Leon G. de Stadler Stellenbosch Writing Centre South Africa

1
Leon G. de StadlerStellenbosch Writing
CentreSouth Africa

• From Process to Product -the lecturer as reader

2
The Background

• Stellenbosch Writing Centre - a different
  history?
• We started out as a Centre for Document Design,
  with a focus on text linguistic applications
• Interest primarily in aspects of text structure
  and text quality

3
The Background

• We were, and still are, interested in the effects
  that text have on readers
• The main question being What makes a text
  effective given the communicative goals you set
  for yourself and the audience you decide on

4
And then

• Asked to establish a writing centre
• Providing services to the whole campus
• Initiative driven by a strong and clear policy
  statement by management
• Making faculty part of the solution, not the
  problem, which means

5
And then

• that we had to develop a clear idea of the kind
  of training that faculty might need in order to
  make them effective partners

6
The Structure

• To do our job as a writing centre with a total
  responsibility for university and (business)
  community, we developed a structure with two
  units
• Unit for Document Design
• Writing Lab

7
Interests

• Document Design Theory and Practice
• Text quality assessment
• Writing skills development
• Services in the Writing Lab include

8
Services and aims

• Consultation
• Writing Intensive courses
• Workshops
• Development of a virtual writing centre
• Workshops and other forms of training for staff

9
Which brings me to the pointof this discussion

• We wanted to find out what effect the writings of
  our students had on their primary audience, that
  is the lecturers?
• How do lecturers actually react to their
  students writing?

10
The questions in thispresentation

• On what basis do we decide the content of
  training for lecturing staff at Stellenbosch?
• How do we ascertain what the Stellenbosch
  lecturers know about the (often bad) writing of
  their students?

11
More specifically

• To what extent are lecturers typical readers?
  What problems do typical readers actually see in
  a text?

12
Importance of these questions?

• The document as a product in an age of
  consumerism
• We therefore need to have some understanding of
  the way in which the product is received
• So, we need to reflect on models and methods of
  quality assessment

13
Model of text quality

• Model of text quality the Renkema Model (see
  hand-out)
• Three variables and five structural levels (see
  hand-out) a hierarchy of text features
• Position of writer and reader relative to the
  hierarchy of text features

14
Writers and readers in the model of text quality

• The model suggests that writers and readers react
  differently to texts
• Writers focus more on the higher-level issues
  in the text
• Readers focus more on the lower-level issues in
  the text
• Lets find out

15
References

• Renkema model of text quality
• Methods of text quality assessment

16
Methods of assessment

• Text-focused
• Expert-focused
• Reader-focused
• Our focus will be on the reader-focused methods,
  but

17
Two experiments

• A series of research projects on the role of
  ordinary readers - I will present one example
• Pilot project the role of lecturers as readers
• To be followed by a larger project with 60
  participants from different faculties

18
Research question

• How do the readers of these texts evaluate the
  text?
• More specifically, on which aspects of text
  design do they actually focus when assessing the
  quality of the writing?

19
Setup Exp. 1

• An example from the series the quality of
  medicine leaflets
• Nine problem categories, more or less the same in
  both experiments (see hand-out)
• Using Focus, computer programme
• Statistical analysis

20
The problem categories

• Spelling error
• Wrong punctuation
• Wrong sentence structure
• Style and formulation
• Dont understand
• Understand, but it does not make sense difficult
  to believe
• Too much information
• Too little information
• Problems with coherence
• Others (participants asked to offer a
  description)

21
Problems identified in nine categoriesPercentage
s of potential problems
22
Results

• Readers tend to focus on the lower-level
  problems in a text
• Their maxim First impressions count
• Little understanding of the higher levels of
  text design and writing
• Difficulty to identify these higher-level
  problems

23
Results in the other projects?

• Results in other projects of this kind show the
  same tendency

24
Setup Exp. 2

• 15 participants
• Three faculties Arts, Natural Sciences,
  Engineering (5 each)
• Three Afrikaans texts manipulated to contain a
  range of problems
• Ten possible problem categories
• Hypothesis Lecturers are typical readers

25
Setup Exp. 2

• Same type Introductions
• Approximately the same length approximately the
  same types and numbers of problems
• Task identify and categorise
• Quantitative and qualitative information provided

26
Data

• Statistics for different problem categories
• Expressed as persentage of total number of
  possible problems in each category (established
  through expert analysis)
• Remarks of a general and specific nature

27
Real scores Arts Engineering Natural
Science Average
28
Scores as percentages of potential
problems Arts Engineering Natural
Science Average
29
Arts Engineering Natural Science Average
30
Arts Engineering Natural Science Average
31
Remarks by participants

• It is difficult to assess this text. Too vague.
  Not well-defined.
• Logical links missing.
• I am disturbed by the fact that I assess the
  writing intuitively.
• Lack of logic.
• Hypothesis not correctly formulated.

32
Remarks by participants

• Almost every sentence badly formulated.
• Generally speaking, sentence structure really
  bad. Almost every sentence badly formulated.
• The order of paragraphs could be better. Info
  does not flow. Difficult to comment.

33
Results and conclusions

• The lecturers are typical readers
• Strong tendency to focus more on lower-level
  problems in the text
• Find it difficult to identify the higher-level
  problems
• even though they often record a vague feeling
  of unhappiness

34
General conclusions

• The need for training of teaching staff as
  worthy partners of the Writing Lab is clear
• Focus on the higher level aspects of writing in
  training, yes, but
• a reminder to students about the importance of
  packaging

35
General conclusions

• The research sounds a warning to Stellenbosch
  students and writing centre staff alike to focus
  on process and on product
• I have a problem with a writing centre philosophy
  that makes a distinction between the more
  substantial and the more superficial issues of
  writing

36
General conclusions

• This research shows that those things considered
  to be of lesser importance (i.e. spelling and
  punctuation) are of vital importance to the
  reader
• Those are the problems readers see first, and
  quite often they create the lasting impression

37
Furthermore

• It shows the importance of empirical research
• It indicates the advantages of a happy marriage
  between the science of writing and the science of
  text and text quality research

38
and in the end

• the research also provides us with a marketing
  tool
• a way of persuading otherwise cynical members
  of staff about the importance and the scientific
  basis of the things we do
• by speaking their language, that is, the
  language of research

39
Thanks for listening!

• Website of the Stellenbosch Writing Centre
• http//www.sun.ac.za/sagus
• (Presentation will be on the website within two
  weeks)

40
(No Transcript)