Higher Education 36: 449–469, 1998.

449
© 1998 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

From conception to performance: How undergraduate students

conceptualise and construct essays

JENNIFER CAMPBELL, DAVID SMITH & ROSS BROOKER

Centre for Cognitive Processes in Learning, School of Learning and Development,
Queensland University of Technology, Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove, Queensland 4059,
Australia

Abstract. Interviews with forty six undergraduate students enrolled in either first or third
year of a Bachelor of Education explored how they conceptualised and undertook an essay
writing task. The conceptual structure of their essays was analysed using the SOLO Taxonomy.
Comparisons between students who wrote essays of differing levels of complexity revealed
that there were major differences between students at every stage of the essay writing process.
Compared to students writing essays with simple conceptual structures, students writing more
complex essays engaged in processes of reconstruction rather than “knowledge telling”, put
more effort into finding references, used organisational systems for integrating their notes
according to topics or themes, built “arguments” rather than presented “information” when
structuring and drafting their essays, were concerned with improving ideas and arguments as
well as mechanics when revising their essays, had a more sophisticated understanding of the
concepts underlying the assessment criteria, and expected and received higher grades. The
results suggest a developmental process in underlying conceptualisations of both the body of
knowledge forming the content of the essay, and the essay writing processes themselves. As
such, attempts to improve students’ essay writing skills need to shift from a focus on discrete
skills to an emphasis on the relationship between students’ understanding of the content and
their ability to write about it. As part of the writing process, students need help building
understandings representing the body of knowledge they are writing about, and this help needs
to be geared to their current level of operation.

The essay has long been regarded as both a useful tool of assessment in
tertiary education and as a valuable means of promoting conceptual learn-
ing which is a prime goal of higher education (Hounsell 1984a; Entwistle,
Entwistle and Tait 1991; Biggs 1988; Nightingale 1988). Given its impor-
tance, several authors have commented that surprisingly little research has
investigated either the nature of student learning and understanding which
occurs through essay writing (Entwistle 1995; Hounsell 1984a) or the
student strategies which lead to success (Mahalski 1992). When consider-
ing student learning and understanding a variety of theoretical perspectives
focus, in different ways, on the contrast between the organisation of knowl-
edge as discrete, serial elements to be remembered and reproduced, and the
integration and transformation of knowledge into a personally constructed
450 JENNIFER CAMPBELL ET AL.

and meaningful entity. Marton (1975) first made this distinction when he
described approaches to learning in terms of either deep or surface processing
of information, and this conceptualisation has been used as a base for much
further theoretical development (Entwistle et al. 1991). A similar distinction
underlies theoretical analyses of both students’ beliefs about knowledge and
their conceptions of learning. Studies of students’ beliefs about knowledge
(Perry 1981; Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger and Tarule 1986) have found a
developmental sequence which progresses from a simplistic view of knowl-
edge as being absolute and imparted by authorities, to a more sophisticated
understanding of the complexity of different knowledge claims, and the
need to construct personal interpretations based on evidence and analytic
reasoning. Marton, Dall’Alba and Beaty’s (1993) investigations of students’
conceptions of learning have similarly uncovered a developmental sequence
where six qualitatively different ways of conceptualising learning can be
broadly categorised into quantitative (reproductive) and qualitative (construc-
tivist) dimensions, which both relate to the particular beliefs about knowledge
discussed above, and influence students’ approaches to learning (Biggs 1989).
The distinction between the active construction of meaning as opposed
to the memorisation and reproduction of accumulated material also under-
lies theoretical conceptions of students’ experience of understanding (Burns,
Clift and Duncan 1991). Entwistle and colleagues (Entwistle 1995; Entwistle
and Entwistle 1992; Entwistle and Marton 1994) have investigated forms of
understanding among university honours students which vary from a first
category where knowledge is organised in a serial way retaining its original
form, through to a fourth category involving the creation of strongly inte-
grated personal constructions, or “knowledge objects”, derived from a wide
range of information and ideas.
While the above theoretical analyses focus on students’ conceptions of
learning and understanding, similar distinctions between sequential repro-
duction of learned material compared to its transformation into a personally
constructed whole, can also be found when examining the outcomes of
student learning. Within a Neo-Piagetian developmental model relating to
modes of functioning, Biggs and Collis (1982) describe the structure of
observed learning outcomes (SOLO) in terms of five levels of response, which
range from prestructural (which include no reference to the elements of the
mode in question) through to extended abstract (which marks the transition to
a higher mode of functioning). Of current interest are the three intermediate
levels of response: unistructural, which focuses on one relevant element;
multistructural, in which several relevant independent elements are used in
sequence; and relational, where elements are integrated into a coherent struc-
ture. Using this taxonomy, Boulton-Lewis (1994) analysed tertiary students’
 FROM CONCEPTION TO PERFORMANCE 451

