Explicit Teaching and Assessment of Genre Conventions in University Education: an Example from Biology.

Abstract

This paper argues that explicit teaching about the conventions of relevant genres is a necessary aspect of university education. This teaching, it suggests, should be integrated into the curriculum being studied by the student and should be contextualized to suit the content and assessment within that curriculum. The paper provides evidence that such teaching makes significant contributions to students' development of genre knowledge and their ability to meet disciplinary expectations and speeds up what has otherwise been seen as a 'lengthy apprenticeship.'

Introduction

Debate has been taking place about the teaching of genre, about whether to explicitly teach the genres in which students are expected to write or whether to allow acquisition to occur naturally or even whether acquisition will take place in written genres without teaching (Reid, 1987; Berkenkotter & Huckin, 1995). For the most part, this debate has focussed on the primary and secondary school setting (Reid, 1987); however, Berkenkotter & Huckin, and others (Martin, Christie & Rothery 1987, p.67; Christie in Berkenkotter & Huckin, p. 154) extended the debate about whether or not to teach genre conventions in the university setting. They argue that university students also need explicit instruction if they are to escape the slow process of "immersion in the discipline and a lengthy apprenticeship and enculturation" (Berkenkotter & Huckin, p.13) that is the usual process by which the best of students acquire knowledge about the structures and characteristics of written genres. Others have called this slow process 'osmosis,' the absorption of knowledge about disciplinary conventions, and have been engaged in providing instruction that circumvents this process (Skillen & Mahony, 1997; Skillen, Trivett, Merten & Percy, 1999).

However, much of the thrust in explicit teaching of genre conventions in the university setting focuses on classes in rhetoric or composition as the vehicle for teaching (see U.S. college and university course offerings). This paper argues that instruction in the conventions of genres in which students must write is a necessary element of university teaching and learning: it empowers students in theft journey into academia and into disciplines, it allows them to sidestep the slow process of osmosis, and to make the most of their intellectual potential. The paper also argues that instruction is most successful when it is provided inside curricula, as an integral part of the learning and teaching of a discipline or subject. A case study of the teaching of genre conventions in a freshman Biology course is presented which provides evidence that integrating instruction inside curricula produces significant outcomes in terms of students' learning of genre conventions.

Methods

The study involved the integration of instruction in two core subjects of a freshman Biology curriculum in two successive academic years. The methods employed in the study involved three steps: instruction in the conventions of the genre, assessment of the cohorts' writing at different stages of their course, and analysis of the results achieved by the whole cohort.

Instruction

The specific genre that students were required to write in was the scientific report, specifically a Biology report; this was required in nearly all written assessments throughout the year. Instruction in this genre was provided inside the curriculum in a number of ways:

* via standard classroom teaching (carried out jointly by learning and literacy specialist faculty and Biology faculty);

* via web-based teaching (with materials produced jointly by learning and literacy specialist faculty and Biology faculty [see Trivett & Skillen, 1998]);

* via the use of annotated exemplars of the genre in classroom and web-based teaching;

* via the use of peer marking sessions that enabled students to be the 'other' or the 'reader' of a text; and

* via detailed feedback on their attempts at writing in that genre.

Both the classroom teaching and the web-based teaching focussed on detailed explanations about the structure and style of biology reports. Within this teaching, exemplar texts that had been annotated to further explain and comment on textual practices were an important teaching resource. These allowed students to see that the sections of a report were themselves separated into separate elements that had a function and a logical position in a sequence of elements. As annotated exemplars of poor writing practice were also included, the students were able to see from the reader's position the differences in style and readability of exemplars that did or did not conform to the genre. To ensure that the exemplars allowed high levels of relevance for students and thus learnability, only topics and texts directly associated with the subject's assessment tasks were used to construct the exemplar texts.

