Application of Explicit Knowledge (EK) in an Abstract Writing Experience (AWE) · 2006. 5. 2. · 1 Explicit knowledge and use: Application of genre knowledge in a real-life experience

1

Explicit knowledge and use: Application of genre knowledge in a real-life experience Application of Explicit Knowledge (EK) in an Abstract Writing Experience (AWE) Chan, S.K., & Foo, S. (2006). 5th Language for Specific Purposes International Seminar: LSP: Exploring New Frontiers, Johor Bahru, Malaysia, April 13–15.

Application of Explicit Knowledge (EK) in an Abstract Writing Experience (AWE)

Chan S.K. and Schubert Foo

Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Abstract Genre studies on research articles and their subgenres such as the abstract are usually approached from the end products, and research work comprises mainly genre analyses of texts and matching real life writings with genre models in textbooks or prescriptions by international standards. This study approached the abstract genre from a different perspective, by first exploring the author’s conceptual knowledge (EK) on the abstract and abstract writing conventions, and then examining the application of this knowledge in the writing process. Interviews were conducted with a sample of foreign postgraduate scholars whose English was at EFL level. Data on their knowledge and retrospective accounts of their abstract writing experience were transcribed, analyzed, and compared. Results include a profile of the author’s genre EK; knowledge application process; and specific considerations upper most in their minds in abstract writing. The discussion will re-examine the feasibility of teaching the genre. 1. Introduction Current technology has enabled storage of vast amounts of information in electronic systems; so it makes sense for the abstract to be recognised as a significant surrogate document in information access services. In view of this, a reorientation of abstract writing instruction and research interests is useful. In the context of ESP, Swales (1990) and others have recommended that conceptual and rhetorical knowledge of a genre is fundamental to novice academic writers, and should be explicitly taught. The assumption is that such ‘learned’ knowledge should be available in the long-term memory. In other words, one should be able to provide the information and be able to apply it when required. Information that is informally learned by reading and discussing with experts and then applied is also acceptable as knowledge (Lee, 2005). The term ‘knowledge’ and ‘knowing’ in this study is focused on declarative and procedural knowledge as defined by Zack (1999). The former, ‘declarative knowledge’, or knowledge about, refers to knowing the definition, labels, categories and distinctions used to represent things or concepts such as ‘knowledge about abstracts’ in the context of scholarly communication, while ‘procedural knowledge’, or knowledge of how, includes and refers to among other things, the understanding of an appropriate sequence of events

2

or a particular set of actions, such as the ‘knowledge on how to write abstracts’. In the larger scheme these two types of knowledge are subsumed under a broader category called ‘explicit knowledge’ (Nonaka, 1995). This term is pivotal in this study, which is to explore the explicit knowledge (hence EK) of a sample of participants, and subsequently to investigate their abstract writing experience. So far, most studies on the abstract subgenre are focused on investigating the extent to which the abstract genre structure approximates Swales’ RA (Research Article) structure of IMRD (Introduction, Method, Results, and Discussion). These studies have concluded that in most cases while abstracts maintain some consistent structures in specific disciplines they reflect deviations from expert models such as Swales’ IMRD or international standards like ANSI. For example, it is a structure comprising Problem, Method, Results, and Conclusion in Graetz’s study (1985), Scope and Solution of Problem in Keogh’s (1994), Objective, Method, Results, and Conclusion in Posteguillo’s (1996), and Method, Results and Conclusion in Huckin’s (2001), to name a few. Moreover, the studies were focused on examining abstracts produced by experienced writers who have earned the license to deviate or ‘personalise’ their style (Swales, 1990). On the other hand, this study is interested in the novice writers who, according to Swales and ESP practitioners, should first learn the basic genre rules needed to enable them to communicate acceptably within their new discourse community. Such is the prescribed socialisation rule in scholarly communication. So far no study has explored the conceptual knowledge and abstracting procedure of novice non-native writers by collecting data directly from them, and in so doing conclude a profile that may be useful for administering needs analysis or related pedagogical issues. Specifically, this study investigated the extent to which a group of foreign postgraduate research scholars in a local university in Singapore applied their declared explicit knowledge (EK) about the abstract and abstract writing during an actual abstract writing experience (AWE). The investigation also aimed to examine pedagogical implications for formal abstract writing instruction. 2. Methodology Two separate interviews were conducted with each participant. The questions were based on the definition and scope of the abstract, content treatment of the genre as prescribed by the ANSI Z39.14 model, and conventions of abstract writing. The ANSI standards has been selected as the a priori model because it comprises the most comprehensive guidelines on abstracting, and specifically caters to informative abstracts, which is the abstract type under investigation. In the first interview a sample of fifteen participants who were fairly new to academic writing, but had written at least one paper for publication, was invited to be interviewed on their perceptions about abstracts and abstract writing. They were asked about their understanding of the abstract as a genre and about abstract writing. Specifically they were asked to define the abstract, explain the uses, describe its content elements and organization, and discuss how to write effective abstracts. The participants were then requested to submit their most recent paper including its abstract for analysis. (This paper does not include the analysis) About a week later, a second interview was conducted; the participants were encouraged to reflect back to the time they were writing the abstract which they had sent to the

