WRITING, KNOWLEDGE CONSTRUCTION AND IDEA

1
FRAMING

TAN BEE TIN

University College Chichester, United Kingdom

Abstract

This paper is based on a small scale investigation into the way

knowledge is constructed and the way ideas are framed (developed
and linked with each other) in writing by overseas students on a British
undergraduate programme. This paper applies the taxonomy of idea
framing, which has been developed from the analysis of group
interaction patterns (speaking) of the same students in academic
settings, to the analysis of written data, comparing the differences
and similarities between writing and speaking in terms of idea framing
and knowledge construction. Two major types of idea framing are
discussed: reactive framing and additive framing. This paper aims
to examine the different patterns of framing of ideas employed by
students in writing (the multi-dimensionality of knowledge
construction and idea framing in writing) and also discusses the
pedagogical implications of the study.

Introduction

Writing is an important literacy skill for university students. There are

various social functions that writing can perform in academic settings: writing
for record keeping (writing to keep a record or notes of what one reads and
listens), writing for thinking (pinning thoughts down and holding them still
in order to examine them), writing for disseminating ideas (reporting one’s
research findings and ideas and writing for publication), and writing as evidence
of understanding (writing to show the teacher or the examiner what one knows
and what one thinks) (Clark and Ivanic 1997:117). In terms of linguistic features
and discourse functions, writing can be divided into different forms of discourse:
description (recording ’what is happening’), narration (reporting ’what
happened’), exposition (generalising about ’what happens’) and argumentation
(theorising about ’what may happen’) (e.g. see Kinneavy 1983: 124-5). Studies
on academic writing have investigated different aspects of writing and can
be divided into product-oriented studies and process-oriented studies. Product-
oriented studies are concerned with analysing the written product and there

96
are various studies which investigate the structure of different written texts,
for example, studies on narrative texts (e.g. Labov and Waletzky 1967, Cortazzi
1993), studies on expository texts (scientific texts and research articles) (Swales
1981, Swales and Hazem 1987). On the other hand, process-oriented studies
are concerned with analysing the strategies used by skilled and unskilled writers

in the process of writing (e.g. studies by Harris and Graham 1992).

The type of writing which will be focused on for the discussion in this
paper is writing as evidence of understanding and the type of analysis used
here is a product-oriented analysis, using the written products of students in
an examination setting as the main source of data for the discussion. A great
deal of writing for students at university is writing as evidence of knowing
and understanding and it is found mainly in the expository and argumentative
essays or assignments that students produce in their examinations or
coursework. In this type of writing, the writer (the student) is writing for the
examiner or the teacher (the expert) and the aim is to show his/her understanding
and knowledge of the various issues related to the writing task set by the
examiner/teacher. The aim of the study is to analyse the way knowledge is
constructed and the way ideas are developed in this kind of writing (writing
as evidence of understanding). Before analysing the data, the key terminology

involved in the analysis (’knowledge’, ’idea’ and ‘framing’) will be briefly

examined; and how the analysis of written products can help us understand
different ways of thinking, knowledge construction and idea framing will be
briefly discussed.
Some Definitions

First of all, knowledge, which has been a subject of study for cognitive
psychologists and psychologists, is represented, from their perspective, as
propositional network in memory which is made up of nodes (propositions
or ideas) and links (associations between the ideas) (e.g. see Anderson 1980:

chapter 4). This view of knowledge implies that the study of knowledge
involves not only the analysis of propositions or ideas (which represent
knowledge) but also the links between them. In terms of the analysis of
the written product, this suggests that in order to understand how knowledge
is constructed in writing, we need to study not only the type of ideas that
are constructed but the links between them as well.

