El error del monoteísmo

This section narrows the focus of the review of literature, moving from the broad scope of task complexity frameworks to concentrate on previous studies that have explicitly attempted to classify writing tasks. This literature is directly relevant to one of the primary aims of this thesis, identifying the common characteristics of independent writing prompts. A small number of studies have had the sole aim of analyzing different writing tasks, mainly in academic contexts and this body of literature is

40

writing prompts used on ESL exams but, rather have examined writing tasks that are assigned to students in an English L1 college setting. However, such studies are certainly relevant to developing an understanding of the key characteristics of prompts on ESL exams because they illustrate the types of writing commonly asked for in the academic context.

Swales (1982) and Horowitz (1986a and 1986b) made valuable early contributions to the understanding of how writing tasks may be classified. Swales (1982) proposed categorizing examination prompts by the function of the instructional verb. For example, Swales stated that many examination questions require students to “describe”, “compare and contrast”, or “discuss” a range of topics. Focusing on the

instructional verb provides some guidance to the examinee and the researcher with regard to the purpose of the examination question but this is far from a comprehensive approach to prompt categorization. Horowitz pointed out that questions with the same instructional verb may have quite different purposes and supported this claim with the following authentic examination questions that require a written response (Horowitz, 1986b: 107).

Example 1: Describe the causes of the War of 1812.

Example 2: Describe the technologies associated with horticulture and also those associated with agriculture.

Example 3: Describe the relationship between population growth, urbanization, and the demographic transition.

Horowitz suggested that the writer is expected to respond to these questions in quite different ways; such as, an historical account, a list, and an abstract account of three theoretical principles. The

language elicited by these tasks is likely to be quite different even though the tasks all contain the same instructional verb. Horowitz’s conclusion was that Swales’ categorization is insufficient to capture the complexities of writing tasks across different academic contexts.

Horowitz (1986a, 1986b), while influenced by Swales’ approach, proposed a typology of essay prompts that consist of “a relatively small number of organization categories and a relatively large number of frames that are the linguistic realization of these categories,” (Horowitz, 1986b: 109). This approach to writing prompt categorization was developed from a survey of prompts used at a single US university (Western Illinois University), where Horowitz collected a sample of 284 writing prompts from 29 courses in 15 different university departments. Horowitz’s description (1986a) of the categorization process is brief and indicates that the categorization was created by the author reading the prompts and categorizing them according to the distinguishing characteristics of the sample; that is, an inductive approach to the categorization was taken and the resulting framework was not driven by any existing theory of prompt categorization or any broader theoretical position based in the second language writing or task difficulty literatures. Horowitz drew two sets of conclusions, one (1986b) that provided four broad categories of writing tasks, and a second (1986a) that described seven categories of finer grained task categories.

41 I. Display familiarity with a concept.

II. Display familiarity with the relation between/among concepts. III. Display familiarity with a process.

IV. Display familiarity with argumentation.

Within these four categories, Horowitz gave multiple examples of the essay prompts that were analyzed in his study, which were based on the guiding principle of the function of the instructional verb.

Horowitz (1986a) described seven distinct categories of writing tasks:  Summary of/reaction to a reading

 Annotated bibliography

 Report on a specified participatory experience  Connection of theory and data

 Case study

 Synthesis of multiple sources  Research project

Horowitz (1986a) went on to distinguish between the types of writing tasks found in the authentic academic environment and those sometimes presented in an ESL context. Horowitz claimed that:

Generally speaking, the academic writer’s task is not to create personal meaning, but to find, organize, and present data according to fairly explicit instructions. This is not to denigrate the concept of writing as personal discovery; it is merely to say that this type of writing appears to be absent outside of English composition, creative writing, literature, and ESL classes.