3

researcher. In this retrospective method the participants recalled their experience: starting from prewriting stage, through drafting, and ending with revision. Specifically they were required to reflect on their abstracting approach and recall the strategies employed to ensure the effectiveness of their abstracts. A typology modelled after ANSI was adapted for the analysis, and the criteria are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1. Criteria for Comparison: EK vs. AWE

EK

1. Concept & value/uses

2. Content treatment

3. Conventions on abstract writing

AWE (application of knowledge) First concerns: on planning the effective abstract based on understanding concept of the genre, purposes, uses, audience awareness, identifying major strategy Reference to information selection, description or elaboration on quality or details of selected content; special treatment? Discussion on writing procedure, drafting, rules of presentation and style, problems, dealing with problems, revision

In the procedure, the participant’s EK on each component of the abstract and abstract writing was matched to his or her corresponding recalled AWE responses and significant observations were discussed. The comparison would shed light on whether the writers’ abstract writing experience (AWE) corroborated their EK. Thus, the research questions are:

1. In the recall of major concerns in the pre-abstracting stage did the novice writers reflect understanding of the abstract genre (meaning and use issues) described during the EK interview?

2. In the selection and treatment of content for abstracts did the novice writers reflect application of their EK on the same?

3. In the discussion on drafting and revision experiences during the writing did the novice writers reflect application of their EK on abstracting conventions?

3. Results and Discussion The following sections present results and discussion on the extent to which the participants’ EK on the definition and significance of the abstract concept matched with their major concerns at the start of the abstract writing stage, on how their EK on content treatment matched with the content elements that the participants included in their abstracts, and on how their appreciation of the conventions of abstract writing matched their strategies in writing. 3.1 Concept and value EK vs. AWE Table 2 shows that generally in their recall the participants were highly concerned that their abstracts attracted readers by being effective representations of their work.

4

Table 2. AWE: Participants’ abstract writing approach

PARTICIPANTS P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P 10

P 11

P 12

P 13

P 14

P 15

T %

Concerns in AWE Usefulness of work √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 7 47 Audience/purpose √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 11 73 Content representation √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 12 80 Style of presentation √ √ √ √ √ √ 6 40 Major strategies adopted

Focus on overall content √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 7 47 Focus on specific element

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 14 93

Focus on presentation style

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 9 60

Focus on language √ 1 07

Subsequently, in response to the question on how they would ensure the success of their abstracts 93% mentioned that highlighting specific elements from their papers was significant. Overall the concern for stylistics did not seem to be a priority. This data were then matched with their corresponding EK. 3.1.1 EK vs. AWE on concept and value Table 3 shows the comparison between the participants’ conception of the meaning and valuation of the abstract genre with their major concerns before the writing stage.

Table 3. EK on Concept and significance vs. AWE

EK results showed that 12 participants had defined the abstract as ‘a short representation of the corresponding paper’, or as a ‘compact version of the whole paper’, or as a text that contains the most important information from all parts of the paper; in their AWE 11 (92 %) of them had also highlighted that when they began thinking about how to write

EK v. AWE P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P 10

P 11

P 12

P 13

P 14

P 15

Tot-al

M

Representation of full paper

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 12

Must represent paper (AWE)

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 12

11 12 92

Important tool in discipline

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 15

Showed reader awareness (AWE)

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 7

11 15 73

High regard over other parts

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ 7 7 7 100

5

that sample abstract they had considered it very important that it must represent the main ideas in the full paper, suggesting positive knowledge transfer. Exhibit 1 illustrates such a match (A corresponding match is indicated by circled symbol as shown in Table 3, and in subsequent visuals).

Exhibit 1

Participants Declared EK: concept of abstract AWE: prewriting considerations P8 Small compact version of the whole

paper…contains information about all sections of paper

What content to include in abstract … get the idea of each important section in the paper

Next, it was noted that although the participants were unanimous in declaring that abstracts were very important in their discipline and to their discourse community, not all of them had reiterated a corresponding concern in writing for their audience. A possible explanation could be due to the individual regard for abstracts. For example, participant [P3] had in the EK interview ranked the abstract of average importance and in his AWE he had mentioned, ‘it was an easy piece to write… I simply wrote because it was not very important to me;’ similarly, [P7] had ranked the abstract as least important, and in her AWE, she had recalled; ‘I think of the methodology element first….it is the most important section in my paper,’ suggesting individual purpose over reader concern. On the other hand [P1], who had valued the abstract highly, had recalled that his most important consideration before writing was to think of how to write so that his readers would appreciate the specific purpose of his abstract. Exhibit 2 illustrates [P1]’s positive match.