written statements about learning. A majority of responses were multi-

structural (lower level sequential responses) with only seven percent at the
relational level (involving construction of an integrated whole). Increasing
complexity of the response structure was, however, related to an increase in
deep motives and strategies, and a decrease in surface motives and strategies.
Researchers have started to apply these theoretical concepts regarding
learning to the process of student essay writing, particularly in light of
evidence that deficiencies in undergraduate essay writing are not so much
related to problems with mechanics and basic skills as they are to higher
order thought processes and the ability to analyse information critically and
develop arguments (Nightingale 1988). The importance of this approach is
also emphasised by evidence concerning the impact of assessment proce-
dures on students’ learning. While short answer or multiple choice questions
requiring mainly factual recall tend to elicit surface approaches, essays are
more likely to encourage a deep approach and hence to promote desired
forms of student learning (Entwistle et al. 1991; Dart and Clarke 1991).
There are, however, substantial variations between students in the depth
of understanding achieved when essay writing (Entwistle 1995), and the
form of understanding developed would seem to be related to underlying
conceptions of learning and beliefs about knowledge. Research on students’
essay writing from these theoretical perspectives remains, nevertheless, fairly
limited, with most research focusing on more traditional linguistic analyses
and quantitative comparisons of essay features, students’ characteristics and
grades.
Norton (1990) and Mahalski (1992) provide examples of recent research
which has focused on quantitative descriptions of essay writing processes and
outcomes, relating students’ preparation strategies and essay characteristics
to essay marks. While these results can be interpreted in terms of the advice
that can be given to students to improve essay writing, such as making a
plan and leaving time for reflection between reading and successive drafts
of the essay, they tend not to further theoretical analysis of students’ under-
lying conceptions of the essay writing process. Similarly, while Taylor and
Nightingale’s (1990) linguistic analysis of undergraduates’ essays indicated
that grammatical errors may reflect problems with meaning, the students’
understandings of those meanings were not ascertained.
In contrast, work by Hounsell (1984a) focused more directly on under-
lying meanings. He identified three qualitatively different conceptions of
an essay among history undergraduates: the essay as an argument, view-
point or arrangement. An “argument” involved construction of a logical,
unified position supported by evidence, while an “arrangement” focused on
an ordered presentation of discrete thoughts and information. Two similar
452 JENNIFER CAMPBELL ET AL.

conceptions were identified among psychology students: “cogency” and

“relevance”, corresponding respectively to the history students’ essay as argu-
ment and as arrangement (Hounsell 1984b). These conceptions of an essay
are clearly related to the different conceptions of learning, understanding and
knowledge discussed earlier, and the distinction between reproduction and
reconstruction.
More recently Entwistle (1995), as described earlier, and Prosser and
Webb (1994) have also investigated students’ conceptual understandings
of the essay writing process. Prosser and Webb (1994) used the SOLO
Taxonomy (Biggs and Collis 1982) to differentiate between university under-
graduate students with multistructural or relational conceptions of an essay.
They also identified whether students adopted deep or surface approaches to
essay writing, and conducted systemic functional linguistic analyses of each
essay’s structure. A relationship between the process of essay writing and
the final structure of the essay was found such that students with relational
conceptions and deep approaches tended to have well structured essays focus-
ing on relationships between semantic fields rather than on their serial listing.
This research is unusual in that it not only analyses students’ experiences of
essay writing processes in terms of the theoretical distinctions made above,
but it also relates these to structural attributes of the essays. The current study
was designed to follow this model by relating the conceptual structure of the
actual essay to students’ understanding of essay writing processes. In addition
it was concerned to relate students’ use of particular essay writing procedures,
such as those described by Mahalski (1992) and others, to their underlying
conceptualisation about these procedures.

