To consider whether the knowledge-telling process is effective, it will be necessary to understand the process in depth. With the use of an example assignment given to an inexperienced writer, I will try to explain the knowledge-telling process which young students engage in to complete their tasks. Assignment given: “What are your daily activities at school?” By examining the question, the writer will think of things to write about. The writer will identify the key words being “daily activities”, and “School”. The writer will recollect what he/she does at school, and to generate content he/she will consider what other students do as well. The genre requested requires the writer to describe the events in context. There is a simple order of time (comparable to Grabe & Kaplan’s “what did you do during the holiday weekend?” Grabe & Kaplan, 1996, p.120). Most of what is retrieved is connected to the topic. The information will be both coherent and possess chronological order in relation to the topic. The writing will provide stimulus for further writing by activating the memory for more information and for the retrieval of it (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996, p.120). Grabe and Kaplan state that in this situation, abstract logical organisation is not necessary for the writer to be concerned about. (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996, p.120). They identify the results of a similar writing process for which it: is simple to gather sufficient information; does not put excessive stress on the writer with excessive cognitive tasks; tends to adjust itself coherently by easy connection to the topic and to time. The structure and explanation of the knowledge-telling process, to my understanding, is as follows: Information from the MENTAL REPRESENTATION OF ASSIGNMENT (mental understanding of the assignment) enters into the KNOWLEDGE-TELLING PROCESS box where it is deconstructed to identify the topic and genre of the assignment, thus finding its place in the LOCATE
TOPIC IDENTIFIERS and the LOCATE GENRE
IDENTIFIERS. While this is happening knowledge in its two kinds, CONTENT KNOWLEDGE (where knowledge is produced on the subject mater) and DISCOURSE KNOWLEDGE (where knowledge is produced through discussions) makes its first entry into the KNOWLEDGE-TELLING box. The information from the IDENTIFIERS is grouped into the CONSTRUCT MEMORY PROBES compartment . Here the information in the memory is examined and searched for carefully. The information is then passed through to the RETRIEVE CONTENT FROM MEMORY USING PROBES compartment where the subject matter is brought out from the memory using search and inquiry (probes). CONTENT KNOWLEDGE and DISCOURSE KNOWLEDGE is entering again at this stage. If the retrieved information appears to be appropriate as examined by the RUN TESTS OF APPROPRIATENESS block, (with further input from the KNOWLEDGE boxes) the information is passed to be written down, i.e. to the WRITE (NOTES, DRAFT, ETC) block. If the information fails to qualify in the RUN TESTS OF APPROPRIATENESS block, the information is once again taken to the CONSTRUCT MEMORY PROBES compartment for further examination and searches for other material. The information from the WRITE block is used for updating in the UPDATE MENTAL REPRESENTATION OF TEXT afterwhich further searches are made for more things to say by re-entering the CONSTRUCT MEMORY PROBE which continues the cycle. Grabe and Kaplan describe the processing demands as being reasonably easy in this model as it does not account for writing tasks which requires more complicated processing such as requirement of information ordering, importance of information, teacher’s expectations, logical methods of argument organisation which will assess the credibility of writing (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996, p.122). Grabe and Kaplan explain that the latter type of writing is noticed in more advanced writing for academic purposes, the knowledge-telling model reflects poor light on the task complexity involved in cases of complex writing demands (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996, p.122).
Bereiter and Scardamalia acknowledge that the varied differences in writing quality can belong to differences in language skills, vocabulary, these are not directly connected to the process by which content is produced in the knowledge-telling model. They describe how advantages in knowledge, both content and discourse, may be used to prompt more well structured compositions by students and also by using a more sophisticated set of tests used towards content retrieved from memory, the more advanced students may use these tests to include appropriateness to topic and text function but also for criteria including clearness, plausibility and interest (Beard, 1993, p.169). My argument is that if the writer can achieve such success by the use of the knowledge-telling model this could suggest that this use of knowledge is sufficient for a “novice to write like an expert.”(quotation from: Beard, 1993, p.170). Before this argument can be explained in its entirety, explanation of the knowledge-transforming model is required to assess its strengths and how it fits in with one of the statements between Murray and Martlew.
