Friday, June 5, 2009

Joseph Williams and Gregory G. Colomb: "Two Metaphors for Learning and The Novice Writer"

A comparison of novice and expert writers reveals two very different approaches; the novice tends to be more literal, while the expert thinks abstractly. This is manifested in many ways throughout the writing process: such as style and vocabulary. Joseph Williams and Gregory G. Colomb reflect on our use of metaphors to oversimplify complicated subject matter. They challenge the metaphors we use, and offer more accurate depictions of the differences between the novice and expert. In “Two Metaphors for Learning and The Novice Writer,” the basis for this regression is linked to development of the human mind and the metaphor of progress as linear development.

Novice writers often struggle to communicate the new ideas presented to them as they move into new areas of study. Williams and Colomb contend that it is not “by IQ or diligence, but by a qualitative structure of mind” that each student, as they vary fields, will revert back to the ways of a novice writer. This is an important distinction, as it requires an adjustment of the methods in which students are taught to write. Each writer, regardless of skill level, will revert to the characteristics of a novice writer as the switch fields. As students progress from low-knowledge beginners to high-level experts, their thought processes shift from the immediate to the abstract, and they begin to write using their own voice. They have explained these differences through the work of developmentalists like as Jean Piaget (1958), William Perry (1968), and Lawrence Kohlberg (1984).

Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development describes the capacity for which children are able to understand the world around them. There are four stages of development, though only the third and fourth stages are relevant to “Two Metaphors for Learning and The Novice Writer.” The third stage is described as the concrete operational stage (ages 6-12). Thinking is characterized by a reliance on immediate facts and experiences (Piaget 1958). A concrete thinker will likely interpret the proverb “a chain is only as strong as its weakest link,” with its literal interpretation that the weakest link of a chain will break. They are unable to understand the more abstract connotations.

At the age of 12, children move towards the fourth and final stage of development: the formal operational stage. There is a transition from “relatively ‘lower level’ concreteness to relatively ‘higher order’ abstraction” (218). Children are now capable of reasoning and deduction. They will not only rely on past experiences, but also hypothesize using the information available to them (Piaget 1958). The abstract thinker will recognize that in the previous proverb, the chain is ripe with metaphor. Until the student has a full understanding of any material, they will only comprehend the apparent meaning and not the underlying nuance.

As student’s progress from concrete to abstract thinkers, they “grow up,” following an upward sloping graph, tracking age and skill. As students progress rightward (time), their skill level increases. It is expected that a student follow a continuous path, a straight line where only progress is made. Williams and Colomb describe the trap of relying on these metaphors. Blame is placed on past teachers and institutions when a student regresses below a level once reached. These assumptions are neither accurate nor helpful. As teachers place blame on past instructors, they ignore the underlying problems. All students must learn differently, and it can be expected not to improve at such a steady rate.

Research in the area of cognitive psychology has shown that expert and novice thinkers solve problems in different ways (Larkin, McDermott, Simon, and Simon, 1980; Chi, Feltovich, and Glaser, 1981). Novices are characterized by concrete thinking, while experts are characterized by more abstract thinking. Once the experts fully understand the topic, they are able to hypothesize and apply their own ideas.

Though even experts are not immune from regressing back to concreteness. Voss and others (1985) organized a group of high/low knowledge and expert/novice subjects. They found that the novices responded with simple, direct answers, while the experts responded with abstract lines of thought, “decomposing the problem, [and] defining the problem space” (220). However, the expert from another field reverted back to concreteness when answering the question. This suggests, “‘Concrete’ behavior may in fact indicate thin categories of knowledge, not some intrinsic quality of mind” (219). This reinforces Williams and Colomb’s opinion that knowledge and style are linked. However, there is no proof that an expert’s ability to write, when applied in an unknown field, will revert to a level at or below the novice. It is likely that there is some regression, but not the complete stylistic breakdown they suggest.

Novices are not yet capable of writing with a voice; they present facts rather than analysis. As Williams and Colomb depict, “the novices constructed relatively shorter chains of arguments, moving from point to point without developing any one of them extensively. However, once the high-knowledge experts introduced a topic, they stayed with it, developing a chain of reasoning based on that argument” (220). The expert’s high level of knowledge allows him or her to understand the topic in a more comprehensive way, even before they begin to write. Without a high level of knowledge, the novice writer is unable to think abstractly and write from his or her own perspective.

Beyond providing only “mere summary,” (223) “novices will tend to say those things that can be left unsaid by insiders, things that can be left unsaid just because they are shared” (222). Rather than moving directly into analysis, they will lead through explanation: “the main point supporting my point of view.” The expert will have an understanding of the “basics” of the subject. There is no need to reiterate the information, because it is understood. The novice writes from this perspective, because it is the most readily apparent to them. They do not own the information therefore they cannot control it.