Method

Forty six undergraduate students enrolled in a four year Bachelor of Educa-

tion course participated, on a volunteer basis, in this project. Twenty five were
first year students studying the subject Human Development and Education,
and twenty one were third year students studying the subject Psychology
of Teaching and Learning, which built on the earlier subject. As part of
larger assignments, both groups submitted 1500 word literature reviews on
developmental or educational psychology topics, which offered some choice
and required an integration of theory, research and practice. Participating
students completed a log of their essay writing procedures and were inter-
viewed after the submission of their essay, but before its return. Students
were assured that no research information would be given to their tutors. The
semi-structured interviews were conducted by an experienced senior research
assistant, tape recorded and transcribed. They explored students’ understand-
 FROM CONCEPTION TO PERFORMANCE 453

ing of the assessment criteria, and how they conceptualised and undertook
their essay writing activities. The conceptual structure of students’ essays
was analysed by the authors using the SOLO Taxonomy (Biggs 1988). The
interview data were separately analysed and comparisons were made between
the essay writing processes of students who wrote essays of differing levels
of complexity.

Results and discussion

Students’ essays were classified, using the SOLO Taxonomy, as belonging

to one of the following three categories representing progressively more
sophisticated cognitive structuring of the essay content.

(i) Unistructural. These essays involved a simple serial listing of successive

points with few if any links made between the different parts of the essay, and
a focus on “knowledge telling” (Biggs 1988). Two such essays were no more
than annotated bibliographies of several source materials. Others provided
few in-text references to support statements and claims. The following extract
provides an example of one of the better referenced of these compositions.
Colcock (1992, p. 23) maintains that since the regular school setting is
providing the necessary aides and support services, and the child is bene-
fiting from the experience, there should be no reason they cannot integrate
these children in the regular classroom.
Petriwskyi (1991) states integration into a regular school assists the child
by providing a model of ‘normal’ children’s behaviour and speech to
imitate in play, a wide range of social contacts, and a relaxed play envi-
ronment in which to practice skills.
Adapting the environment
Teachers with children who are visually impaired need to make serval
(sic) adaptions to the classroom environment to able (sic) them to move
around and orient themselves independently in the classroom. Harrison
and Crow (1993, p. 211) states (sic) it is helpful to advise the child when
furniture or activity centres are changed.
Mills (1994, p. 176) believes important considerations in the classroom
are seating, students may need to try out different places in the room to
find the locations that work best for seat work and for board work. (third
year, unistructural essay)
(ii) Multistructural. These essays retained the sequential description of
topics characteristic of unistructural essays, but elements of integration were
454 JENNIFER CAMPBELL ET AL.

introduced within paragraphs or sections of the essay, with the comparison

and/or simple synthesis of different perspectives at this more local level. The
emphasis was still on “knowledge telling”, but some early reconstruction of
information to develop simple arguments or perspectives was apparent. The
following provides an example.
Mann, Suiter and McClung (1992, p. 17) believe that the primary problem
is attributable to a “dysfunction in the frontal lobe and limbic brain.”
However Landau and McAninch (1993, p. 53) offer other suggestions.
They postulate that there may in fact be three causes which can increase
the chance of ADD occurring in people. Firstly they theorise that . . . (third
year, multistructural essay)