Secondly, an idea is defined as ’a separate assertion, i.e. the smallest unit

about which it makes sense to make the judgement true or false’ (Anderson

97
1980:101-2) or ’a content that is complete enough to be true or false’
(Hofmann 1993: 7). Distinctions can also be drawn between a proposition
(an idea) and a concept. While a proposition (an idea) is the content of a
sentence or clause, a concept refers to the content of a single word or a phrase
(e.g. see Hofmann 1993: 7). Although a concept (the content of a single
word) in itself cannot represent a content that is complete enough to be true
or false, a proposition (a set of concepts) can do. For example, the word

’blue’ does represent a content that is true or false, but the sentence ’the
not
sky is blue’ represent a content that is true or false. An idea, in Bakhtin’ss
can

(1986) and Lotman’s (1988) view, has a dual function of not only conveying
information but also generating other ideas. That is, once an idea is uttered,
it canstimulate the thinking process, making one think backward (reflect
on old ideas); and think forward (generate new ideas). This view of ideas
also implies the significance of studying the links between ideas in order
to understand the way we construct knowledge. The term ’framing’ will be
used to indicate not only a link between ideas but also the flow of ideas
in a larger context, in other words, a series of links between ideas. ’Framing’
thus is a much broader term than ’linking’ when talking about the relationship/
association between ideas. It refers not only to a retrospective link but also
to a prospective link between ideas. Thus, ’idea framing’ refers to the way
ideas are developed and linked with each other prospectively and
retrospectively.
The issue which will be investigated in this paper is: how are ideas framed
in writing (in the kind of writing as evidence of understanding)? (lie. how
are ideas developed and linked with each other retrospectively and

prospectively?). This study of idea framing (links between ideas) will enable
us to better understand the way students construct knowledge (developing
ideas in association with each other), the directions of new knowledge to
which they tend to move, and the way they think. Although it would be
unwise to claim that a piece of writing (a product) reflects all the intellectual
work and thinking that went on during the process of writing, it can however
be assumed that ’a piece of writing reflect ways of knowing, strategies for
understanding one’s topic and one’s audience’ (Odell 1983: 102).

Background of Data and Framework of Analysis

The data for this paper comes from the written examination essays of
overseas undergraduate students on a BEd (TESOL) programme in the Centre
for International Education and Management at University College

98
Chichester. The overseas students studied here are Malaysians on 4-year
’link’ degree programmes which are taught partly in Malaysia and partly
in Britain. English is the medium of instruction for these students and they
are quite fluent in both written and spoken English.

The framework of analysis employed derives from a larger study which

investigates the group interaction patterns (i.e. of oral behaviour) of the same
group of students in academic settings. Writing has often been compared
with reading and it is said that what students read and how they read has
an effect on what they write and how they write. It would also be interesting
to compare writing with speaking and to investigate how the way students
construct knowledge in group work (speaking) is reflected in their writing.
This paper will apply the taxonomy of idea framing which has been developed
from the analysis of group interaction patterns (speaking) of the same students
in academic settings to the analysis of written data.

From the analysis of group interaction, two major types of idea framing
(Additive Framing and Reactive Framing) and their sub-categories are
identified.

Figure 1: Framing of idea: A taxonomy2

99
100
 The above taxonomy which arises from the study of group interaction
is applied to the analysis of the written performance of the students. In group
work, students can be seen as constructing knowledge together through
interaction with their peers and with the task. However, in writing, where
there is no peer physically present, it would be interesting to investigate how
the different ways of idea framing identified in the analysis of group

101
interaction might be reflected in their writing. In particular, in the absence
of peers, who can the writer react to? It can be said that the other voices
in the literature or the ideas voiced by various scholars in the literature and
the voice embodied in the task (the examiner’s voice or the other scholars’
voice) can function as ’peers’ whose voices and ideas can not only be added
to but also be reacted to by the writer (the student) as shown in figure 2 below.

Figure 2: Framing of idea in group interaction and in writing

The analysis of the written performance of the students, which follows

below, will examine the way knowledge is constructed and ideas are developed
through additive and reactive framing in relation with the task, in particular
the voice embodied in the task and the other voices in the literature.

102
Data Analysis
The data analysed here come from the essays written by three students
in response to a task in a Sociology of Language examination paper.