Horowitz’s work is of interest because it attempted to categorize authentic writing tasks in the academic context, the same context that admissions tests such as the TOEFL, IELTS, and MELAB attempt to assess test takers’ readiness to perform in. The resulting categories from Horowitz’s work are broad but helpful as a classification of the types of tasks that writers in the academic context are likely to need to respond to. The shortcomings of the work are that the tasks were sourced only from a single university and the response rate to Horowitz’s survey was only around 5% of university faculty, bringing into question the representativeness of the sample. Also, the resulting categories were derived only from the author’s analysis of the tasks. The approach was inductive and guided by a single researcher’s interpretation of a relatively small number of tasks. Horowitz provided an important step toward understanding academic writing tasks but the relatively simple approach taken, along with the restricted sample of tasks

analyzed brings the extent to which the findings can be generalized into question.

ETS research into the writing test for the TOEFL 2000 project (Hale, Taylor, Bridgeman, Carson, Kroll, and Kantor, 1996) built on Horowitz’s (1986a, 1986b) work. The aim of this work was similar to that of Horowitz in that it reported on a survey of academic writing tasks employed in the US and Canadian university context. In contrast to Horowitz though, the ETS study surveyed faculty at multiple

universities at both the undergraduate and graduate level. Initially, 110 assignments were analyzed to develop a classification scheme for the writing tasks. The assignments were sourced from eight major research universities, both public and private in the US and Canada. The development of the initial classification scheme was inductive, similar to Horowitz’s approach and based on the tasks analyzed, not

42

responses to the tasks. After the development of a tentative classification scheme, this was applied to all assignments by five of the researchers. The final classification scheme had six categories:

1. Locus of writing (in or out of class) 2. Length of product

3. Genre

4. Cognitive demands 5. Rhetorical task 6. Pattern of exposition

Hale et al (1996) supplied a great deal of supporting detail from the survey to exemplify the six

categories. The locus category was intended to distinguish between assignments that are completed in class and those that are assigned out of class. Length of product was separated into five possible outcomes (Hale et al. 1996: 10)

 Non-extended discourse (around 75 words)  Short extended discourse (1/2 to 1 page)

 Extended discourse (more than 1 page; up to 5 pages)  Longer extended discourse (6 to 10 pages)

 Very extended discourse (more than 10 pages)

The genre category was used to explain what the written product looks like, such as an essay, the report of an experiment, or a case study. Ten separate genre categories were described in total. The category of cognitive demands was intended to “capture the level of thinking skills or intellectual functioning required to accomplish certain tasks, (Hale et al. 1996: 12). Categories such as cognitive demands are particularly problematic when relying on only an analysis of the tasks themselves. The cognitive demands the tasks make of writers is subjective and probably only a determination that can be made with the input of the students who respond to the tasks. Rhetorical tasks explain how the college instructor defines the forms or modes of discourse that the assignments take. The four categories identified were:

 Narration  Description  Exposition  Argument

Patterns of exposition reflect the expected patterns that would be present in students’ responses to the writing tasks, such as comparison/contrast, definition, and analysis. There were seven such patterns described in total.

Agreement rates between the researchers for the categorization decisions were reported and described as modest by the authors. Overall, the scale of the survey and number of assignments analyzed is impressive. However, the inductive approach, reliance on analysis of only tasks and not responses, and the modest agreement rates between the authors on the categorization decisions raise some questions about the merits of the categorization scheme. However, taken together, the work of Horowitz and the

43

ETS survey provide a good understanding of the types of writing tasks typically assigned in US and Canadian universities.

A similar study of IELTS writing prompts and academic writing tasks at two Australian universities was performed by Moore & Morton (2005). The aim of this work was comparable to that of Hale et al.; to compare the writing tasks employed on a high-stakes ESL test (knowledge telling tasks, per Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1987) with those writing tasks commonly found in authentic academic settings (knowledge transforming tasks, per Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1987). The authors analyzed 20 IELTS writing tasks and 155 university writing tasks at both the undergraduate and graduate level in several different disciplines. The four broad categories identified were:

 Genre

 Information source  Rhetorical function  Object of enquiry

Moore & Morton (2005) described 10 possible genre categories for writing tasks, the same number as in Hale et al., with these two sets of genre categories being very similar but not identical. Moore & Morton (2005: 51) go on to say that the IELTS writing tasks analyzed all represented just a single genre category (essay) compared to the 10 identified in the authentic college academic writing context.

