Exercise Five - Writing

Notes: The writers intention (These notes are very loosely based on Graham Gibbs original.) This exercise is designed to make students think about how they should write assignments and/or essays. It encourages them to reflect on how to write for maximum learning understanding and grades. The activity re!uires students to critically a""raise two "ieces of writing and so come to a conclusion about how to write a good assignment or essay and how to learn while doing it. Two "ieces of writing are "rovided for the activity but you could of course use your own material. Student Intentions #tudents have very different intentions when they write. These intentions are crucially im"ortant and have been shown to correlate closely with student achievement. $ets divide these student intentions into three. %owever bear in mind that these three categories are extremes and very few students fall exclusively into one category. Left-brain onl a!!roach" These students believe the teacher wants so"histication& factual detail& com"rehensiveness& com"lexity& and advanced vocabulary. #tudents with this intention often fail to see the key "oints and fail to see im"ortant connections. They 'cant see the wood for the trees and tend to get lost in a welter of detail.

(hen revising these students fail to remember the detail they "ut in their writing and so dont do well in exams. #ight-brain onl a!!roach These students )ust "ut down a "ersonalised view of the key "oints as they see them. This may be creative and original or idiosyncratic and inaccurate. They tend to make unsubstantiated "oints. *or exam"le they dont "rovide evidence illustrations or exam"les to su""ort their views or what they see as the key "oints. They often leave out im"ortant material. They cant see the trees for the wood+ ,t their best they go for readability sim"licity and originality. Whole brain a!!roach" This is the best a""roach because it has all of the advantages of both the right and left brain a""roaches but with non of their disadvantages. %ere the key "oints or key arguments are the focus of the writing. The writer has a 'story to tell and the account makes a coherent whole. The key "oints or key arguments are )ustified and illustrated with relevant detail. Im"ortant 'connections are made so that the material is seen holistically but at the same time any detail re!uired to ex"lain or )ustify the arguments is given. The summary of the three styles above is best shared with students after they have done the exercise below. The exam"le essays below do not fit exactly into the above categories but illustrate the tendencies. -either is "erfect

Instructions The "air of short essays offered below have been written in strikingly different ways. ,lthough the students who wrote them both attem"t to answer the same !uestion their essays embody !uite different notions of the nature of the task of essay writing (orking alone (./ min.) '0ead through these two students answers to this !uestion. (hich answer is best and why1 In what ways do they differ1 '3om"are your comments. (hich answer is best and why1 '5ool your conclusions. (ere these students trying to do the same thing1 6escribe what you think each was trying to do. 'Id like each grou" in turn to make a comment about one of the answers and about what the student was aiming to do. $ead into discussion. a general

3or"oration) have "romised that 3oncorde will range between 2/; and 2/< 5-d9 de"ending on its weight at take=off. ,t the start of 3oncorde o"erations at %eathrow .2 of the first >4 de"artures exceeded 22/ 5-d9 and in the first eight o"erations ?.@ of the A? de"artures exceeded 22/ 5-d9. Bverall in 2A?C there were 2/A infringements of %eathrows limit by 3oncorde. These measurements of 3oncorde were about ? 5-d9 lower than during its early endurance trials. ,t the same time there were 2 A;2 infringements by subsonic )ets. 3oncorde rarely features in the list of the ten noisiest take=offs each month at %eathrow and subsonic aircraft at 7ennedy have been recorded at 2.2 5-d9 D twice the limit. ,t 6ulles ,ir"ort (ashington 3oncorde has averaged 22A.A 5-d9 at take=off and 22?.< 5-d9 on landing. This is 2.=2> 5-d9 higher than the averages for subsonic aircraft. The noise levels have been going down and with them the number of com"laints. In #e"tember 2A?C the average level was 2.2.> 5-d9 and there were 2<C com"laints (.A of these to one take=off). In Bctober the average was 22?.; 5-d9 and there were 2/2 com"laints. 6uring this time "olls of o"inion concerning 3oncordes trial "eriod at 6ulles showed an initial o""osition of >C.A@ dro" to .C..@. In -ew 8ork the o""osition to 3oncorde landing at 7ennedy has dro""ed from C>@ in Eanuary 2A?C to 4>@ in ,"ril 2A??. (hile 4 /// /// "eo"le are affected by aircraft noise in (ashington . /// /// are affected at 7ennedy. It has been estimated that ; /// /// extra "eo"le will be affected by noise if </ 3oncordes serve 2. F# cities. This re"resents a 2@ increase. 9um"s in

(orking in "airs (2/ min.) (orking in fours (24 min.)

(orking in "lenary (24 min.)

$%ssess the noise !ollution !roble&s caused b 'oncorde around air!orts

%nswer ( The sound limit at 7ennedy air"ort -ew 8ork is 22. 5-d9: and at %eathrow $ondon 22/ 5-d9. The manufa cturers of 3oncorde (#ud ,viation and the 9ritish ,ircraft
:

the runway at 7ennedy force 3oncorde to take off closer to heavily "o"ulated areas but due to advanced flight control characteristics 3oncorde can begin to bank at an altitude of 2// ft com"ared with an average of ;</ ft. for subsonic aircraft and so can turn away from heavily "o"ulated areas sooner after take=off. %nswer ) B""osition to 3oncorde based on arguments concerning noise "ollution takes two main themes. The first is concerned with the 'sonic boom D a "henomenon of su"ersonic flight unique to 3oncorde amongst commercial aircraft. The second is concerned with noise levels around air"orts caused during take=off and landing. This second theme is common to all aircraft and the issue at stake is whether 3oncorde is significantly noisier than subsonic aircraft. 3om"arisons with other aircraft are com"licated by the changing of )et fleets. Garly )et aircraft ( eg. The 63< and ?/? ) used turbo=)et engines and whilst these have been !uietened they are much noisier than second= generation fan=)et engined aircraft (eg. 632/ and )umbo ?;? ). Gventually these older aircraft will be "hased out but at the moment 3oncorde is being com"ared with them. There are also "roblems of measurement. Bb)ective measures (meters giving a reading in decibels) cannot give any im"ression of HshrillnessH or sub)ectively ex"erienced nuisance. ,n aircraft giving higher decibel readings may not be ex"erienced as HnoisierH by someone hearing it take off. #ub)ective measures also involve "roblems as

HnoiseH is such a multi=faceted "henomenon and different "eo"le use different criteria in assessing it. There are dangers also in !uestionnaire surveys of reactions of "eo"le living around air"orts. ,verage ratings of HnuisanceH change over time without any changes in ob)ectively measured decibel levels or fre!uently of aircraft movements and so other factors must be involved. These factors must be "olitical. 9oeing took care so sub= contract for "arts for its ##T at factories surrounding 7ennedy air"ort so that votes concerning whether ##THs should be allowed to use the air"ort would be influenced by residents concerns for their )obs+ (orkers at *ilton and Toulouse would hardly try to ban 3oncorde landing near homes however noisy it is+ *inally there is a variation in recorded noise levels de"endent on the skill of the "ilot and load factors of the aircraft. #ubsonic aircraft have been measured at twice the legal noise level struggling to take off with heavy loads in adverse conditions. 3oncorde has been flying under=loaded with skilled "ilots who have even been re"orted banking away from noise monitors. Given this variety of "roblems it would seem likely that 3oncorde causes even more noise "ollution than data suggests and that in com"arison with subsonic )ets will become com"aratively worse as time goes on.
:

5-d9 means 5erceived -oise 6ecibels D a logarithmic scale of noise #eference: *+ighl reco&&ended, -raha& -ibbs *(./(, 0Teaching Students To Learn1 2!en 3niversit 4ress