This mix of teaching strategies was used in two consecutive core curricula in the first year program, each curriculum having a slight variation in the ordering of planning, teaching, and assessment strategies. The versions included: Version One that had only one assessment of students' skills which entailed comparison of results with a control group, and Version Two that included two assessments, allowing a time1/time2 evaluation of students' development. The procedures within these two versions are outlined in Figure 1 (see Figure 1).

[Figure 1 ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Assessment

Students' understanding of the genre and their ability to produce texts displaying characteristics of the genre were assessed within the existing assignment and assessment schedule of both curricula. The specific criteria that were assessed were: * proper use of data and other resources (Criterion A);

* suitable structure and development of report (Criterion B);

* control of scientific language and writing style (Criterion C);

* grammatical correctness (Criterion D); and, * suitable data analysis and presentation (Criterion E).

Each of these criteria were composed of a range of sub-criteria that gave frae detail to the criteria.

The subject team of Biology faculty marked these student assignments, awarding ratings to each of the sub-criteria as well as the main criteria. To ensure parity between markers during the marking process, faculty workshops were held prior to marking. In these workshops, good, poor, and fair assignments were used as a basis for discussion about the criteria and to gauge the level of parity between markers. Each student was given explicit feedback not only about content issues but also about where there were gaps visible in their control of the genre and where they were displaying good control over aspects of the genre.

Analysis

Analysis of the students' results in the assessments was carried out to determine the effectiveness of instruction provided within the curriculum. Two major types of analysis was carried out: one to determine if the group who had received instruction inside the curriculum achieved at higher levels than the group who had received no instruction (Version One); and one to determine the amount of improvement of both groups over the session (Version Two. This latter type was based on two assessments, the first a report submitted early in the session and the second a report submitted towards the end of the session.

Because the cohort in Version Two also included two sub-groups: a Science group and a Health and Behavioral Science (HBSc) group, further analysis was carried out to determine whether and how much the Science and the HBSc sub-groups had developed over time. It was also carried out to determine the rate of development for each of the groups. This was considered necessary to identify whether or not the source of any significant improvement originated from both the sub-groups or from one sub-group only.

Results and Discussion

Comparison of the results achieved by the students in Version One and a control group in a range of skills showed significant differences between the two groups. Comparison of time1/time2 results in Version Two also showed significant differences.

Evaluation Using a Control Group (Version One)

Results achieved by the two sub-groups within the second semester curriculum showed that there was a significant difference in three criteria (A, C and E) between those students who had been exposed to integration and those who had not been exposed to such integration (see Figure 2).

[Figure 2 ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

It should be noted that minimal instruction was given in Criterion B, and no instruction was given in Criterion D. Overall, the results showed that students exposed to integration achieved at a higher level than those who were not exposed. This was the case despite the fact that the control group entered university with higher university entrance scores than the test students. This finding underlines the value of providing explicit instruction in a genre that is a necessary tool for expressing an understanding of the discipline and the way it constructs reality, and one that is directly relevant to the accrual of marks within the subject being studied. Without instruction, students may not acquire this important disciplinary tool and may be disadvantaged in their ability to achieve in terms of marks or grades.

Evaluation Using a [Time.sup.1]/[time.sup.2] Evaluation (Version Two)

Analysis of the ratings achieved by students (n = 350) in each of the criteria and sub-criteria showed that the cohort improved in all five of the criteria (see Figure 3), with [time.sup.2] values being significantly higher in each criterion area than [time.sup.1] values.

[Figure 3 ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Analysis of the development of the two sub-groups, the Science group and the Health and Behavioral Science (HBSc) group, was carried out on two issues: the difference between time1 and time2 in each criterion area for both the Science and the HBSc sub-groups and the difference between the rate of development for the Science group as opposed to the HBSc group. The timeX/time2 analysis showed that both groups improved significantly during that period in each criterion area, with particularly significant improvements in Criterion C, D, and E (see Figure 4).

[Figure 4 ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Analysis of the rate of overall development over time showed that while the rate of development for the Science students was slightly higher than for HBSc students, the difference was not significant (see Figure 5).