Exhibit 2

Participants Declared EK: concept of abstract AWE: prewriting considerations P1 Very important… an advertisement

If the door is good someone wants to open it… helps to show uniqueness of my research

… most important step was to write the new method and results…contained the uniqueness of … my work…because the conference organiser will look for these results, new method you found and see if your results are better…

Thirdly, those who had expressed high individual valuation of the abstract had also in their AWE recalled being highly concerned that their abstract should appeal to their readers and help them achieve their purpose to promoting their research work, as also illustrated by [P1] above. 3.1.2 EK vs. AWE on uses and using abstracts This section compares the participants’ EK on the uses as well as on using abstracts with their corresponding recalled strategies in ensuring the effectiveness of their abstracts. For example, based on their EK that abstracts are useful for identifying content quickly, it would be expected that a writing strategy would be to write short, concise, and readable abstracts. At the EK interview, five uses were identified, but not all of them enjoyed corresponding matches in their recalled AWE.

6

Table 4. Uses and using EK vs. recalled strategies for achieving effectiveness

Table 4 summarises the match. Ten (83%) participants out of twelve who highlighted using the abstract to promote their own research concurred closely with what they did in AWE. They had recalled focussing on planning their abstracts to help promote their research work by attracting readers’ attention with their new ideas and uniqueness of their research. The descriptor of using abstract to decide on relevance and whether to read the full paper shows that eleven (73%) participants had in their AWE also recalled paying attention to ensure they represented their paper well in their abstracts. For example [P9] demonstrated the corroboration in Exhibit 3.

Exhibit 3

Value of abstracts Declared EK Recalled AWE [P9]

…help readers identify usefulness of papers…people only want to find most useful papers…

Important consideration…ensure abstract content reflects that given in the full paper…write about main work … in this abstract my work was the methodology; so that was also given more significant representation

In contrast, although 14 participants had identified the use of abstracts as a time saving information tool only four (28%) of them had recalled paying attention to writing concisely and ensuring brevity for their abstracts. This could be explained by the lack of attention paid to language and stylistic aspects during the EK inquiry. Another observation was made in matching the participants’ declare EK on how they use abstracts to the strategies they recalled in planning their abstracts. The match corresponded positively in their recall at 93%. For example, [P3] had mentioned that although he would first read the whole abstract he would focus on the Method and

USES: EK vs. AWE strategies

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P 10

P 11

P 12

P 13

P 14

P 15

To. M %

To identify content quickly

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 14

To write concisely(AWE)

√ √ √ √ 4

4 14 28

For relevance & decision making

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 15

Ensured good representation

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 11

11 15 73

To promote own research

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 12

Focused on specific element

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 11

10 12 83

USING abstracts Vs. AWE strategy

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P 10

P 11

P 12

P 13

P 14

P 15

To. M %

Read specific information

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 14

Identified specific content

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 14

13 14 93

7

Results elements, and correspondingly in his AWE he recalled considering writing the Purpose and Results as most important… and that the final draft of his abstract had the Results more heavily emphasised. From these observations it would appear that the purposeful and specific use of abstracts for promoting one’s research was a high priority with the participants. This specific focus on usefulness may demonstrate that most of the participants had at this novice stage already recognised the significance of the abstract. The next step on the inquiry about their treatment of the abstract content could help to establish this further. 3.2 Content: EK vs. AWE As shown in Table 5, the participants’ EK on information elements, details, and specific treatment of each element were matched with the content treatment in AWE.

Table 5. Naming content elements: EK vs. AWE


P 11

P 12

P 13

P 14

P 15

To. M %

Named Background

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 13

Included it in AWE

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 14

11 13 84

Named Purpose

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ 7

Included it in AWE

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 13

7 7 100

Named Methodology

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 13

Included it in AWE

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 15

13 13 100

Named Results

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 11

Included it in AWE

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 14

11 11 100

Named Conclusion

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 9

Included it in AWE

√ √ √ √ √ √ 6

3 9 33

Named BPMRC √ √ √ √ √ 5

Identified the same in AWE

√ √ √ √ 4

3 5 60

Merged P to B √ √ √ √ 4

Merged C to R √ √ √ 3

8

3.2.1 EK vs. AWE: Naming of content elements

Table 5 indicates the highlighted elements as the Background (83%), Methodology (83%), and Results (73%), suggesting that these should also be selected in AWE. Similarly, the Purpose (47%) and Conclusion (60%) elements should also be recalled explicitly by the same. Next, only five (33%) participants had named all the five BPMRC elements, suggesting more comprehensive EK about the content elements of abstracts, but will the same participants demonstrate corresponding application? The following reports on the match. First, the Background did not reflect a perfect match; for example, [P8] and [P9], who did not name this element, had recalled it explicitly, while [P4] who named it did not recall it. On the other hand, the Purpose, Method, and Results named in EK matched perfectly with what the participants recalled. Exhibit 4 demonstrates this.

