Students are faced with all manners of writing tasks during the course of their education. But as they progress, so does their need to comprehend and manipulate language. The language they are exposed to becomes increasingly abstract as well. This is probably why the education system can be seen to be organized according to the different learning approaches for the varying levels of study (Paltridge, Harbon, Hirsh, Shen, Stevenson, Phakiti & Woodrow, 2009). Syllabus, teaching strategies, as well as, types of assessment tend to reflect the learning approach adopted by respective institution.
This aspect of academic setting warrants attention because “approaches to learning were found to predict academic achievement, while styles and motives only had indirect effects on achievement” (Diseth & Martinsen, 2003). These approaches have a direct impact on academic writing as well which has been found to be directly related to academic achievement (Hyland 2009).
According to Paltridge, Harbon, Hirsh, Shen, Stevenson, Phakiti & Woodrow (2009), the first approach, the ‘reproductive’ approach strives to help students ‘conserve knowledge’ and is mostly reflected in activities like identifying, memorizing, describing and applying. It is the oldest and often thought of as the most elementary level of learning (Kember, 1996). An example of this is when students memorize vocabulary as well as grammatical structures to apply in their writing. The second approach, ‘analytical’ is a more cognitive approach whose main aim is comprehension and ‘criticizing knowledge’. This approach is reflected when students have to think about content critically, question what they know and synthesize their knowledge into arguments. For language writing, these are clearly demonstrated when students are required to write expository as well as argumentative essays in secondary schools. The last approach is ‘speculative’, the primary purpose of which is to ‘extend knowledge’ (Paavola & Hakkarainen, 2005). The focus is on creativity and innovation of ideas and this type of writing is most typically seen in tertiary education spheres.
I initially understood the ideas set forth by Ballard and Clanchy (1997) on learning approaches as being clearly defined categories, each tied to a specific level of study. This confused me because theories are not so neatly applied and categorized in classroom applications. However, upon deeper analysis, I found that instead of viewing the ‘reproductive’, ‘analytical’ and ‘speculative’ approaches as mutually exclusive, it made more sense to view the different attitudes to knowledge and learning approaches not as disparate schools of thought but as stages within the same pedagogical spectrum so that we transcend from one stage to the next in our teaching. Lessons should therefore be built up, from using reproductive learning approaches, then incorporating analytical teaching strategies and finally aim to implement speculative strategies in teaching and learning.
This would place equal emphasis aims and skills each learning approach focuses on, for example, ‘memorization’ for reproductive approach, ‘questioning’ in analytical and ‘hypothesizing’ under the speculative approach. Rote learning has been given a bad reputation in recent years but it is not without its crucial advantages (Rock, 1957 and Diseth & Martinsen, 2003) and so should not be devalued in the classroom. Different skills and tasks seemed to call for different approaches as well. This is why, the most effective learning of language writing is likely to take place when teachers employ more of a hybrid model of the various learning approaches, using them together to elevate the standard of teaching and learning.
Teacher can cater to varying needs across the classroom by structuring lessons in such a way that the first is most explicit to the last being most broad/critical. The learning approaches are therefore not viewed as mutually exclusive but instead apply the learning approaches even within lessons instead of just across different levels of study. An example of this could be dedicating the one writing lesson to reviewing, summarising and admiring what a writer has said in a text but moving the lesson towards a more cognitive and analytical sphere by getting students to now question the content and break it apart to analyse any underlying assumptions or even alternative viewpoints which have been ignored.
The Singaporean English syllabus is evolving to include a wider range of discourse materials and a general shift of teacher’s pedagogical strategies and student’s learning outcomes more towards critiquing knowledge (analytical) and extending knowledge (speculative) than conserving knowledge (reproductive). Segments like ‘Graphic Stimulus’ and ‘Situational Writing’ etc. place more of a focus on critiquing knowledge. The intended result is for students not only to be more aware of various discourse communities but to also provide a more holistic all rounded education at all levels of our students’ study. Speculative approaches however are still lacking in secondary classroom and assessment procedures. This is something that can be investigated further.
The theories, aims and activities outlined in the three approaches mentioned in this essay however will fall under the overarching cognitive approach to teaching and learning language writing. Alternatively, academic discourse can also be viewed through the lens of social or socio-cultural learning approaches which are largely based on Vygotsky’s social constructivism theories. The argument here is that knowledge can only be internalized through experience and interaction with and within the learning environments. An exploration of this knowledge, especially in relation to academic writing, could be useful in both motivating learners as well as ultimately improving the quality and standard of academic writing.
References
Diseth, A., & Martinsen, O. (2003). Approaches to learning, cognitive styles, and motives as predictors of academic achievement. Educational Psychology, 23, 195-207
Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Kember, D. (1996). The intention to both memorise and understand: Another approach to learning?. 31(3), 341-354.
Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). The knowledge creation metaphor – an emergent epistemological approach to learning. Science & Education, 14(6), 535-557.
Paltridge, B., Harbon, L., Hirsh, D., Shen, H., Stevenson, M., Phakiti, A., & Woodrow, L. (2009). Teaching academic writing. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.