Bereiter and Scardamalia have provided a more appropriate model to tackle with the more advanced writing demands which is the knowledge-transforming model. The structure and explanation of which is as follows: Information from the MENTAL REPRESENTATION OF ASSIGNMENTS (i.e. the mental understanding of the written task) leads directly to the PROBLEM ANALYSIS AND GOAL SETTING block. The information from here gets diverted into two separate blocks, the CONTENT PROBLEM SPACE, (which is interacting with the CONTENT KNOWLEDGE globe) here, this place sorts the problem out and the RHETORICAL PROBLEM SPACE which questions and identifies the problem (this is interacting with the DISCOURSE KNOWLEDGE globe). The two SPACES are transferring information to each other via the PROBLEM TRANSLATION compartments (as the settling of one problem may activate the other). As the problems get resolved they enter into the KNOWLEDGE-TELLING PROCESS compact box which produces the writing. As the writing is produced, it reveals sets of problems which must enter the PROBLEM ANALYSIS AND GOAL SETTING block to be solved, (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996, p.123) the cycle continues. An example of this model in action is as follows: Let us take for example, the writing about Piaget’s stage theory in psychology, where the writer makes use of the term schema to explain how children develop schemas through experimentation. After reflecting, the writer identifies a problem that some readers in the audience (RHETORICAL PROBLEM SPACE) would not clearly pinpoint the meaning of the term schema due to its various definitions. The writer would thus have to activate the CONTENT PROBLEM SPACE and use a more appropriate term in CONTENT KNOWLEDGE. The definition: theory about how the physical and social world operate fits the intended meaning thus cancelling out any other misinterpretations. The definition is brought back to the RHETORICAL PROBLEM SPACE to test whether it fits the organisation of the text (comparable to Grabe and Kaplan’s decoding skills, Grabe & Kaplan, 1996, p.123). Grabe and Kaplan inform us that the rhetorical problems may consist of: where in the prior text to bring in the term; how cautiously one should explain the term; whether or not the new terms bring complications for the reader; whether or not more information is required elsewhere in the text due to the change in words ( Grabe & Kaplan, 1996, p.123). They explain how the last two concerns may bring the writer back to the CONTENT PROBLEM SPACE to look for supporting content information. If there is inconsistency of meaning from the new term or if more information is needed, the writer will then need to take into consideration whether the organisational structure of the text will require adjustment ( returning to RHETORICAL PROBLEM SPACE). An interplay of this kind may continue for all the problems highlighted by goal setting, problem anticipation or problem recognition from the produced text (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996, p.123-124).
Bereiter and Scardamalia have considered that the knowledge-telling model can evolve into a higher form. As with the consideration about what makes the expert writer (discussed previously), Bereiter and Scardamalia argue that when considering the “novice writing like an expert” through knowledge-telling, what is being viewed here is not the writer but the properties of models and thus not the empirical information of the writing behaviour. (Beard, 1993, p.170). What is argued for is the design features of the knowledge telling model, that for advanced writing, it does not portray strategic formulation of goals, sub-goals, search criteria and other parts of problem solving (Beard, 1993, p.170). The argument in my opinion is clear, Bereiter and Scardamalia have put precedence over design instead of the use or application of the model. What has been argued for from the beginning of this assignment is that knowledge and its uses is more significant than the abundance of information and that knowledge alone is not sufficient, if this is the case then for Martlew’s concept to hold true then I will have to consider that the knowledge-telling model if used effectively is competent enough to challenge the knowledge-transforming model. I would argue that the writing product, if produced successfully, can stand true on its own weight. I would also consider the efficiency of the model with regards to its ease of application. Bereiter and Scardamalia have acknowledged that “with enough elaboration and supplementation, it is quite conceivable that the knowledge-telling process could produce texts of a quality difficult to distinguish from the products of knowledge transforming process” (Beard, 1993, p.170). Bereiter and Scardamalia have also acknowledged that evidence of a knowledge-transforming approach to writing is present even among those who have no specific ability for a commitment to writing of whom some could be judged to be poor writers by literary standards (Beard, 1993, p.161). If this is the case then I would argue that the success of a written material would lie more on the writer’s ability to write than the method he uses. If use of the knowledge-transforming method cannot always guarantee a good piece of writing to be produced by it then it cannot in my opinion qualify as always producing effective writing. I will try to explain my argument with an analogy. Let us consider two drivers, A and B, where A is a much more experienced driver and B is a beginner. Let them be given two cars, the new Porshe for the beginner and the old Mini for the experienced driver, (both cars are in driving condition) the experienced driver will reach his destination with ease but the beginner will progress with much difficulty, likewise, if we give the inexperienced writer the knowledge-transforming model and the experienced writer the knowledge-telling model, I would assume that the knowledge telling writer would produce the better piece of work. I am thus arguing that effective writing is more a reflection of the writer than the model he uses. I thus feel that abundance of specific information, i.e. knowledge about the knowledge-transforming model and its use depends on the skills of the writer and the knowledge of the model itself does not produce efficient writing. Robert Portherough highlights that the views associated with teaching methods of today emphasise on the written product and not on the way in which it is produced (R.Protherough, 1983, p.14). My view on this is that the method of writing should suit the writer, this does not mean that the writer should not find ways to improve his/her writing process but that each writer has a style and he/she will continue his/her writing process until he/she is aware of the limitations in the method.
