Communication in the First-year Writing Classroom: A Rhetorical and Cognitive Linguistic Study
Bradley Smith
Research Network Forum
March 21, 2012
Abstract:
This study collects and categorizes conceptual metaphors used by first-year writing students and teachers to think and write about the acts of learning to write, communicating using writing, and composing written texts. It shows that FYW students and teachers use many of the same conceptual metaphors but with different frequency and as part of different linguistic frames. Furthermore, it reveals that FYW students and teachers often do not communicate effectively because they use different conceptual metaphors and frames to think about and communicate their thoughts about writing and learning to write. Based on the collected data, I argue that FYW teachers should carefully employ conceptual metaphors and frames consistent with their value systems and that teachers of writing should employ a written-communication-as-conversation frame less frequently, opting instead for a written-communication-as-journey frame.
Introduction:
In the past few years, framing has taken on an integral role in the conversation of teaching college writing. Perhaps the most visible manifestation of this movement is the “Framework for Success in Post-Secondary Writing” created by the Council of Writing Program Administrators, the National Council of Teachers of English, and the National Writing Project. This document works to reframe the concept of college readiness, using the notion that readiness rests on students’ previous experiences and their “habits of mind,” which rightly shifts the conversation away from a frame focused on minds as containers for ideas and toward a frame focused on the mind’s growth over time and its ability to perform certain tasks.
Scholarship in the field of composition and rhetoric has been building to this moment for quite some time. For instance, Lad Tobin’s (1989) CCC’s article “Bridging Gaps: Analyzing our Students’ Metaphors for Composing” argued that a clearer understanding of our students’ metaphors for composing would allow us to better communicate with them. The relationship between framing and conceptual metaphors is too complex to do justice in this short time. Yet it is clear that there is a substantive and overlapping relationship between the two theories of cognition. George Lakoff’s work on morality and politics offers one clear example of this connection.
In addition to Tobin’s research, much work has been done to identify and analyze individual metaphors used in the context of first-year writing. However much critical work still needs to be completed in order to understand the way that conceptual metaphors interact within the context of first-year writing to frame the discourse of learning and writing. This study builds on Tobin’s work and other Composition and Rhetoric scholars (most notably Linda Adler-Kassner and Philip Eubanks) who have investigated conceptual metaphors and framing. In addition, it introduces to the discussion the range and diversity of conceptual metaphors and frames used to think about writing and learning within the context of first-year writing. To achieve these goals the study takes a broad-spectrum look at the conceptual metaphors and frames that first-year writing students and teachers use and analyzes their effects on classroom communication and behavior.
Methods:
In order to identify and analyze conceptual metaphors and frames, I collected meta-cognitive documents from 35 students in two sections of first-year writing. These documents were assigned as part of the course, and in them students were asked to reflect on what they were learning as the course progressed.
To account for the conceptual metaphors that FYW teachers use, I added a second set of data to the corpus. These materials were the transcript of Todd Taylor's "Take 20" and chapters four, five, and six from Richard Haswell’s and Min-Zhan Lu's Comp Tales. The three chapters from Comp Tales are a collection of focused reflections on "The Classroom," "The Writing," and "The Students." This set of data was used because it offered an amount of text similar to the student data collected, the texts were reflective and analytical along the same lines as the student data, and the texts came from a diverse group of first-year writing teachers with diverse experiences and backgrounds. Together, these texts allowed me to look at the conceptual systems that teachers of first-year writing across a spectrum use to think about what it means to learn to write and to communicate using writing.
“Evidence” of a conceptual metaphor and its related frames was seen as a metaphor used to conceptualize the act of writing or the acts of learning to write. Metaphor identification followed the identification methods employed by Lynne Cameron in Metaphors in Educational Discourse and were coded according to 13 different categories. Examples of metaphor identification and the coding categories are listed in the handout.
Results:
This analysis led to the identification of a number of different conceptual metaphors and frames that are simultaneously at work in classroom contexts—too many to discuss in any sort of detail during this presentation; however the handout gives comparisons between general trends in student and teachers’ metaphor use. The main metaphors that we might expect to surface in this study were present:
Conduit Metaphor for communication
Banking Metaphor for learning
Constructivist Metaphor for learning
Container Metaphors for the mind and for written texts
Speaking Metonymy for written communication
Journey metaphors for writing process and for written communication
Yet there were other metaphors that were also amply present in the data but that are also used to conceptualize written communication, writing processes, or learning to write. Most notably:
Artistic Craft metaphor for writing process
This is most notable because this metaphor occurred only in the data collected from teachers. Furthermore, it was the metaphor most often used by teachers to conceptualize the composing process. As such, it offers a clear example of the way that students and teachers differ in their thinking about composing.