Rock, I. (1957). The role of repetition in associative learning. The American Journal of Psychology,70(2), Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1419320?uid=3738992&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103872717973Kember: Higher Education
This aspect of academic setting warrants attention because “approaches to learning were found to predict academic achievement, while styles and motives only had indirect effects on achievement” (Diseth & Martinsen, 2003). These approaches have a direct impact on academic writing as well which has been found to be directly related to academic achievement (Hyland 2009).
According to Paltridge, Harbon, Hirsh, Shen, Stevenson, Phakiti & Woodrow (2009), the first approach, the ‘reproductive’ approach strives to help students ‘conserve knowledge’ and is mostly reflected in activities like identifying, memorizing, describing and applying. It is the oldest and often thought of as the most elementary level of learning (Kember, 1996). An example of this is when students memorize vocabulary as well as grammatical structures to apply in their writing. The second approach, ‘analytical’ is a more cognitive approach whose main aim is comprehension and ‘criticizing knowledge’. This approach is reflected when students have to think about content critically, question what they know and synthesize their knowledge into arguments. For language writing, these are clearly demonstrated when students are required to write expository as well as argumentative essays in secondary schools. The last approach is ‘speculative’, the primary purpose of which is to ‘extend knowledge’ (Paavola & Hakkarainen, 2005). The focus is on creativity and innovation of ideas and this type of writing is most typically seen in tertiary education spheres.
I initially understood the ideas set forth by Ballard and Clanchy (1997) on learning approaches as being clearly defined categories, each tied to a specific level of study. This confused me because theories are not so neatly applied and categorized in classroom applications. However, upon deeper analysis, I found that instead of viewing the ‘reproductive’, ‘analytical’ and ‘speculative’ approaches as mutually exclusive, it made more sense to view the different attitudes to knowledge and learning approaches not as disparate schools of thought but as stages within the same pedagogical spectrum so that we transcend from one stage to the next in our teaching. Lessons should therefore be built up, from using reproductive learning approaches, then incorporating analytical teaching strategies and finally aim to implement speculative strategies in teaching and learning.
This would place equal emphasis aims and skills each learning approach focuses on, for example, ‘memorization’ for reproductive approach, ‘questioning’ in analytical and ‘hypothesizing’ under the speculative approach. Rote learning has been given a bad reputation in recent years but it is not without its crucial advantages (Rock, 1957 and Diseth & Martinsen, 2003) and so should not be devalued in the classroom. Different skills and tasks seemed to call for different approaches as well. This is why, the most effective learning of language writing is likely to take place when teachers employ more of a hybrid model of the various learning approaches, using them together to elevate the standard of teaching and learning.
Teacher can cater to varying needs across the classroom by structuring lessons in such a way that the first is most explicit to the last being most broad/critical. The learning approaches are therefore not viewed as mutually exclusive but instead apply the learning approaches even within lessons instead of just across different levels of study. An example of this could be dedicating the one writing lesson to reviewing, summarising and admiring what a writer has said in a text but moving the lesson towards a more cognitive and analytical sphere by getting students to now question the content and break it apart to analyse any underlying assumptions or even alternative viewpoints which have been ignored.
The Singaporean English syllabus is evolving to include a wider range of discourse materials and a general shift of teacher’s pedagogical strategies and student’s learning outcomes more towards critiquing knowledge (analytical) and extending knowledge (speculative) than conserving knowledge (reproductive). Segments like ‘Graphic Stimulus’ and ‘Situational Writing’ etc. place more of a focus on critiquing knowledge. The intended result is for students not only to be more aware of various discourse communities but to also provide a more holistic all rounded education at all levels of our students’ study. Speculative approaches however are still lacking in secondary classroom and assessment procedures. This is something that can be investigated further.
The theories, aims and activities outlined in the three approaches mentioned in this essay however will fall under the overarching cognitive approach to teaching and learning language writing. Alternatively, academic discourse can also be viewed through the lens of social or socio-cultural learning approaches which are largely based on Vygotsky’s social constructivism theories. The argument here is that knowledge can only be internalized through experience and interaction with and within the learning environments. An exploration of this knowledge, especially in relation to academic writing, could be useful in both motivating learners as well as ultimately improving the quality and standard of academic writing.
References
Diseth, A., & Martinsen, O. (2003). Approaches to learning, cognitive styles, and motives as predictors of academic achievement. Educational Psychology, 23, 195-207
Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Kember, D. (1996). The intention to both memorise and understand: Another approach to learning?. 31(3), 341-354.
Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). The knowledge creation metaphor – an emergent epistemological approach to learning. Science & Education, 14(6), 535-557.
Paltridge, B., Harbon, L., Hirsh, D., Shen, H., Stevenson, M., Phakiti, A., & Woodrow, L. (2009). Teaching academic writing. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.
Rock, I. (1957). The role of repetition in associative learning. The American Journal of Psychology,70(2), Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1419320?uid=3738992&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103872717973Kember: Higher Education