Exhibit 4

Participants Declared EK about content of abstracts

Recalled AWE: content included in the abstracts

[P15] Naming content

Described the abstract as containing the Introduction/background…methodology… result…conclusion

… included as the content…introduction, background, motivation, challenges, methodology, then results and discussion…but forgot the conclusion

However, it should be noted that except for the Conclusion, the other elements were more highly recalled than mentioned in the EK. In particular, the Purpose element was only named by seven participants, but was included in the abstract by almost all the participants in their writing experience. A possible explanation could be that in the EK interview the participants had subsumed the Purpose or Objective under what they termed as General information or Background; but inclusion of the Objective or Purpose element became more apparent when they were overtly explaining their strategies in the recall. In contrast, nine participants had named the Conclusion in their EK, but only three of them [P5 10 11] had recalled it in their writing.

Exhibit 5



P12 Omitted Conclusion element

BPMRC (matching ANSI) An abstract contains the background, purpose, method, results, and conclusion

My abstract represented background, purpose, method and results …my main ideas in the paper were method and results; but in my abstract the purpose statement was most emphasised because it was the focus of my research I have to clarify first to readers

Some participants, for example, [P15] had explained that he had forgotten about it in his writing; while [P12] had just omitted it in his writing as demonstrated in Exhibit 5 above. It could be reasonable to explain that because these participants were more focused on elements like the Result, Method and later the Purpose, they had to ensure that these

9

elements were highlighted over the less significant Background and Conclusion. Another reason could be that some of the participants had merged the Conclusion to the Results as these are closely related. Another observation was [P8] and [P9] who had not named any element explicitly had in the writing included most of the specific elements, suggesting perhaps that it was not because they had no EK about the content elements but just had not named them overtly at that point. As mentioned, five participants had provided the full BPMRC information sequence in response to the naming of the abstract content. However, it was noted that only three of the five had reiterated the same structure in their AWE, suggesting that they had transferred EK to writing, while the other two had the EK but in practice had been more selective and did not include all the elements. (See also Exhibit 5). 3.2.2 EK vs. AWE: Content treatment It was observed that the participants had not provided copious elaborations on the content elements both in their EK and AWE, neither was there close match between their EK and AWE. In relation to both situations, it was observed that the participants were not highly conversant in English due to their lack of language proficiency. So they had been reticent most times and provided only very brief and terse responses throughout the interviews, especially when required to provide extended or open-ended responses, suggesting that this reticence could explain the dearth of responses. Nevertheless some observations were made.

Table 6. EK vs. AWE: details of Content treatment

As shown in Table 6 above, the most significant match was for Method; of the eight participants who elaborated on the element seven (88%) of them recalled and reiterated


P 11

P 12

P 13

P 14

P 15

To. M %

Details on Background

√ √ √ 3

Same treatment in AWE

√ √ 2

0 3 0

Details on Purpose

√ √ √ √ √ √ 6


√ √ √ √ 4

3 6 50

Details on Method

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 8


√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 11

7 8 88

Details on Results

√ √ √ √ √ √ 6


√ √ √ √ √ 5

4 6 67

Details on Conclusion

√ √ √ √ √ 5


√ √ √ 3

3 5 60

10

the same significance for including it and provided some extended discussion. [P2] and [P7] demonstrate this in Exhibit 6.

Exhibit 6

Participants Declared EK about content of abstracts Recalled AWE: content included in the abstracts

[P2] Content Description

Information was organised in that order… The new idea should be emphasised because it is what most people seek

Most important show the new idea … the new approach or another way to solve the problem…because that was what would attract readers.

[P7] Content Description

Stress on methodology… and significance should be given more emphasis because methodology tells readers how the problems are solved and the significance catches the reader’s attention

My abstract represented mainly the methodology and introduction I gave highest emphasis to the methodology because my paper was focused on it… my results not good yet

In addition, although eight (53%) participants had described the Method element in their EK eleven (73%) had highlighted its emphasis and provided more description on it in the recall, indicating that even though some of the participants had not elaborated on the Method in EK their focus on it in writing was evident. The other elements that received positive matches are Results and Conclusion; six and five participants had provided some elaboration on the elements respectively in their EK, but only four and three of them had described the element in their recall respectively. Six participants had elaborated on the Purpose element but only three of them had recalled similar significance in their recall. It was also noted that while three participants had elaborated on the Background in their EK they had not recalled the same reference, suggesting that while the participants had named the Background as an element in abstracts it was not significant. On the other hand, two participants who had not expanded on the Background in EK had provided more details on it in the AWE; as shown in Exhibit 7, [P11] had actually included the Objective which he considered as most significant as part of the Background, while [P13] gave reason for the lengthy Background despite her EK emphasis on the problem or Objective of the paper.

Exhibit 7


[P11]

… the title and problem of the research should be given most emphasis because the reader will always start by reading the title and then focusing on the problem which is the objective of the paper

In my abstract … Gave heaviest emphasis to the background because it contained my objective which reader wants to read most

[P13]

The objective and method should be the most important elements; method is most important because if the method is attractive and new readers would be attracted to read the paper

The method and objective elements were the most important parts of the abstract but in my abstract I gave a very long introduction because I wanted to give my readers a clear understanding of my research topic… must understand my topic first

11

3.2.3 EK vs. AWE: Specific content treatment

In Table 7, twelve (80%) of them had highlighted specific information elements in the abstract for emphasis implying that they would place more attention on them to ensure the effectiveness of their abstracts.