[Figure 5 ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

These findings that both groups improved significantly over time and improved at a rate that was not significantly different to each other suggest that instruction allows students to very quickly acquire an important disciplinary tool that can not only induct them into the culture of the discipline, but can enhance their ability to achieve within the educational context in terms of marks or grades. The findings also suggest that learning took place irrespective of individual students' sense of belonging to the discipline. It might have been expected that the Health and Behavioral Science students would not acquire the conventions of a discipline they were only 'visiting' because of a lack of motivation or commitment to the discipline; however, these results suggest that such students do acquire the skills despite their 'visitor' status.

Conclusion

Overall, this study showed that a significant improvement in students' genre skills can be achieved with explicit instruction. It also showed that explicit instruction can impact positively in a very short space of time on the level of students' skills. This appears to be the case even for cohorts such as the HBSc students who would not consider themselves to be apprenticed to the discipline but who nevertheless, with instruction, can acquire the skills of the discipline during the course of their study in the discipline.

These findings suggest that instruction in genre conventions in the university context is a necessary element of university teaching and learning if students are to escape the slow process of immersion or osmosis. They show that, in fact, students can escape the slow process of immersion: they do not have to travel this journey slowly as has been argued in discussions about the notion of 'apprenticeship.' Explicit instruction empowers students in their journey into academia and into disciplines; it allows them to sidestep the slow process of osmosis and to make the most of their intellectual potential. The findings also suggest that instruction provided inside curricula, as an integral part of the learning and teaching of a discipline or subject, is a successful strategy for speedy and successful acquisition of genre conventions.

Bibliography 

Berkenkotter, C. & Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/culture/power. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.

Berkenkotter, C. & Huckin, T. N. (1995). "Suffer the little children": Learning the curriculum genres of school and university'. In Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Commnication.' Cognition/Culture/Power. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.

Bonnano, H. & Jones, J. (1997). Measuring the academic skills of university students, the masus procedure: A diagnostic assessment. Learning Assistance Centre Publications, The University of Sydney.

Candlin, C. (1998). Researching writing in the academy: Participants, texts, processes and practices. In C. Candlin & G. Plum (Eds.), Researching Academic Literacies. Macquarie University, Sydney: The National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research (NCELTR).

Dixon, J. (1987). The question of genres. In I. Reid (ed.) The Place of Genre in Learning.' Current debates, Geelong: Deakin University Press.

Martin, J., Christie, F. & Rothery (1987). In I. Reid (ed.) The Place of Genre in Learning: Current debates, (sic) Geelong: Deakin University Press.

Reid, I. (ed.) (1987). The place of genre in learning.' Current debates. Geelong: Deakin University Press.

Skillen, J. & Mahony, M. (1997). Learning and literacy development in higher education.' An issue of institutional change. In Proceedings of the 1997 AARE Conference. URL: http://www.swin.edu.au/aare/conf97.htm.

Skillen, J., Merten, M., Trivett, N. & Percy, A. (1998). The IDEAL approach to learning development.' A model for fostering improved learning outcomes for students. In Proceedings of the Australian Association for Research in Education Annual Conference, Adelaide, SA. URL: http://www, swin.edu.au/aare/conf98.htm. This paper can also be accessed at ERIC Assessment and Evaluation Clearing-house. URL: http://ericae.net.

Trivett N. & Skillen J. (1998). Using computer technology to integrate instruction in discipline-specific literacy skills into the curriculum: A case study. In Proceedings of the 1998 ASCILITE Conference. URL: http://cedir.uow.edu.au/ASCILITE98/ascpapers98.html. This paper can also be accessed at ERIC Assessment and Evaluation Clearing-house URL: http://ericae.net.

Veel, R. (1997). Learning how to mean scientifically speaking: apprenticeship into scientific discourse in the secondary school. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and Institutions (pp. 161 - 195). London: Cassell.

Jan Skillen, University of Wollongong, Australia Neil Trivett, University of Wollongong, Australia