A more apt metaphor to the student “growing up,” is the “outsider trying to get ‘into’ a community” (Williams and Colomb 221). Each community will have it’s own language and vocabulary. As students try to enter these communities, they will mimic the language. “New [law] students typically seize on the heretofore’s and whereas’s because they are among the most concretely obvious signals of legal language…” (222). The novice is again suffering a stylistic breakdown, reverting to concrete thinking. Since the students don’t have a full and clear understanding of the field, they use the most recognizable vocabulary and style to give the impression they do.

Williams and Colomb argue that linear progression as a metaphor is flawed, and the metaphor of “a novice trying to join a community of experts” (227) is more insightful. If high-knowledge experts suffer similar stylistic breakdowns as the novice, it is not that the student has been improperly taught, but that they lack the knowledge of the current field to control the information. Instructors must be conscious of these differences in learning style to be effective. Otherwise, students will progress without truly discovering their voice.

The metaphor of an outsider trying to get into a community may be more appropriate; however Williams and Colomb are contradicting their own supposition that metaphors have consequences. Any metaphor that seeks to represent all, can’t; thus its use must be limited. These metaphors have become part of our culture, and as such, we no longer question their meaning. If we can look past what is expected, old ideas can be reinterpreted. Teachers can re-interpret students performance, and both will prove to be more engaged and effective.

They have also failed to provide a valid argument to address the other cultural implications of the expert switching fields. The high knowledge expert fails to perform at a level earlier attained in a new field. They assume that is a symptom of concrete thinking. However they have not taken into account the experts natural appeal toward the subject in which they study. A lack of engagement may be due in part to the disinterest of the writer in the new subject. They allude to the impact of the individual’s cultural perspective, but do not offer any further insight. It seems unlikely that the writer’s own experiences wouldn’t influence their writing.

Williams and Colomb describe “the tyranny of the concrete and the breakdown of skills mastered earlier” (227). The metaphor of linear progress is deceiving. Advancement is not a straight line from A to B, but a series of peaks and valleys shifting up and down. Each student will find his or her own direction. The student must re-master skills learned earlier when entering new fields. It is not a fault of the system, but a genetic epistemology, which reverts a student back to concrete thinking and a reliance on what is readily known. The student is not yet capable of analysis, but they must seek a voice from which to write.

Williams and Colomb have put forth a convincing interpretation of the dangers and pitfalls of novice writing and a heavy reliance on the metaphor. They have used strong anecdotal evidence and research to back up their arguments; however, they have done little to address issues from someone who may not share their views. Such as a more thorough description of why the developmental stages are linked to learning. The metaphor for linear progress does little good to enhance our views of the learning process and the novice joining a community is flawed, but Williams and Colomb believe is more helpful to the novice learner. A more comprehensive understanding of how students learn is crucial to the writing process and a new interpretation of old ideas can be illuminating.

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Alexander Calandra: "The Barometer Story"

After reading Alexander Calandra’s “ Angels on a pin: The barometer story” I have become more thankful for open minded professors like him. I believe that his humor and likeability lead him to be chosen as an arbiter by his physics colleague. The situation called for a second opinion on determining the grade on a physics exam for a student who challenged the academic structure of the grading process.

In my own personal experience I noticed through the earlier grades I knew what to expect and how to deliver. My sister was one grade ahead of me, so while watching her go through the motions I became prepared for what to expect in the upcoming school year. It felt almost robotic. Learn the lesson, turn in the assignment and take the exam. It was all very structured. Later I found high school to be a bit more refreshing. The teachers seemed open minded and the class structure and assignments seemed to vary from teacher to teacher.

The process and style of the teaching methods were even more open minded and broad allowing us to show are strengths and individualism. This allowed students who carried more artistic style minds, those who learned more hands on and any students that had a more untraditional way of processing but still saw the objective and reached the same conclusion to be better accepted.

As I raise my own child and instill skills, manners and structure in her life, I most definitely see the purpose behind set teaching skills and reinforced academic structure in the earlier years. I believe that young students need to learn the basics and have a good foundation. Currently I see more and more programs and activities to reach out to students who might learn and absorb the materials better. I see a more modern blend of teaching styles and techniques and it is extremely refreshing to see.

In my eyes this story displays a traditional professor seeking a second opinion from another fair yet more modern physics professor. I believe he sought out Alexander Calandra because he knew his student was on the right track and that times were changing academically. In conclusion the final answer given by the student seemed to be a fair blend of a physics answer and an intelligent well thought out open minded approach. I believe the “almost full credit” grade given by Calandra seemed fair and hope to see more students given the opportunity to re-tune their answers before a zero or incomplete grade is given.