Table 7. EK vs. AWE: Specific content treatment

In comparison during their recall, all of them (100%) had also indicated giving emphasis to specific elements. On closer examination the match for each of these elements varied. The Method element had the closest match of 86%, indicating that most of those who had highlighted the element for emphasis in their EK had also correspondingly recalled the same emphasis. Similarly the Purpose and Results were also close in the match. It is interesting to note that although no participant had identified the Background element for emphasis, four of them had actually recalled placing more weight (as already cited in [P 13] above) on this element in their AWE, suggesting further evidence that EK does not necessarily translate into the task at hand. 3.3. Conventions of abstract writing: EK vs. AWE In this section the main objective was to examine the comparison between what the participants declared about the conventions of abstract writing and their recall during their AWE. The conventions of abstract writing would involve discussing the procedural approach to writing, stylistics in presenting content and language, and dealing with


P 11

P 12

P 13

P 14

P 15

To. M %

Overall content emphasis

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 12

Same emphasis in writing

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 15

12 12 100

Emphasis on Background

0


√ √ √ √ 4

0 0 0

Emphasis on Purpose

√ √ √ √ 4


√ √ √ √ √ √ 6

3 4 75

Emphasis on Method

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ 7


√ √ √ √ √ √ √ 7

6 7 86

Emphasis on Results

√ √ √ √ √ √ 6


√ √ √ √ √ 5

4 6 67

Emphasis on Conclusion

√ √ 2


√ √ 2

1 2 50

12

problems encountered. The latter was regarded as relevant for determining how they would handle revisions in the AWE. Based on earlier inquiry on their background knowledge about the abstract most of the participants (73%) had overtly claimed there were some specific rules to abstract writing (even though most had claimed they had not been formally instructed), and stated that they had followed them during their AWE, while the rest who had claimed that they were not aware of such rules had still agreed that there should be some guidelines on writing abstracts. Thus it is reasonable to suggest that in their writing all the participants must be abiding by some conventions. Another point to mention is the seemingly relaxed attitude towards abstract writing. Only about a third of them had perceived the abstract as difficult to write, while most of them thought it only slightly challenging. This was explained by several participants who claimed that after writing the full paper they should have no problem with selecting the content for their abstracts, thus suggesting that the writers were more focused on content than on the stylistic aspect of the genre. In addition, most of them had claimed they had learned about abstract writing informally by either reading journal papers and using them as samples to imitate, or had deduced their own abstract writing rules from their plethora of readings. Only a handful had referred to journal guidelines or received some informal training by their technical supervisors. Based on this background the following discussion on their EK vs. AWE match follows. 3.3.1 EK vs. AWE on prewriting stage In the EK interview, three descriptors were identified as their approach in abstract writing as shown in Table 8.

Table 8. Approach to abstract writing: EK vs. AWE

More than 50% of the participants declared that they would first read through their full papers before starting to write. Others had claimed they did not need to do that because they had just written the paper and so the content was still fresh in their minds, but all had claimed that they always wrote their abstracts after the full paper. 73% claimed focus on purpose and audience so that their abstracts would be attractive to their readers. About 50% also mentioned that they usually planned the abstract structure which they would later use to fill in with the relevant content taken from the paper. Those who did

PARTICIPANTS P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P 10

P 11

P 12

P 13

P 14

P 15

T % M

Conventions vs. concerns First step: read full paper √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 9 First concern to read paper

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 9 8 9 89

Audience /Purpose awareness

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 11

Thought of Audience/purpose

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 12

10 11 90

Thought of a structure √ √ √ √ √ 5 4 5 80

13

not mention the structure had gone on to select significant information from the full paper. Also some of the participants would approach abstract writing in more than one way. For example, [P2], [P8], and [P11] would usually read through the paper, think of their specific purpose for writing the abstract, and continue to plan the structure with which they would use for selecting content. From the table, a close match was observed for the first descriptor. Eight out of nine participants had recalled the same practice, thus achieving 89% concurrence. For example [P2] and [P4] had concurred as shown in Exhibit 8.

Exhibit 8

Participant Declared EK about content of abstracts Recalled AWE: content included in the abstracts

[P2]

…important to learn the structure of the abstract and follow it because gives readers good sequence of information…able to grasp the meaning quickly; should read the whole paper carefully for this…

… the structure and content elements of the abstract…easy because it was short and I have written much on the topic; wrote after the whole paper

[P4]

Abstracts must represent all parts of the full paper; …should be written after the whole paper… first step is to extract the key words from the paper before writing …

… read through my paper first to review the content; … looked for key words in the paper and used them to form sentences to create the abstract…kept reading the full paper content before writing …

Only [P10] who had mentioned reading through the paper did not recall this step. Instead he had recalled

I wrote the abstract immediately after the whole paper while the content was still fresh in my memory; … next without referring to the paper I wrote the purpose statement to let readers understand the motivation of my research; …

Similarly, of the eleven participants who declared that they had given priority to the purpose and audience of their abstracts a close match of 90% concurred with this step in their recall; [P14] demonstrates this in Exhibit 9

Exhibit 9


P14

… To him the first rule in abstract writing is to focus on the main purpose of using the particular abstract, which is to attract readers. …He focused on making his content effective because: ‘I am not very concerned about the style or language as long as the abstract does its own work, as long as it gives people the correct information.’