~ ~~

The above writing task can be seen as embodying the voice of the author
’Coates’ (’women and men constitute different speech communities’). The
analysis of the extracts from the essays by these three students (s, y, yi) shows
how this single idea (voiced by the author ’Coates’) can stimulate the thinking
process in different directions (additive framing and reactive framing). The
analysis of the extracts from the essays3 by these three students (s, y and
yi) to this same task will be discussed below.

i. Student ’s’ .

There areseveral possible reasons to 4 Head-Idea (T)/

why women and men constitute 5 Explain (T)
different speech communities. 6

One of them is the fact that language 8 Add (4-6)

is itself intrinsically sexism. 9

For example, in the English language 111 Expand (8-9)

there are several generic words which 12
can be associated to different 13
gender. 14

The word ’master’, ’mankind’ and 16

’chairman’ for example may indicate 17
the power or ’supremacy’ of men 18
whereas words such as ’slut’, 19
’mistress’, and ’spinster’ rather 20
have negative connotations which 21
degrade women. 22

103
 Apart from the reasons which have been 114 Add (8-9)
pointed out earlier, there is also 115
another possible reason to why women 116
and men constitute different speech 117
communities. 118

The reason is perhaps the society 120

itself allows or reinforces this 121
difference. 122

Even though there are many words which 124 Expand (120-2)
can be substituted with neutrality or 125
without any gender connotation, the 126
society still chooses the existing 127
generic terms which have already been 128
widely used. 129

For example, the word ’chairperson’ can 1311 Expand (124-9)

be used instead of ’chairman’ in 132
order to refer to both sexes. 133

On the whole, it is indeed arguable 140 Conclude (+)

that women and men constitute 141
different speech communities. 142

Head-idea = the first idea (topic idea) that appears at the beginning
of the writing text

T = Task

Head-idea (T) = the first idea (topic idea) generated in association with
the task

Add (8-9) = The given idea in (lines 114-122) is ’adding’ to the

idea in lines 8-9.

Conclude (+) = The given idea in lines 140-142 is ’concluding’ to all

the preceding ideas

104
Discussion

The framing of ideas by student ’s’ in response to the task can be seen
as additive framing. She accepts the idea in the task proposed by the author,
Coates, (the other voice) ’women and men constitute different speech
communities’ as true and develops her ideas in an additive way without
judgement, evaluation or comment on the quality, truthfulness, or validity
of the propositional content of the idea in the task. She starts her essay with
the head-idea ’There are several possible reasons to why women and men
constitute different speech community’ and this head-idea can be seen as
’explaining’ the idea in the task (’women and men constitute different speech
communities’). Then in the following part of her essay, she adds one reason
after another (lines 8-9, lines 114-122) and each reason is further expanded
with specific examples (lines 11-22, lines 124-133). Finally, in lines 140-
142, she adds a generalised idea (concluding) for all the preceding ideas
she has raised so far.

ii. Student ’y’

To begin, let us first define ’speech 4 Head-Idea 1 (T)/
communities’. 5 Expand (T)

Speech communities are communities 7

which share a similar and universally 8
understood language within their 9
communities. 10

’Women and men constitute different 12 Head-Idea 2 (T)/

speech communities’ (Coates, 1993) 13 Evaluate (T)
might be more right than wrong. 14

As always, in this type of argument 16 Contrast (12-14)

there would be two sides which oppose 17
each other. 18

Linguists had long been puzzled by the 20 Head-Idea 3 (T)

apparent difference between languages 21
employed by men and women. 22

105
 This was brought forward by Trudgill in 24 Expand (20-2)
his book Sociolinguistics which he 25
gave an example of a native tribe 26
which men and women apparently spoke 27
two different language. 28

The early explorers were perplexed by 30

the occasion. 311

How could this tribe survived and 33

communicate with the opposite sex if 34
they have two language? 35

It was later discovered that the tribe 37

actually speaks one language but each 38
gender had their own set of utterable 39
.
words which the other know but do not 40
utter it. 411

Does this mean that they are both from 43 Challenge (24-8)
the same speech community? 44