(iii) Relational. The ability to compare and synthesise different perspectives

on a small scale, evident in the last category, was now extended to concep-
tualising the structure of the essay as a whole. A theme or argument was
generated by the student and used to integrate the different aspects of the
essay into a coherent whole. For example:
All students, regardless of difficulties they experience learning and/or
relating socially with others, have the basic human right to receive
appropriate and effective schooling within their own community (Anon
1990; Department of Education 1993). The Disability Services Act 1992
states that “people with disabilities have the same fundamental rights
to services that support a quality lifestyle as do other people” (Depart-
ment of Education 1993, p. 2). The Education (General Provisions) Act
of 1989 in Queensland requires that relevant and appropriate educa-
tional programmes be provided for all students within the least restrictive
environment, ie, in as normal an educational setting as possible. The
Queensland Department of Education has made a commitment to ensure
all students have access to, and participate in, education that allows them
to develop to their full potential. The only basis for which children can be
excluded from school is on safety and health grounds (Education Depart-
ment 1993, p. 5).
Burdekin (1995, p. 8) argues that despite such laws and regulations, in
Australia “people with disabilities still endure discrimination in many
aspects of their lives. Their rights are regularly neglected or abused or
both”. Swartz (1993) claims that many of the placement decisions that
are made have very little to do with the educational needs of children. The
time has come to examine the quality of education received by children
with severe learning difficulties. This paper explores the gap between the
aspirations and regulations of special education and the realities of prac-
 FROM CONCEPTION TO PERFORMANCE 455
Table 1. Number of students by year whose essays were analysed as belonging to
each SOLO category, and mean essay mark

Unistructural Multistructural Relational Total

1st year 18 (60.11) 7 (80.43) 0 25 (65.80)

3rd year 6 (58.17) 8 (72.88) 7 (83.14) 21 (72.10)

tice for individuals with severe learning difficulties. (third year, relational
essay)

Relational essays are thus similar to Hounsell’s (1984a, b) cogency or argu-

ment conceptions, whereas unistructural and multistructural essay structures
would correspond to his relevance or arrangement conceptions. Table 1
reports the number of first and third year students whose essays were analysed
as belonging to each SOLO category. The mean essay mark for each category
appears in brackets.
A two way Analysis of Variance for SOLO category of essay and year of
study, conducted on essay marks revealed a statistically significant relation-
ship between essay mark and SOLO category (F = 27.666, d.f. = 2, p <
0.0001), but no significant differences between essay marks for years one and
three. Students were also asked to predict the grade they would receive for
their assignment on the seven point grading system used. Students’ predicted
grade was significantly related to both the SOLO level of their essay (Two
way ANOVA, F = 10.91, d.f. = 2, p < 0.0001) and to their actual essay mark
(Pearson correlation, r = 0.59, p < 0.0001).
This level of accuracy in predicting essay grades is intermediate between
the greater accuracy found by Stefani (1994) and the lower level reported by
Mowl and Pain (1995). The present sample also conformed to the general
trend reported by Boud and Falchikov (1989) and Mowl and Pain (1995),
with higher achieving students (grade 6: 75%–84%, or grade 7: >84%) under-
estimating their performance, and lower achieving students (grade 4 (pass):
50%–64%, or lower failing grades) overestimating their performance. (The
differences between the mean student predicted grade and the mean tutor
assessed grade were −0.8 and +0.8 respectively for the above two groups.)

Students’ understanding of the assessment criteria

The unit outlines for both first and third year students listed similar assess-
ment criteria for evaluating the essay, and the tutors were required to explain
the assessment criteria at the start of the semester. While the criteria gener-
456 JENNIFER CAMPBELL ET AL.

ally focused on fairly straightforward features such as the appropriateness of

the literature reviewed and literary style and referencing, they also included
“organisation and synthesis of information” and “critical evaluation of the
literature” which relate to the conceptual structure of the essay. Because
essays of varying conceptual sophistication differ in the extent to which they
exemplify these latter processes, it is possible that students writing essays
of differing conceptual structure have different understanding of what these
processes involve (Hounsell 1987). Accordingly, in their interview, students
were asked for the meaning of these terms. Students’ definitions of “Organ-
isation” were classified as similar to accepted academic discourse (and their
tutors’ explanations) if they indicated a logical and coherent presentation of
material. Answers were classified as departing from academic conceptions if
they either simply re-used the term “organise”, or used terms such as “flow”,
without additional elaboration; or if they gave an idiosyncratic definition, for
instance referring to the use of “appropriate” information.
Definitions of “Synthesis” were classified as reflecting conventional acad-
emic discourse if they referred to the integration of ideas or information from
different sources, for instance:
If you are discussing one point for example then you would bring in two
or three different authors and what they have to say about that point. (third
year multistructural essay)