… During the writing process paid attention to answering the question ‘what is the significance of your work?’ so that my abstract will be attractive to readers. my abstract comprised introduction, materials, method, and most important the results; Satisfied … I score myself highly …70%

.

14

The next descriptor was on using a structure for the abstract even before the writing began. Only five had declared this EK; and of these three had concurred in their recall, but this item appears to be more significant in the writing stage as shown in the next section. 3.3.2 EK vs. AWE on the writing stage Two categories were identified for discussion on the participants’ EK on abstract writing stage: content representation and language use. Their EK data on content presentation were grouped into five descriptors, while their language use data were grouped into seven descriptors. However, only four presentation and three language descriptors have been selected for discussion as the others did not reflect significant results. As shown in Table 9, the first item on following the structure appears to be quite significant, revealing possibly that several participants were focused on the importance of following the abstract structure during the writing process.

Table 9 Abstract presentation styles: EK vs. AWE

Nine (60%) participants highlighted that they would follow the abstract structure when writing their abstracts, and eight (88%) had concurred. Exhibit 10 demonstrates this.

Exhibit 10

Participant

Declared EK about content of abstracts Recalled AWE: content included in the abstracts

[P3]

Had no clear knowledge on rules of abstract writing except to follow the structure closely (He claimed no difficulty in writing)… because ‘I just take the sentences from the paper…’

First step was to follow the structure, but I read the paper before that…identified the structure in four parts and wrote them one at a time.


P 11

P 12

P 13

P 14

P 15

To.

M %

Presentation style

Will Follow structure

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 9

Followed structure

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 10

8 9 88

To focus on key elements

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 10

Focused on key elements

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 12

8 10 80

To represent full paper

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ 7

Ensured exhaustivity

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ 7

5 7 71

Abstract must be readable

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ 7

Checked on readability

√ √ √ 3

2 7 28

15

Next, ten participants had declared that in writing the content of abstracts they would focus on highlighting the specific main points from the corresponding full papers, and 80% of them had highlighted the same in the recalled AWE. Evidence of these results is in Exhibit 11.

Exhibit 11


[P4] EK matched AWE

…first step is to extract the key words from the paper before writing the abstract

… looked for key words in the paper and used them to form sentences to create the abstract…

Thirdly, seven (47%) participants suggested that the content of their abstracts should represent their corresponding full papers. Although seven had also recalled abiding by this exhaustivity convention it was not a perfect match. Of the seven who had declared this in their EK, 71% of them had correspondingly recalled this step in their writing, while those who did not mention it in their EK had included it in their practice. So far, the results have indicated quite close matches between the participants’ declared strategy on content selection and their recalled experience. The next convention is about ensuring that abstract be written clearly and succinctly; but the match for this item is not as high. In discussing the EK on writing conventions seven participants had declared how abstracts should be expressed clearly to ensure high readability, but only three had recalled abiding by this convention and among them only two had concurred in their EK. Thus, it would seem that while the participants were quite concerned with selecting information to represent their paper they were less concerned with effective expression of the information. The next subsection presents the match between the participants’ EK on the language conventions and their application in writing. During the EK discussion seven items were identified as the linguistic conventions. However, in the AWE recall, the more specific language conventions for abstract writing like avoiding the use of passive forms and using specific tenses for specific information elements were minimally mentioned. Thus the present discussion will focus only on the more generic language aspects (Table 10).

Table 10. Abstract language use: EK vs. AWE


P 11

P 12

P 13

P 14

P 15

To.

M %

Language use:

Must be grammatical

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 8

Checked on grammar

√ √ √ √ √ 5

3 8 38

Must write concisely

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 13

Focused on being concise

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 8

7 13 54

Must write cohesively

√ √ √ 3

Used cohesive logical markers

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 9

3 3 100

16

First, while eight participants had declared that it was important to ensure grammatically correct abstracts, only five of them had recalled this. Next, thirteen (87%) participants mentioned the rule on writing concisely, suggesting that this convention was an important consideration for abstracts. However, in the AWE it was observed that only eight (53%) had put this knowledge or awareness into practice. Finally, while nine (60%) participants had recalled paying attention to writing cohesively, only three participants had declared this convention in EK, suggesting that during the actual writing experience most of the participants had practised this convention even though they had not mentioned it in EK. Exhibit 12 demonstrates such a match.