The information source category referred to “the type of information that was to be used in the completion of a task (Moore & Morton, 2005: 51), most notably information from prior knowledge, primary sources, and secondary sources. While only 3% of the university writing tasks focused on the use of prior knowledge, all the IELTS tasks required only prior knowledge and no primary or secondary information sources. This finding highlights a common complaint about ESL writing tasks, even on tests of academic English, in that the ESL writing tasks fail to adequately represent the expectations of

argumentation required in authentic academic contexts, a criticism echoed strongly by Perelman (2012). Moore & Morton’s (2005) categorization of rhetorical function was a little more detailed than that of Hale et al. (1996). Moore & Morton identified nine rhetorical function categories, as compared to the four of Hale et al. Moore & Morton provide additional categories, beyond the ones found in Hale et al., such as evaluation, prediction, and recommendation. The IELTS tasks relied heavily on the rhetorical function of evaluation and while this was also an important function found in authentic academic writing tasks, the range of rhetorical functions found in the authentic academic settings was

considerably broader than those found on the IELTS writing tasks. The final category of object of enquiry operationalized the distinction between tasks that focused on specific, tangible subjects and those that were more abstractly or theoretically drawn.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the findings of Moore & Morton’s comparison of authentic university writing tasks and the tasks found on the IELTS indicated that the great diversity of writing tasks found in the academic context was not replicated on IELTS. As Moore & Morton (2005: 64) put it:

It is our view that the form of writing being prescribed by the IELTS, on analysis, may have more in common with certain public forms of written discourse than with those of the academy. In particular, the emphasis placed on the spontaneous expression of opinion suggests such public

44

nonacademic genres as the letter to the editor or newspaper editorial. Whilst practice in this type of writing will certainly contribute in a general way to students’ literacy development (how to write coherently, grammatically, etc.), it would be a mistake in our view to see it as an appropriate model for writing in a university context.

While the aim of this thesis is to identify key characteristics of writing prompts on ESL tests and not in the authentic academic context, collectively the approaches of Horowitz (1986a, 1986b), Hale et al. (1996), and Moore & Morton (2005) provide a comprehensive review of the types of writing tasks students can expect to be faced with in higher education. Genre is the one category that is common to all three studies. Rhetorical task (or function) is another characteristic that is common to the work of Hale et al. and Moore & Morton and a distinguishing task characteristic within both approaches. The other categories described in the three studies are distinct from each other.

The main conclusion to be drawn from these three important studies is that genre and rhetorical task can distinguish between writing tasks in the higher education context. The other distinguishing

characteristics differ based on the interpretations of the researchers and the specific tasks studied in the different contexts and institutions. These findings help illustrate that such classification schemes are quite subjective and depend on context and the perceptions of those coding the tasks. Without a more principled approach to task coding, beyond the inductive approaches undertaken in these studies, the resulting coding schemes will be based largely on the subjective interpretations of the researchers. Kroll & Reid (1994) outlined a set of guiding principles for designing effective writing prompts in an ESL context. This work, in contrast to the three reported above focuses on ESL writing tasks and not the writing tasks found in the college context. Kroll & Reid (1994: 233) suggested that such writing prompts typically take one of three main formats.

1. A bare prompt 2. A framed prompt

3. A text-based or reading-based prompt

A bare prompt is described as one that “states the entire task for the candidate, (Kroll and Reid, 1994: 233). One example provided is:

Many Americans like to participate in different sports. Write an essay in which you discuss the reasons why you do or do not like to play sports. Be specific.

A framed prompt provides a situation or set of circumstances along with a task that is based on the interpretation of the frame. An example cited by Kroll & Reid is:

Some people feel that using animals for food is cruel and unnecessary, while others feel that it is necessary for people to eat meat and that the production of animals for food can be done without cruelty. What is your position on the issue of whether people should use animals for food? Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of both positions and use concrete examples when you explain your point of view.