According to the definition they are, 46 Contradict (T)

but let us proceed further before 47
drawing any foregone conclusion. 48

Discussion

The student ’y’ develops ideas in response to the task in a different way
from the student ’s’. First, in lines 4-10, he attempts to expand the concept
’speech communities’ given in the task. Then, in lines 12-14, he evaluates
the quality or truthfulness of the propositional content of the idea in the task
by saying that &dquo;Women and men constitute different speech communities’
(Coates, 1993) might be more right than wrong’. This is then followed by
a somewhat opposing idea in lines 16-18 (‘As always, in this type of argument
there would be two sides which oppose each other’). This idea in lines 16-
18 signals that the student would refer to arguments which oppose the idea
proposed by Coates in the task (counteracting and contradicting) as well
as arguments which approve of that idea. From lines 24 to 41, the student

’y’ gives a detailed account of a study by Trudgill to expand the idea in

106
lines 20-22. According to that study, men and women (of the tribe being
studied), though they seemed to speak two different languages, understood
each other’s language; each gender had his/her own set of utterable words
which the other knew but did not utter. Based on this study, a question is
raised by the student ’y’ in lines 43-44 to challenge the truthfulness of the
idea in the task: ’Does this mean that they are from the same speech
community?’ In line 46, the answer to this question is given: ’according
to the definition (referring to the definition of speech community in lines
4-10), they are (i.e. from the same speech community)’. This idea in 46 can
be seen as contradicting the idea of Coates in the task (’women and men
constitute different speech communities’). Then in 47-48, the student writes
’let us proceed further before drawing any foregone conclusion’, signalling
that the other opposite examples or studies which are different from the study
discussed in the preceding lines would follow (contrasting).

iii. Student ’yi’

Various studies have shown that women 29 Additive
and men do constitute different 30 Framing
speech communities. 311

Because of this wide difference between 68

women and men’s language style, it 69
correlates with their positions in 70
the society. 71

men’s superiority over women’s 76

inferiority in the society. 77

However, the issue of the difference 80 Contrast (68-71)

between women and men’s language 81
style also highlights another point 82
that I feel is strongly related to 83
Coates’ quotation. 84

At the present moment, women are much 86

appreciated for their interpersonal 87
and communication skill in the 88
employment field-personal relation, 89
management, media, etc. 90

107
 It is said (also supported by people 92
such as Coates, Cameron) that women’ss 93
co-operative and collaborative style 94
of speech contribute to the 95
efficiency and smooth running of 96
companies where it seems 97
communication is a prerequisite in 98
getting hold of investor’s trust and 99
confidence. 100

At this point, I believe Coates’ 106 Evaluate (T)

quotation can be seen from a positive 107
manner where men (most!) do have 108 Conclude (80-104)
linguistic disadvantage after all; 109
because of the difference. 110

Nevertheless, Coates’ quotation can be 143 Evaluate (T)

seen in another context
differently 144
formal institutions such as schools. 145

With reference to the Malaysian context, 147 Expand (143-5)

the question of women and men 148
constitute different speech 149
communities, in my opinion, may still 150
have little effect on teacher-pupils 151l
interaction. 152

Possibly, we are more concerned with 154

the ethnic issue in terms of language 155
use - equal opportunities in using 156
own mother tongue, school medium and 157
the second language. 158

Therefore, another aspect of teacher- 160

pupil interaction that involves 161
gender seems to be forgotten 162
(ignored?) by staff. 163

Here, I feel this is where the 165 Counteract (T)

limitation of Coates’ quotation. 166

108
Discussion

At the beginning of the essay (from lines 29-66), the student ’yi’ develops
ideas in response to the idea in the task ’men and women constitute different
speech communities’ in an additive way. She refers to various specific
examples which show the differences between the linguistic styles of men
and women. She then adds, in lines 68-71, by writing how this difference
between the language style of men and women correlates with their position
in the society: men’s superiority and women’s inferiority (implying the
advantage of men’s language style over women’s). However, this is followed
by a set of ideas (lines 80-100) which contrast with the idea in lines 68-
71. In these lines (80-100), the student discusses how women’s collaborative
style of speech turns out to be an advantage for them in workplaces. She
then evaluates the idea in the task (Coates’ quotation) in lines 106-108 by
saying that the difference between men and women can be seen in a ’positive’
manner and concludes that men have a linguistic disadvantage because of
this difference (line 108-110). She also continues to elaborate her ideas with
another evaluating idea in lines 143-145, by saying that Coates’ quotation
can be seen ’differently’ in another context. From lines 147-163, she then