Exhibit 12



[P6] Positive match

had no knowledge of specific written rules … maybe the most important language rule should be to write to the point, … my own logical sense of cause and effect logic to structure or organise her abstracts. I revise my draft to ensure all the sentences are clear and linked and follow the proper sequence. …

…I prune down the first draft in the first round by combining and refining sentences in order to be concise and not lose too much information. In the second round I look at the language, grammar and expressions; finally another round to read … make sure everything is okay … my main problem is to ensure the information is not repeated. …I pieced them together constructing sentences to link them together in a logical manner.

3.3.3 EK vs. AWE: Revision stage In this subsection the participants’ EK on the issue of the revision was summarised into six descriptors as shown in Table 11. These items were based on the problems they normally encountered in abstract writing and on how they would deal with them. First, of the fourteen participants who had mentioned language problems in their EK, four of them did not recall having to make language changes in their AWE. For example, [P 2] had in EK mentioned the significance of having to deal with language difficulties such as verbs and modals; but in his recall had indicated that he was not very concerned about the abstract because this particular abstract was short and he had written much about this topic.

Table 11. Abstract Revision strategies: EK vs. AWE


P 11

P 12

P 13

P 14

P 15

To. % M

Problems and revisions

Had problems with Language

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 14

Dealt with problems

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 10

10 14 71

Problems content quality

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 10

Recalled revising content

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 12

9 10 90

Problems with organisation

√ √ √ √ √ √ 6 5 6

17

The others like [P 4] and [P 5] who had specified some writing problems caused by language proficiency, but had conveniently left the language aspect to their supervisors as shown in Exhibit 13

Exhibit 13


P4 Negative match

…my problems usually were in extracting information from the full paper and rewriting them briefly…my problems are caused by my language proficiency… Abstract writing is difficult to write. Would seek friends’ help or read other papers for style or books on abstract writing;

In the writing it is important to focus on style …I passed abstract to my supervisor who corrected only my language.

P5 Negative match

… did not have knowledge about specific abstract writing rules except for writing concisely…all I do was select the most significant information for my abstract; I had language problems …I ask friends for help or check with the dictionary;

I focused on writing concisely and so began to make a frame or structure comprising the information elements…it is difficult to express method concisely…I showed my abstract to my supervisor. He made my language changes.

Next, ten participants had mentioned the need to focus on representative content selection, while in the recall twelve had indicated that this was a significant step in their revision process, indicating the greater attention in writing. In the comparison between EK and AWE for this item a close match of 90% was observed. The third item for revision was about the problems in content organisation and presentation style. Only six participants had declared this in their EK while eight had recalled it in their AWE. Compared with the attention on content representation, this problem appeared to have received less concern, further suggesting the lower attention paid to abstracting styles. However, a close match of more than 80% was observed, indicating that most of those who highlighted this convention had also recalled it in practice.

Reorganized √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 8 83

Problems on conciseness

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 10

Recalled revising that

√ √ √ √ √ √ 6

3 10 30

Problems on cohesiveness

√ √ √ √ √ √ 6

Recalled improving that

√ √ √ √ √ √ 6

3 6 50

Problems with word choice

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 10

Revising word choice

√ √ 2

1 10 10

18

With regard to the convention on maintaining conciseness the results showed ten participants had mentioned it in EK against six in AWE. However, only four of them had actually also recalled this step, suggesting again the lack of focus on styles and language. It could also be because their own language inadequacies prevented them from dealing with this problem on their own. Exhibit 14 below would show the inconsistency.

Exhibit 14


P9 No positive match

An important rule was to include the main content concisely, …difficult especially with the language like writing concisely and expressing in acceptable English Relied mainly on supervisor to correct his language; claimed to have no problem with content

Claimed his abstract represented the introduction, methodology, and results but he emphasised the methodology; The draft was much longer because he had included explanations for technical terms, and details for the methodology;

Similarly the convention on checking for cohesiveness was not highly significant to participants both in EK and in AWE. Only three out of six had recalled this practice in their writing, indicating low consistency between knowledge and application in this aspect of abstract writing. Lastly, ten participants had expressed concern with the problem of finding and utilising accurate and effective expressions, for their abstracts, but in their AWE a similar concern was not evident. Only one had concurred recalling this problem, suggesting apparent low attention on this problem. An explanation for this behaviour could lie with their strategies for dealing with linguistic problems. Table 12 presents a summary of these strategies.

Table 12. Dealing with problems: EK vs. AWE

As shown in the table, they either sought help from their supervisors or peers or they read up from other papers or guidelines and made revisions or changes by themselves. First, ten participants had explicitly mentioned they usually sought help from either their supervisors or their peers in order to deal with their problems in writing abstracts, which were identified mainly as language related, and in their AWE, nine had recalled this strategy, although the match was not perfect. Seven or 70% had concurred in practice


P 11

P 12

P 13

P 14

P 15

To. M

Other Strategies

Sought intervention

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 10

Recalled seeking help

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 9

7 10 70

Dealt with own problems

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ 7

Recalled self revision

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 8

4 7 57

19

with this convention while the remaining three had mentioned it but did not recall this experience in writing; it was also obvious that more of them had sought their supervisors’ intervention as demonstrated in Exhibit 15. The examples also show that some had claimed that they did both, [P4]; others had claimed to seek intervention but in practice had resolved to self correction [P13]; still others had claimed self-correction but had sought intervention instead [P11], indicating that perhaps they had no definite strategy but rather they resorted to whatever was most applicable at the time of writing and revision.