Students who failed to provide conventional explanations either offered no

definition, or defined organisation and believed that synthesis was included
in their definition, or provided idiosyncratic descriptions:
Like sort of getting rid of all the fluffy bits that don’t matter. So synthe-
sising through it. (first year, unistructural essay)
I am pretty sure that it means basically just how you might bring
something to life, in the assignment. (third year, multistructural essay)

Critical evaluation may be conceptualised as involving a complex weighing

of evidence and analysis of alternative theoretical perspectives in order to
evaluate the logical coherence of particular positions. It thus involves, but
goes beyond, the procedures involved in synthesis. Only one student provided
a definition that included such weighing of evidence in order to reason about
different perspectives.
This is what this person is saying here, this is what this other school of
thought was, okay, how do they compare with each other? And also how
do they compare to the broader picture? And how valid are they in the
light of certain facts, research, certain events, certain whatever? And then
 FROM CONCEPTION TO PERFORMANCE 457

add sort of my personal touch, without personifying at all, see but really
coming from the author. (third year, relational essay)

Eighteen students (39%) however, provided definitions which contained some

but not all of the elements detailed above. A number of students spoke about
making comparisons, looking at contrasting views, but they did not know how
to proceed further and draw legitimate conclusions.
That meant that I’m not just there going giftedness means this, this has
got to be right because such and such said it. It means you have got to
be sure from what you’ve learned, from your knowledge of it. That you
are saying well such and such may say this, but another person says that,
and I think this, and research says this, so everything is put in its context.
(third year, multistructural essay)

Others based their conclusions on the number of authors holding a point of

view, their status, or the status of the journals or books in which they publish.
If you evaluate something you are basically finding out how good or
bad it is. Like if one person says something and five other scholars
are disagreeing with that opinion, then obviously the value of that one
person’s comment can’t be held very highly . . . When you go to things like
the national and international journals, you already know that the infor-
mation in there is valuable, so it’s not really difficult to evaluate something
because you know it is going to be relevant. It is also written by people
who are scholars in the field and usually up on the new information and
techniques, so really you don’t have to evaluate things very much unless
you get into secondary or tertiary sources. (third year, multistructural
essay)

While none of these definitions demonstrated understanding of how research

evidence or theoretical arguments could be legitimately evaluated, they did
indicate an understanding of some elements of the process, and hence
have been categorised as reflecting, at least partially, conventional acad-
emic discourse. In contrast, 57% of students either could offer no defin-
ition of “critical evaluation”, or provided idiosyncratic definitions, which
often related to explaining, summarising, applying, or to purely personal
evaluations (“If you believe that it’s correct”).
Table 2 reports the number of students in each year and with each type
of essay whose definitions of the assessment criteria were either congruent
with conventional academic discourse or departed from it. The data suggest
that students’ understanding of these particular assessment criteria often do
not conform to the conventions of academic discourse which their tutors have
458 JENNIFER CAMPBELL ET AL.

Table 2. Number of students by year and by essay conceptual structure who provided
conventional or idiosyncratic definitions of the assessment criteria

Essay SOLO conceptual structure

Unistructural Multistructural Relational Total
1st yr 3rd yr 1st yr 3rd yr 1st yr 3rd yr 1st yr 3rd yr
(n = 18) (n = 6) (n = 7) (n = 8) (n = 0) (n = 7) (n = 25) (n = 21)

