Building on the Phil Race Comments - no originality claimed.

As a starting point, I certainly endorse the Diana Kornbrot/Tony Marcel
comments, but have no immediate response.

When I (attempt to) mark badly-expressed work I wonder how I can mark
only the student's work and exclude the knowledge that I bring to the
question. Do others find this an issue? 

-----Original Message-----
From: Online forum for SEDA, the Staff & Educational Development
Association [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Professor Phil
Race
Sent: 09 March 2007 08:53
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Students' writing skills

Thanks, James for bringing this to our attention.

I still work with students on matters relating to study-skills
development (not least academic writing), as well as with staff on
assessment and teaching methods. The symptoms described are certainly
widespread, and indeed affect some disciplines much more than others.

Two thoughts.
(1) With widening participation policies, there are now many more
students in higher education than formerly, including many from home
backgrounds where books were not part of the environment. Many students
don't read books for pleasure, and this is bound to reflect in their
writing skills.
## Agreed

(2) Many students are much more comfortable writing on screen than on
paper, and sometimes produce much better text when they can see what
they are doing on screen (and use spellchecks, and so on). The same
students with pen and paper are often much more clumsy.
## Agreed

(3) I too notice that many students are much better orally than in
writing. In one of my own contributions to the field ('How to Study',
2003,Oxford, Blackwell), in my section aiming to help students improve
their academic writing, one of my suggestions is to get other people to
read out their writing back to them. Then, they often realise some of
the deficiencies in their writing and correct them (not least when
whoever is reading back their work has difficulty working out the
sentence structures).
## Shades of the Oxbridge tutorial system, but lending itself very well
to "Supplemental Instruction" and "Professional Co-counselling"
approaches.

(4) [This may not be what you want to read!] Perhaps it is unwise to try
to train all of our widened-participation student population into the
academic writing culture which used to prevail in higher education when
only 5% of the population was present there? Perhaps we should adjust
our expectations and requirement toward the actual student population we
now have, and downgrade the significance of good written communication,
and balance it better with oral communication?

"Dumbing down!" I hear you thinking? My experience is however that
students are every bit as 'bright' as ever - probably brighter, but
their portfolio of skills and attributes has certainly changed, and is
likely to continue to change. I don't think we can simply blame schools
and teachers. Well-written books are simply a lesser part of the lives
of many young people that used to be the case, out of school in
particular.

## this must be right but "grammocracy" has two MAJOR advantages:
A) because one takes in written material many times faster than oral,
reading work is much more efficient
B) it minimises the complications arising from the halo effect and
personal interactions, e.g. it might be difficult to persuade students
not to take a fail grade for an oral presentation as a personal
rejection, and just think of all the discrimination caes that could
result.  On respect of written work we are being pushed to anonymous
marking.  Etc etc

To summarise, the Phil Race ideas seem desirable but not clearly
feasible.  What can be done to increase feasibility?

Simon Horsman 

Phil Race
Leeds Metropolitan University
www.phil-race.com


(2) > Members of the SEDA list may wish to comment on the request for
> information
> below from Prof. Diane Korrbrot.
>
> From: "kornbrot" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: "'Becta's ICT Research Network'" <[log in to unmask]>
> Cc: "'Tony Marcel'" <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 8:31 AM
> Subject: [ICT Research Network] Writing skills: Evidence based 
> improvement?
>
>
>> For some time we have had a serious problem that we believe is 
>> widespread across disciplines in the UK and the USA. We are unsure 
>> how to deal with it.
>> We are appealing to all of you for EVIDENCE BASED solutions.
>>
>> THE PROBLEM IN BRIEF
>> We teach on an undergraduate psychology degree and are very concerned

>> about the writing skills of students of all years, some of who appear

>> bright in oral academic discussion.
>>
>> In many cases their written English is appallingly bad. Not only are 
>> their spelling, grammar and sentence formation very poor, but they 
>> simply cannot communicate their ideas in writing. This inability has 
>> many serious consequences. Their abilities will be underestimated in 
>> coursework essays and written exams; the failure to articulate in 
>> clear and structured English will impede their thinking; they will 
>> fail to get or keep any interesting job that requires clear writing 
>> of reports or other communications.
>>
>> REASONS and Solutions
>> One of us is new to the University and previously worked mostly with 
>> Ph.D.
>> students. The other has been at the University for many years, but 
>> has become used to this situation as writing skills have gradually
declined.
>>
>> We have discussed this widely with our psychology colleagues, face to

