Development of first-year students’ conceptions of essay writing

Introduction

Coursework essays have traditionally been one of the most important methods used to evaluate students’ understanding of their subject area. Although there has recently been an upsurge in innovative methods of assessment, essay writing is still used in many contexts. Both coursework and examination essays appear to be more likely to promote deep approaches to learning when
compared with fact-oriented multiple choice tests (Thomas and Bain 1984; Scouller 1998). Writing essays ideally requires students to engage actively with material, to examine ideas in depth, to integrate and critically evaluate what they read, and to state their understanding clearly – which often means that they develop their understanding further (Applebee 1984; Hounsell 1997).

Learning to write essays for a particular discipline can also be seen as a way in which students gain access to the academic discourse of that discipline (Prosser and Webb 1994). Recent research, however, suggests that essay-writing tasks can sometimes be seen less constructively by students, for example, as requiring them simply to lift information from books (Sambell, McDowell and Brown 1997). Hounsell (1987) found that essay writing had distinctive meanings for
students which took qualitatively different forms. He called these different forms conceptions of essay writing. Among the psychology students in his study, Hounsell found two overall conceptions of essay writing – ‘relevance’ and ‘cogency’. The ‘relevance’ conception involved characterising essays as an ordered discussion of relevant material. The students’ own thoughts about the topic were not central to their essay writing and they did not focus on establishing meaning. The students treated the components of the essay as discrete, and the conclusion as an afterthought or a formal requirement rather than as something integral to the finished work.

In the ‘cogency’ conception, by contrast, students’ own interpretations were dominant in the essay. Students evolved a coherent view on the topic from their reading, which determined their use of evidence and the organisation of their essay. They were focused on making meaning, and developing an individual view of the topic based on a firm empirical foundation (Hounsell 1987, 1997). Although the ‘cogency’ conception seems closer to what most teachers of psychology would want from their students, the ‘relevance’ conception was still present for some of these second year students despite their having had guidance on what was required. A similar lack of congruence between students’ conceptions of essay writing and what was expected in their disciplines has been identified in research with first-year psychology students (Norton 1990), first and third year education students (Campbell, Smith and Brooker 1998), first-year sociology students (Prosser and Webb 1994), and first, second and third-year biology students (Merry, Orsmond and Reiling 1998).

One reason why students may remain wedded to inappropriate conceptions is that their existing conceptions influence their interpretation of any advice they are given. There is evidence that students’ conceptions of essay writing may include misinterpretations, or simplifications, of assessment criteria (Campbell et al. 1998; Norton 1990). Hounsell (1987), drawing on
Rommetveit, suggests that tutors and students must share an understanding of the assumptions underlying the advice given before it can be effective. Yet, discussion on these issues cannot easily be made clear and precise, and it may not occur at all. Ballard and Clanchy (1988) point out that is rare in higher education for cultural understandings about the use of language to be
discussed between staff and students.

VELDA MCCUNE