The distinction drawn between bare and framed prompts is an important one for independent writing prompts. It helps distinguish between different independent writing prompts in terms of both length

45

and complexity and provides some clear guidance for an approach to independent prompt categorization.

The final prompt type is equivalent to a reading-to-write prompt, or integrated writing prompt. The test taker is required to read an authentic reading passage and then write a response based on the passage. Within these three prompt types, Kroll & Reid listed six variables that prompt designers need to consider when crafting a writing prompt.

1. The writing situation (contextual variables) 2. The subject matter (content variables)

3. The wording of both the prompt and the instructions (linguistic variables) 4. The task(s) (task variables)

5. The rhetorical specifications (rhetorical variables) and 6. The scoring criteria (evaluation variables)

Points two to six are of particular relevance to this thesis as these points specifically focus on the characteristics of the prompt itself. Within content variables, Kroll & Reid (1994) emphasized the importance of constructing writing prompts that are based on topics that tap into the background knowledge of the test taker. Prompts should be based on topics that are familiar to as many test takers within the test population as possible so as to not unfairly advantage those who are more familiar with a certain topic than others. The content of the prompt should also be equally accessible to all test takers regardless of cultural background. Prompts that prove to be inaccessible or confusing to test takers from certain cultures should not be used operationally.

Under linguistic variables, Kroll & Reid (1994) called for unambiguous wording in test instructions. Beyond the instructions, Kroll & Reid (p.237) stated “the prompt itself should be worded in a way that is transparent and easy to interpret in terms of vocabulary and syntax, avoiding any possibility of

ambiguity, be it linguistic or cultural.”

Kroll & Reid (1994) also called for prompt designers to consider the number of tasks that are set for the test taker within the prompt. This number needs to be determined in relation to the time allowed for the writing test. The need for an accessible topic and a restricted number of tasks are emphasized for a timed writing test.

Kroll & Reid’s guidance regarding rhetorical variables lacked the clarity of their work on the other variables. The main aspects of rhetoric they considered are the expected voice of the response, the expected audience, and the expected rhetorical structure of the response based on the instructional verb in the prompt. Kroll & Reid cautioned against making the rhetorical demands excessive in the prompt and the instructions as they believe that such prompts may elicit “repetitive essays that can lead to difficulties in scoring,” (Kroll & Reid, 1994:239).

Overall, the guidance provided by Kroll & Reid (1994) on writing prompt design allows for an

understanding of characteristics of writing prompts that are common across a variety of prompt types and provides useful guidance for those who wish to reduce writing prompts to their core common characteristics.

46

Finally, Hamp-Lyons & Mathias (1994) undertook an investigation of writing prompt characteristics that is very relevant to this research as it focuses on the same testing context; the MELAB exam from The University of Michigan. They investigated the difficulty of 64 MELAB writing prompts, using expert judges to determine the relevant difficulty of the prompts. Hamp-Lyons & Mathias identified two main distinctions between the 64 prompts that they examined. These were the expected response mode that the prompts elicited (either expository or argumentative responses) and the orientation of the prompts (whether the prompts were publically oriented or privately oriented). The authors identified the prompt length, syntactic complexity of the prompt, and the expected audience as being relatively stable for the MELAB and not being relevant for the prompt categorization framework. The two primary distinctions (response mode and orientation) were used to create five task-type categories, (Hamp-Lyons & Mathias, 1994: 55).

1. Expository/private 2. Expository/public 3. Argumentative/private 4. Argumentative/public

5. Combination of two or more of the other four types

The expert judges (MELAB raters and ESL writing scholars) hypothesized that the expository/private prompts would be the easiest for test takers and that argumentative/public prompts would be the most difficult. However, an analysis of the scores awarded to written responses (n=8,583) to the 64 prompts showed that the opposite to the hypothesized hierarchy of prompt difficulty was the case. The average