Discussion:
Generally, what we can draw from these data is that there are clearly differences in the ways teachers and students of first-year writing use conceptual metaphors in order to frame the work of learning to write and the processes involved in written communication. This was clear in the frequency with which teachers and students used certain conceptual metaphors. Most surprisingly and most interestingly, though, the data revealed that even when students and teachers were using the same conceptual metaphors, often they employed those metaphors differently, as part of different conceptual frames. For instance, both teachers and students relied to a certain extent on the metaphor that ideas are objects. Yet those objects were characterized differently when used in association with different metaphors for learning. If learning was conceptualized as collecting and storing ideas, then the idea-as-object became an object that could be “stored in” the mind-as-container (e.g. a liquid “soaked up” by the mind). Here learning is framed as the act of passively soaking up ideas and holding onto them for the future, when they will be squeezed out again. But if learning was conceptualized as “ordering” or “connecting” ideas, then the idea-as-object transformed into a metaphor conducive to stacking and connecting (e.g. bricks or blocks). Here learning is framed more actively, according to constructivist principles, where new learning is “built on” previous learning until “higher” education is achieved.
This difference in metaphor use is troubling because it suggests that students and teachers will sometimes conflict on the most basic understanding of what is expected as the work of the course. That is, if students are to be prepared for post-secondary success, not only must they have developed specific habits of mind through positive writing experiences, they must understand that learning to write means developing these habits of mind, rather than “collecting” and “storing” facts about writing.
In addition, the rich collection of potential metaphors and frames suggests that teachers of first-year writing should carefully consider the conceptual metaphors and frames that they will employ while they are teaching. The “Framework for Success in Postsecondary Writing” nicely offers a way for teachers to begin thinking about which metaphors and frames will most successfully communicate their values. Yet consciously employing the same metaphors as the document requires paying conscious attention to the metaphoric constructions one uses while teaching, which is indeed a difficult prospect.
Handout:
Data Codes Used for Analysis
Mind Characteristics [MC]: metaphors used to explain the relationship between the mind and what it means to learn to write.
Communicative Processes [CP]: metaphors used to explain the act of communicating an idea to another person or group of people.
Writing [W]: metaphors used to explain the act of representing concepts orthographically or features that these orthographic representations had or should have. This category included two subcategories: Writing Effectively [W(E)] or Writing Ineffectively [W(I)].
Learning [L]: metaphors used to explain the act of learning to write.
Knowledge [K]: metaphors used to explain what it meant to know how to write.
Writing Processes [WP]: metaphors used to explain the actions, activities, or processes involved in writing. I also chose to create subcategories for processes that occurred frequently in the data: Revising [WP(R)], Editing [WP(Ed)], Responding [WP(Resp)], Researching [WP(Rsch)], and Arguing [WP(A)].
Example of Coded Results:
This unit was about how to write a well-written research proposal. In order to write a carefully planned out and good research paper, you must first write a research proposal. The proposal includes [R1&R2 W][1] an introduction stating [R1&R2 CP] what you plan to be writing about and why you think it might be important. Next there is the working bibliography, which states [R1&R2 CP] the different sources you will be using. Finally there is the research description. This will lie out [R1&R2 CP] all of the questions you will be asking, and how you will answer them. It also is where you talk about [R1&R2 CP] why this topic is important, or how you got [R1&R2 MC] the idea to write about it.
Bibliography:
Cameron, Lynne. Metaphor in Educational Discourse. London: Continuum, 2003. Print.
“Framework for Success in Postsecondary Writing.” Council of Writing Program Administrators. Council of Writing Program Administrators, National Council of Teachers of English, and National Writing Project. Jan. 2011. Web. 16 March 2012.
Lakoff, George. Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. 2nd Ed. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2002. Print.
Tobin, Lad. “Bridging Gaps: Analyzing our Students’ Metaphors for Composing.” CCC 40.4 (1989): 444-58. Print.
[1] R1 & R2 refer to the coding of two separate raters. In the example provided, the two raters agreed on all of the metaphors identified and their subsequent codes. While typically, the two raters agreed, occasionally they disagreed over what constituted a metaphor and which code should be applied.
Percentages of Metaphors Identified During Analysis Available in the handout or by request.
