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?
Showing posts with label writing style. Show all posts
Showing posts with label writing style. Show all posts
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Saturday, March 21, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, February 13, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)