expands this idea by giving a specific example, the Malaysian school context,
in which the difference between men and women in terms of their linguistic
style does not play an important role and the ethnic issue rather than the
gender issue is more important. Finally, in 165-166, she concludes by pointing
out the limitations of Coates’ quotation (counteracting).

Summary
The three students (s, y, yi) develop ideas in response to the same task
in different ways. They pick up different parts of the ideas in the task as
the starting point for their writing and develop them in different ways. The
writing of the students can be seen as an interaction between the student
(the writer), the task, and the voice in the task (Coates) and other voices
in the literature. The framing of ideas by these three students can be
summarised as follows:

109
i. s’s framing of ideas:
~~ ~

ii. y’s framing of ideas:

Figure 4: y’s framing of ideas

110
iii. yi’s framing of ideas:

111
Conclusion: Pedagogical Implications
The analysis of the written products of the above three students shows the
multi-dimensionality of knowledge construction and idea framing. An idea
can generate other ideas in different directions. The above analysis also shows
how the idea given in the task is responded to in different ways by the students
and developed in different directions. Two major types of idea framing (i.e.
the way ideas are developed and framed in association with each other) -
Additive framing and Reactive framing - and their sub-categories have also
been discussed. This type of analysis demonstrated in this paper can help us
understand the different ways knowledge is constructed and ideas are generated
and developed in writing. This can also help us identify the directions of
knowledge students tend to move more towards in their writing and the
directions to which they need to move towards and explore more.

Theinvestigation of the multi-dimensionality of idea framing and

knowledge construction can throw light on various educational and pedagogical
issues. As educational sociologists (e.g. Young 1971, Bernstein 1971) point
out, knowledge is socially constructed by the members of the discourse
community and what counts as valuable educational knowledge can vary from
one socio-cultural educational context to another. This sociological aspect of

knowledge thus implies that there can be a mismatch between the students’
view of valuable educational knowledge and that of the institutional culture.
This problem of mismatch, for example, is common among overseas students
studying in the UK. Though these overseas students are expected to succeed
in the expected discourse of the British educational institutional culture, how
to succeed in that culture is not often made explicit to them. As teachers and
examiners, we are often familiar with such grading for writing as ’work of
outstanding merit {70% -100%)’, ’work distinctly above average (60% - 69%}’,
’average work (50% - 59%)’ etc. ’Work of outstanding merit’ is often described
as ’work showing originality, intellectual inventiveness, creative flair or

outstanding skill in performance linked to deep interpretative understanding,

....... critical thinking and independent thought’; ’work distinctly above average’
as ’work showing good evidence of extensive and thorough study and practice;

good capacity to interpret and use materials flexibly; ...... evidence of ability
to synthesise ideas to produce critically aware material’ ; and ’average work’
as ’work covering major issues, showing good grasp of knowledge and practice

involved; adequate capacity to manipulate it’4. These grading descriptors

suggest that ’critical thinking’, ’interpretative understanding’, ’independent

112
thought’ etc. are greatly valued by the academic institution; and they serve
as the criteria to measure students’ success in writing and learning. It is
common to hear teachers telling their students to ’be original’ or to ’think
the unthinkable’ in their academic writing tasks, but how original ideas are
generated, and how great minds think the unthinkable often remains
unexplained and uninvestigated. The study of the multi-dimensionality of
knowledge construction can thus help us better understand what is ’critical
thinking’, ’interpretative understanding’, or ’original thought’ more explicitly
and can help us raise both students’ and teachers’ awareness of how to succeed
in the expected discourse of a particular academic institutional culture.