I will now look into the limitations of my argument, what my argument does not account for is why would the good writer not adopt a more advanced and skilful model, why should he be satisfied with the elementary knowledge telling model. My argument does not give justice to the good driver who is driving a Mini, my argument has elevated the novice driver with the help of a Porshe car. My answer to this is that I don’t know why the sophisticated writer would be content with the knowledge-telling model but what my argument is that the writer will use what works for him. Let me try to win back my argument, I will do this by explaining myself with another analogy which considers the users. It is known that professional tennis players use top quality tennis rackets such as Head but what is to prevent the beginner or the intermediate player from using a high quality Head racket. It may be because he/she likes the feel of it, not that it will help him/her play any better for he/she has not developed the skills for its use to come through. The advantages of the racket will only reveal itself to the experienced player where he can feel the power of the racket and its ease of use. Likewise Bereiter and Scardamalia have identified the knowledge-transforming users to be among people at advanced levels in any intellectual discipline as do the professional tennis players use advanced rackets. This does not prevent in my opinion, the struggling writer to make use of this technique hoping that the use of such a model will instantaneously transform his piece of work into a masterpiece. I will explain the limitations of this argument with a similar analogy. It is the Wimbledon tennis final, both players must make sure that they have the best equipment. The rackets they use must be of the highest quality, well-strung and strong grips. If at this point one of the players uses a wooden racket believing that only his skills will decide the winning factor in this game, he will be deeply disappointed at the end of the match. Likewise if the experienced writer were to compete with another experience writer, the absence of his knowledge-transforming model will force greater demands on him while he used the knowledge telling model. I leave the debate open as to whether this writer can out-think his opponent and produce an exceptional quality of work with the use of this “inferior” model in a writing competition, I only refer to Bereiter and Scardamalia’s point that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between the results of the two processes (Beard, 1993, p.170).
In this essay it was necessary to discuss the mechanism and structure of the two processes to be able to assess the strengths of the two processes. I have argued that if it is the use of knowledge, as outlined by Martlew, that is important then such use will prove effective for the application of any model if used effectively. I have also argued that an abundance of information such as the awareness of the mechanism of the knowledge- transforming model does not always produce effective writing. I have stressed that the writer’s skill is more important than the method he uses. If two equally effective pieces of work have been made where one uses the knowledge-telling model and the other uses the knowledge-transforming model then there should be no prejudice towards the written work produced by the “inferior” model. The product is where the results lie not the method. I have attempted to use analogies where I found appropriate in the key debatable areas. I have also tried to portray both strengths and weaknesses in my argument but my overall conclusion is firm.
Word Count: 3,347.
References:
Beard, R. (1993) teaching Literacy balancing Perspectives, Hodder & Stoughton, London, U.K.
Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987) The psychology of written composition, Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum cited in Theory and practice of writing, Grabe & Kaplan.
Grabe, W. & Kaplan, R.B. (1996) Theory and practice of writing Addison Wesley Longman Limited, Harlow, Essex, England.
Martlew, M. (1983) The Psychology of Written Language, Developmental and Educational Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, U.K.
Protherough, R. (1983) Encouraging writing, Methuen & Co. Ltd, London, U.K.
Ferneaux, C. Process writing,
.ac.uk/AcaDepts/cl/slals/process.htm (26.11.01)
Writing Development,
(26.11.01)