Exhibit 15


[P1]

…would seek help of colleagues or supervisor

I revised my own work and asked my friend to read too… there was no time and did not seek my supervisor’s advice. …also consulted IEEE guidelines…

[P4]

Would seek friends’ help or read other papers for style or books on abstract writing;

Passed my abstract to my supervisor …he corrected only my language…my content okay

[P5]

… would ask friends for help or checked with the dictionary

Showed my abstract to my supervisor who made language changes.

[P11]

he would read more, practise more, and cultivate his own habit of writing in English to overcome these problems

my supervisor told me to emphasise the contribution of this work with more details, I followed him

[P13]

I usually ask my supervisor for help and read more papers to learn from them …my supervisor said that abstracts should be in one paragraph…I learned about abstract writing from my supervisor

I did not show this abstract to my supervisor she would not be interested as my research is not yet completed.

4. Conclusion

Overall, the novice writers show higher knowledge transfer in macro features of the genre just as they had also demonstrated better macro features explicitly. The main conclusions are • In terms of concept and valuation of the abstract they focused on representing their

corresponding papers in order to promote their work, and in order to enable readers to appreciate their work they had chosen to focus specific information elements that they wanted to promote.

• They were not only highly knowledgeable about naming the information elements in abstracts but were also highly consistent in their inclusion during the writing process.

• There is a dearth of detailed knowledge about the content; the most well elaborated element was the Method showing that this element appears to be the most significant feature to this sample of writers.

• The Purpose, Method, and Results received the most attention from them. Overall they were consistent in highlighting emphasis on specific content element.

• In the writing procedure they demonstrated clear knowledge and application on macro strategies including the planning, writing and revision stages of the abstracting process, but lacked micro skills related to language aspects.

20

• Therefore the sample novice writers would benefit from such micro-skills instruction, including language, presentation and formatting features of the genre. There is a need for teaching the abstract genre.

• Pedagogical concerns should be to inculcate appreciation of the abstract especially as an information tool, and encourage novice writers to strife for better stylistic quality besides ensuring content representation.

5. Limitations and future work This paper is part of a research on exploring and observing the explicit or overt knowledge (EK) manageable by the sample of novice writers, comparing EK with their actual abstracting experience to investigate evidence of knowledge application, and triangulating these findings with the qualities of their end-product. The methodology in this paper is based on a retrospective interview, which is sometime criticised for being too ‘removed’ to be reliable. However, it is argued here that recall depends on long term memory as well and in this specific approach a time lapse had been deliberately paced so that the participants’ recall would be reflective of their ‘internalised’ knowledge than on just short-term memory. Albeit, the researcher would admit that observations based purely on recall are not indisputable, but it also cannot be dismissed. Admittedly too the number of participants is small, but given the time constraints, the availability of foreign postgraduates per school per year, and the extensive triangulation methodology of three interviews each and a comprehensive genre text analysis of the abstracts, the size of the sample is not unreasonable. The main limitation is the small corpus of abstracts for analysis; for a more representative and reliable source perhaps more than one abstract per participant should have been utilised. The next stage of the investigation will compare the text analysis results with results on the EK and AWE investigations. The aim is to complete the study and determine the relationship between knowledge, process, and product. References 1. American National Standards Institution Inc. (1979). American National Standard for

Writing Abstracts. ANSI Z39.14-1979. New York: America National Standards Institute 1430 Broadway, New York, 100018.

2. Huckin, Thomas. (2001). Abstracting From Abstracts. Academic writing in context.

Implications and applications. Papers in honour of Tony Dudley-Evans. University Of Birmingham Press 2001. 93-105

3. Keogh, Timothy John. (1994). The structure of abstracts stylistic and structural

elements in 48 scientific and technical abstracts. Doctoral Dissertation UMI. AAT 9524462.

4. Lee, Chu Keong, Foo, & Goh. (2005).On the Concept and Types of Knowledge.

(Submitted to the Journal of Information and Knowledge Management) 5. Nonaka, I. (1991). The Knowledge-Creating Company. Harvard Business Review

(November−December 1991), 71(6), 96−104.

21

6. Posteguillo, Santiago. (1996). A genre-based approach to the teaching of reading and writing abstracts in Computer Science. NAU Llibres. Valencia. Spain.

7. Swales, John M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings

Cambridge Applied Linguistics series. Cambridge University Press. 8. Zack. M.H. (1999). Developing a Knowledge Strategy. California Management

Review, 41(3), 125−145.

Documents

Application of Explicit Knowledge (EK) in an Abstract Writing Experience (AWE) · 2006. 5. 2. · 1 Explicit knowledge and use: Application of genre knowledge in a real-life experience