta Expanded Academic ASAP Plus.

Rogers, P. & Rymer, J. (2001). Analytical tools to facilitate transitions into new writing contexts: A communicative perspective. The Journal of Business Communication, 38 (2), 112. Retrieved from Ingenta Expanded Academic ASAP Plus November 15, 2005.

Saunders, P. & Scialfa, C. (2003). The effects of pre-exam instruction on students’ performance on an effective writing exam. Written Communication, 20 (2), 195-212.
Selber, S. (2004). Multiliteracies for a Digital Age. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Sengupta, S. & Falvey, P. (1998). The role of the teaching context in Hong Kong English teachers’ perceptions of L2 writing pedagogy. Evaluation and Research in Education, 12 (2), 72-95.

Syrquin, A. (2006). Registers in the academic writing of African American college students. Written Communication, 23 (1), 63-90.

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.