Research Network Forum
March 21, 2012
Abstract:
This study collects and categorizes conceptual metaphors used by first-year writing students and teachers to think and write about the acts of learning to write, communicating using writing, and composing written texts. It shows that FYW students and teachers use many of the same conceptual metaphors but with different frequency and as part of different linguistic frames. Furthermore, it reveals that FYW students and teachers often do not communicate effectively because they use different conceptual metaphors and frames to think about and communicate their thoughts about writing and learning to write. Based on the collected data, I argue that FYW teachers should carefully employ conceptual metaphors and frames consistent with their value systems and that teachers of writing should employ a written-communication-as-conversation frame less frequently, opting instead for a written-communication-as-journey frame.
Introduction:
In the past few years, framing has taken on an integral role in the conversation of teaching college writing. Perhaps the most visible manifestation of this movement is the “Framework for Success in Post-Secondary Writing” created by the Council of Writing Program Administrators, the National Council of Teachers of English, and the National Writing Project. This document works to reframe the concept of college readiness, using the notion that readiness rests on students’ previous experiences and their “habits of mind,” which rightly shifts the conversation away from a frame focused on minds as containers for ideas and toward a frame focused on the mind’s growth over time and its ability to perform certain tasks.
Scholarship in the field of composition and rhetoric has been building to this moment for quite some time. For instance, Lad Tobin’s (1989) CCC’s article “Bridging Gaps: Analyzing our Students’ Metaphors for Composing” argued that a clearer understanding of our students’ metaphors for composing would allow us to better communicate with them. The relationship between framing and conceptual metaphors is too complex to do justice in this short time. Yet it is clear that there is a substantive and overlapping relationship between the two theories of cognition. George Lakoff’s work on morality and politics offers one clear example of this connection.
In addition to Tobin’s research, much work has been done to identify and analyze individual metaphors used in the context of first-year writing. However much critical work still needs to be completed in order to understand the way that conceptual metaphors interact within the context of first-year writing to frame the discourse of learning and writing. This study builds on Tobin’s work and other Composition and Rhetoric scholars (most notably Linda Adler-Kassner and Philip Eubanks) who have investigated conceptual metaphors and framing. In addition, it introduces to the discussion the range and diversity of conceptual metaphors and frames used to think about writing and learning within the context of first-year writing. To achieve these goals the study takes a broad-spectrum look at the conceptual metaphors and frames that first-year writing students and teachers use and analyzes their effects on classroom communication and behavior.
Methods:
In order to identify and analyze conceptual metaphors and frames, I collected meta-cognitive documents from 35 students in two sections of first-year writing. These documents were assigned as part of the course, and in them students were asked to reflect on what they were learning as the course progressed.
To account for the conceptual metaphors that FYW teachers use, I added a second set of data to the corpus. These materials were the transcript of Todd Taylor's "Take 20" and chapters four, five, and six from Richard Haswell’s and Min-Zhan Lu's Comp Tales. The three chapters from Comp Tales are a collection of focused reflections on "The Classroom," "The Writing," and "The Students." This set of data was used because it offered an amount of text similar to the student data collected, the texts were reflective and analytical along the same lines as the student data, and the texts came from a diverse group of first-year writing teachers with diverse experiences and backgrounds. Together, these texts allowed me to look at the conceptual systems that teachers of first-year writing across a spectrum use to think about what it means to learn to write and to communicate using writing.
“Evidence” of a conceptual metaphor and its related frames was seen as a metaphor used to conceptualize the act of writing or the acts of learning to write. Metaphor identification followed the identification methods employed by Lynne Cameron in Metaphors in Educational Discourse and were coded according to 13 different categories. Examples of metaphor identification and the coding categories are listed in the handout.
Results:
This analysis led to the identification of a number of different conceptual metaphors and frames that are simultaneously at work in classroom contexts—too many to discuss in any sort of detail during this presentation; however the handout gives comparisons between general trends in student and teachers’ metaphor use. The main metaphors that we might expect to surface in this study were present:
Conduit Metaphor for communication
Banking Metaphor for learning
Constructivist Metaphor for learning
Container Metaphors for the mind and for written texts
Speaking Metonymy for written communication
Journey metaphors for writing process and for written communication
Yet there were other metaphors that were also amply present in the data but that are also used to conceptualize written communication, writing processes, or learning to write. Most notably:
Artistic Craft metaphor for writing process
This is most notable because this metaphor occurred only in the data collected from teachers. Furthermore, it was the metaphor most often used by teachers to conceptualize the composing process. As such, it offers a clear example of the way that students and teachers differ in their thinking about composing.
