Research in the Teaching of English - Volume 25, Issue 4, 1991

When composing, writers give shape to the meaning they construct, and they signal a possible configuration for meaning through the organizational patterns they supply for their readers. This study examined writers’ options in organizing comparisons–texts that are often considered to have a canonical pattern. Thirty college students wrote their comparisons through discourse synthesis, integrating content cued by two informative texts, each text dealing with one of the two topics to be compared. Analyses focused on the organizational patterns the writers generated and on the content they included. Of the two major ways of organizing comparisons–organization by aspect and organization by object–organizing by aspect was the format used by most writers in this study. However, there was much variability within this format in how writers combined material for the comparison. Writers could focus on specific aspects, could separate aspects into those that were similarities and those that were differences, or could generate macro-aspects to subsume several related aspects. In selecting source material the writers preferentially included content that was symmetrical, in that it related information that was available for both objects being compared. And almost half of their additions also contributed to symmetry by balancing their treatments of the two objects. Chunking of content in a systematic way, especially by generating macro-aspects for topical focus, was a strong predictor of holistic quality ratings, stronger than measures for the nature of the content that was included. These higher-rated papers providing readers with macro-aspects tended to be written by students with higher verbal ability and more extensive topic knowledge. The study points out the variability within comparison discourse and demonstrates the complexity of the choices writers must make in structuring comparison texts

This naturalistic study, coauthored by a composition specialist and a philosopher, explores the learning experiences of college students in an Introduction to Philosophy course and the learning experiences of the research collaborators themselves. The researchers identify conflicting ways of knowing in class discussion, student writing, and within their own interdisciplinary collaboration. They then ask questions about how these ways of knowing interact and with what effects. In order to answer these questions the researchers drew upon student data they collected in two consecutive semesters as well as the close records they kept of their own collaborative work. Four research methods were used: observation, interviews, composing-aloud protocols, and text analysis. Conclusions are drawn from the data regarding the benefits for students and researchers of juxtaposing multiple epistemological perspectives. Also presented are conclusions about the learning contexts that promote epistemic growth. The textual form of this study is “heteroglossic,” that is, certain sections are written by the researchers, certain sections by the teacher-researcher, and others are coauthored by both.

Fifty-eight, college-preparatory twelfth-grade students and their English teacher participated in this study of whether exploratory talk in small groups can help students assimilate new information on complex topics more effectively than can participation in a class discussion or a lecture. Of the three treatments (lecture, class discussion, student-led small-group discussion), the small-group discussion was significantly more effective in improving the students’ knowledge as they prepared to write. Similarly, differences in the quality of analytic, opinion essays (scored for clear thesis and elaboration of ideas) revealed that small-group discussion was consistently superior for both weaker and stronger writers. Data from composing-aloud protocols revealed that following the talk conditions students were better able to remain on task while composing their opinion essays, and that students made significantly fewer negative comments about their essay production. Attitude measures revealed that students preferred the treatments that allowed them to talk when developing their understanding of complex ideas.

Results from all data sources converge to indicate that exploratory talk in student-led small groups can provide a powerful means for developing understanding of complex topics and can facilitate writing about these ideas.