>> face and by email. They have suggested many reasons for the problem, 
>> ranging from addiction to texting to not reading classic novels. They

>> have also suggested possible solutions, many of which are time 
>> consuming for both students and teachers. However, none of us knows 
>> of much evidence to support our ideas.
>> Even though the problem may have its origins in school level 
>> education, we are looking for solutions that can be applied at the 
>> tertiary level.
>>
>> PLEASE HELP
>> So we are appealing to you as experts to provide us with solutions 
>> that have been 'tried and tested'. All suggestions and information 
>> will be gratefully received and then summarized and distributed to 
>> all members of this list
>>
>> THE PROBLEM IN MORE DETAIL
>> Many students' cannot spell; their vocabulary is poor and mistaken; 
>> they have little idea of syntax, cannot punctuate, have no idea of 
>> what constitutes a sentence, let alone a paragraph. Ignorance of 
>> genitive formation and of number agreement is the least of the
problems.
>> Malapropisms
>> abound. They know neither what is necessary for a sentence (e.g. a 
>> finite verb to constitute a main clause) nor when a new sentence is 
>> required.
>> Sentences are long meander, and so are hard to understand Students 
>> seem unable to detect their errors if/when they proofread their 
>> drafts. Many do not seem to realise that written communication 
>> differs from oral communication, not only by convention, but 
>> necessarily in that the former lacks context and prosody.
>>
>> This raises several issues and has ramifications.
>> (a) In very many cases lecturers cannot understand what is meant or 
>> intended, often even after considerable effort. I am not sure whether

>> the writer knows. In numerous cases, when asked, they cannot recover 
>> what was intended or if anything was intended. I cannot give marks 
>> for what I cannot understand, and potential parts of an argument are 
>> lost, disabling any force and coherence of what comes before and 
>> after.
>> (b) Many students will do badly in written exams because, apart from 
>> annoying errors, their communication and expression of ideas will 
>> fail them and/or irritate examiners.
>> (c) In many cases the failure to articulate in clear and structured 
>> English impedes clear thought. Something that I would like to convey 
>> to students is that writing is often a means by which we can explore 
>> our own thinking.
>> (This is something about which the late Peter Wason wrote cogently, 
>> and is part of psychology itself.)
>> (d) Since lecturers cannot simply ignore the problematic bits of 
>> writing, focus on the main aspects of essays or dissertations - clear

>> conveyance of research, data or ideas, accuracy, relevance, argument 
>> structure - is hindered. Time is wasted on lower level correction.
>> (e) Most university graduates expect and are expected to get certain 
>> kinds of employment: jobs where they have to produce writing, e.g. 
>> reports and other communications. Students who are as disabled as 
>> ones that I have encountered cannot hope to gain or keep such 
>> positions. Certainly in applications for jobs or further studentships

>> they cannot compete with people who can write without egregious 
>> error. If they are not helped by the time they leave university, 
>> preferably school, the education system (and that includes us) has 
>> seriously failed them.
>>
>> When tutors correct or draw attention to the problems, they fear that

>> they are wasting time or using it inappropriately and that students 
>> feel the same.
>>
>> Diana Kornbrot, Tony Marcel
>>
>> Professor Diana Kornbrot
>> University of Hertfordshire
>> College Lane, Hatfield, AL10 9AB, UK
>> Email:  [log in to unmask]
>> Web:   http://web.mac.com/kornbrot/iWeb/KornbrotHome.html
>> Blended Learning Unit
>>  voice: +44[0]170 728 1315 fax: +44[0] 170 728 1320 Psychology
>>  voice: +44[0]170 728 4626 fax: +44[0]170 728 5073
>>
>> Kornbrot
>> 19 Elmhurst Avenue
>> London N2 0LT, UK
>> voice: +44[0208  883 3657 fax: +44[0] 0208 444 2081
 
 
--------------------------------------------------------

NOTICE

This message and any files transmitted with it is intended for the addressee only and may contain information that is confidential or privileged. Unauthorised use is strictly prohibited. If you are not the addressee, you should not read, copy, disclose or otherwise use this message, except for the purpose of delivery to the addressee. 

Any views or opinions expressed within this e-mail are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Coventry University.