Discussion:
Generally, what we can draw from these data is that there are clearly differences in the ways teachers and students of first-year writing use conceptual metaphors in order to frame the work of learning to write and the processes involved in written communication. This was clear in the frequency with which teachers and students used certain conceptual metaphors. Most surprisingly and most interestingly, though, the data revealed that even when students and teachers were using the same conceptual metaphors, often they employed those metaphors differently, as part of different conceptual frames. For instance, both teachers and students relied to a certain extent on the metaphor that ideas are objects. Yet those objects were characterized differently when used in association with different metaphors for learning. If learning was conceptualized as collecting and storing ideas, then the idea-as-object became an object that could be “stored in” the mind-as-container (e.g. a liquid “soaked up” by the mind). Here learning is framed as the act of passively soaking up ideas and holding onto them for the future, when they will be squeezed out again. But if learning was conceptualized as “ordering” or “connecting” ideas, then the idea-as-object transformed into a metaphor conducive to stacking and connecting (e.g. bricks or blocks). Here learning is framed more actively, according to constructivist principles, where new learning is “built on” previous learning until “higher” education is achieved.
This difference in metaphor use is troubling because it suggests that students and teachers will sometimes conflict on the most basic understanding of what is expected as the work of the course. That is, if students are to be prepared for post-secondary success, not only must they have developed specific habits of mind through positive writing experiences, they must understand that learning to write means developing these habits of mind, rather than “collecting” and “storing” facts about writing.
In addition, the rich collection of potential metaphors and frames suggests that teachers of first-year writing should carefully consider the conceptual metaphors and frames that they will employ while they are teaching. The “Framework for Success in Postsecondary Writing” nicely offers a way for teachers to begin thinking about which metaphors and frames will most successfully communicate their values. Yet consciously employing the same metaphors as the document requires paying conscious attention to the metaphoric constructions one uses while teaching, which is indeed a difficult prospect.
Handout:
Data Codes Used for Analysis
Mind Characteristics [MC]: metaphors used to explain the relationship between the mind and what it means to learn to write.
Communicative Processes [CP]: metaphors used to explain the act of communicating an idea to another person or group of people.
Writing [W]: metaphors used to explain the act of representing concepts orthographically or features that these orthographic representations had or should have. This category included two subcategories: Writing Effectively [W(E)] or Writing Ineffectively [W(I)].
Learning [L]: metaphors used to explain the act of learning to write.
Knowledge [K]: metaphors used to explain what it meant to know how to write.
Writing Processes [WP]: metaphors used to explain the actions, activities, or processes involved in writing. I also chose to create subcategories for processes that occurred frequently in the data: Revising [WP(R)], Editing [WP(Ed)], Responding [WP(Resp)], Researching [WP(Rsch)], and Arguing [WP(A)].
Example of Coded Results:
This unit was about how to write a well-written research proposal. In order to write a carefully planned out and good research paper, you must first write a research proposal. The proposal includes [R1&R2 W][1] an introduction stating [R1&R2 CP] what you plan to be writing about and why you think it might be important. Next there is the working bibliography, which states [R1&R2 CP] the different sources you will be using. Finally there is the research description. This will lie out [R1&R2 CP] all of the questions you will be asking, and how you will answer them. It also is where you talk about [R1&R2 CP] why this topic is important, or how you got [R1&R2 MC] the idea to write about it.
Bibliography:
Cameron, Lynne. Metaphor in Educational Discourse. London: Continuum, 2003. Print.
“Framework for Success in Postsecondary Writing.” Council of Writing Program Administrators. Council of Writing Program Administrators, National Council of Teachers of English, and National Writing Project. Jan. 2011. Web. 16 March 2012.
Lakoff, George. Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. 2nd Ed. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2002. Print.
Tobin, Lad. “Bridging Gaps: Analyzing our Students’ Metaphors for Composing.” CCC 40.4 (1989): 444-58. Print.
[1] R1 & R2 refer to the coding of two separate raters. In the example provided, the two raters agreed on all of the metaphors identified and their subsequent codes. While typically, the two raters agreed, occasionally they disagreed over what constituted a metaphor and which code should be applied.
Percentages of Metaphors Identified During Analysis Available in the handout or by request.
posted by Brad Smith at 10:15 AM
3 comments