Perhaps, one may need to wonder whether the saying ’Great minds think
alike’ should be modified as ’Great minds think differently’ as original writers
or great minds probably are the ones who explore a piece of given knowledge
or an idea from different dimensions, or from a dimension which other writers
will not normally choose or even notice.

References

Anderson, J. R. 1980. Cognitive psychology and its implications.

(second edition). New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Bakhtin, M. M. 1986. Speech genres and other late essays. (C.
Emerson and M. Holquist (Eds.)). Austin: University of Texas
Press.

Bernstein, Basil. 1971. On the classification and framing of educational

knowledge. In Michael F. D. Young (Ed.). Knowledge and
control (New directions for the sociology of education).
London: Collin Macmillan. 47- 69.

Clark, Romy and Ivanic, Roz. 1997. The politics of writing. London
and New York: Routledge.

Cortazzi, M. 1993. Narrative analysis. UK: Falmer Press.

Freedman, Aviva; Pringle, Ian and Yalden, Janice. (Eds.). 1983.

Learning to write: First languagelsecond language. London and
New York: Longman.

113
Harris, Karen R. and Graham, Steve. 1992. Self-regulated strategy
development: A part of the writing process. In Michael
Pressley, Karen R. Harris and John T. Guthrie. (Eds.).
Promoting academic competence and literacy in school. New
York: Academic Press, Inc. 277-309.

Hofmann, Th. R. 1993. Realms of meaning (An introduction to

semantics). London: Longman.

Kinneavy, James L. 1983. A pluralistic synthesis of four contemporary

models for teaching composition. In Aviva Freedman, Ian
Pringle and Janice Yalden. (Eds.). Learning to write: First
language/second language. London and New York: Longman.
pp. 121-138.

Labov, W. and Waletzky, J. 1967. Narrative analysis. In J. Helm.

(Ed.). Essays on the verbal and visual arts. Seattle: University
of Washington Press. 12-44.

Lotman, Yu. M. 1988. Text within a text. Soviet psychology 26/3: 32-
51.

Odell, Lee. 1983. Redefining maturity in writing. In Aviva Freedman,

Ian Pringle and Janice Yalden. (Eds.). Learning to write: First
language/second language. London and New York: Longman.
98-113.

Swales, John and Hazem, Najjar. 1987. The writing of research article
introductions. Written Communication 4: 175-92.

Swales, John. 1981. Aspects of article introductions. Birmingham,

UK: The University of Aston, Language Studies Unit.

Tin, Tan Bee and Randall, Mick. ’A study of group interaction patterns
in academic settings’(accepted for publication in CLE Working
Papers, University of Southampton)

West Sussex Institute of Higher Education. 1992. Proposal for a B.Ed.

(Hons.) TESOL (secondary) to be taught in a linked mode

114
 between West Sussex Institute of Higher Education and Maktab
Perguruan Ilmu Khas (Specialist Teachers’ Training Institute),
Malaysia. Volume 1. Definitive document. December 1992.

Young, Michael F. D. 1971. An approach to the study of curricula as

socially organized knowledge. In Michael F. D. Young (Ed.).
Knowledge and control (New directions for the sociology of
education). London: Collin Macmillan. 19-46.

NOTES

1. This article is based on a talk given at the 11th Writing and Computers Conference,
Cambridge, UK, 1 April 1999.
2. The taxonomy and the scheme used here for data analysis have been developed as part of
my doctoral study and examples from the group interaction analysis for each category are
reported in Tan Bee Tin and Mick Randall ’A study of group interaction patterns in academic
settings’(accepted for publication in CLE Working Papers, University of Southampton).
3. The written essays of these students are presented here without any correction of their English.
4. The criteria for writing described here appear in ’the Validated Document: Proposal for
a B.Ed. (Hons) TESOL (Secondary) to be taught in a linked mode between West Sussex
Institute of Higher Education and Maktab Perguruan Ilmu Khas (Specialist Teachers’ Training
Institute), Malaysia. Volume 1, December 1992.’

115