Organisation:
Idiosyncratic 9 2 3 12 2
Conventional 9 4 4 8 7 13 19
Synthesis:
None/idiosyncratic 18 6 6 6 5 24 17
Conventional 1 2 2 1 4
Critical evaluation:
None/idiosyncratic 15 5 5 1 20 6
Conventional 3 1 2 7 7 5 15

attempted to communicate. Organisation is the simplest concept and 90%

of third year students defined it conventionally, the exceptions being two
students who wrote unistructural essays. In contrast, only 52% of first year
students did so, and this ability was not related to the conceptual structure
of the essay. As it is possible for even unistructural essays to demonstrate
organisation in terms of a logical sequence of points, lack of understanding of
this term may represent first year students’ ignorance of university assessment
procedures and terminology, but it may also indicate that some students lack
the knowledge and skills for developing a coherent structure for their essay.
The situation is somewhat different for the concept of “synthesis”.
By definition, unistructural essays do not demonstrate synthesis. Topics,
research, theories are listed simply and sequentially and are not directly
compared or used to evaluate one another. No student in either first or third
year, who wrote a unistructural essay provided a conventional definition
of synthesis. However, only 23% of those who wrote more conceptually
complex essays did so either. Lack of conventional understanding of this
term by most students in both years may indicate that tutors have been less
than effective in communicating its meaning. Brooker and Smith (1996) have
found discrepancies between lecturers’ and students’ perceptions concern-
ing the clarity with which assessment criteria are explained and how well
they are understood by students. The reasons for these discrepancies may
not, however, lie simply in the ineffective practice of a particular party, but,
 FROM CONCEPTION TO PERFORMANCE 459

as Hounsell (1987) argues, be due to qualitatively different conceptions of

the essay writing process which limit effective communication. For Houn-
sell (1987, p. 118) “grasping what constitutes academic discourse represents
the kind of personal intellectual revolution charted in Perry’s developmental
scheme.” Some support for this position is provided by students’ definitions
of “critical evaluation”.
Critical evaluation involves not only the synthesis of different theoret-
ical perspectives and research evidence, but going beyond these to weigh
evidence, evaluate the logical coherence of arguments and develop a position
based on integrated evidence from a variety of sources. Perry (1981) refers to
the epistemological view of knowledge this entails as contextual relativistic
reasoning, and given that this is a fairly advanced epistemological position,
it is perhaps not surprising that only one student provided a definition indi-
cating such a considered weighing of evidence and reasoning about multiple
perspectives. The ability to integrate material in this manner would suggest
that the resulting essay would be relational in conceptual structure, and the
student producing this definition was indeed a third year student writing a
relational essay. Other students writing relational essays were already, in their
essays, engaging in at least part of this process, and all demonstrated partial
understanding of the concept in their definitions.
Similarly, 87% of third year students writing multistructural essays
demonstrated partial understanding of critical evaluation. These students
also demonstrated an ability, at a more local level within their essay, to
compare and contrast different perspectives. In contrast, 83% of students
in first or third year who wrote unistructural essays did not demonstrate
a conventional understanding of critical evaluation, nor did they utilise
any of the associated processes within their essay. These results indicate a
relationship between understanding conventional academic discourse related
to “critical evaluation” and use of related processes in essay construction
which supports Hounsell’s (1987) position. The difference between first and
third year students writing multistructural essays, where 29% of the former
and 87% of the latter demonstrated at least partial understanding of the term,
may also indicate the impact of tutor instruction over the years in changing
understanding in students who have the cognitive readiness.

Students’ essay writing processes

In their interview students were asked to describe the processes involved in

producing their essay, including obtaining references, note taking, moving
from reading and note taking to writing, and subsequent revision. Each of
these will be discussed in turn.
460 JENNIFER CAMPBELL ET AL.

(i) Obtaining references. Students’ descriptions of finding references were

placed in two categories. The first indicated a straightforward, quickly
concluded, limited search, while the second involved more extensive
searches, usually including use of CD Rom to find journal articles. Students
in the first category included those who did not obtain their references from
a library, or who limited their search to the text book, or to references listed
in the unit outline, or to a few books quickly accessed through the library
catalogue.
I went into the library and I looked on those little machines, the computer
little machines. (What did you type in?) Bullying, and a big list came up
and I went and I looked and there were no books there, because obviously
there were other people that got in before me, but I did find this book, and
it was so good, and I just felt like poking my tongue out at everybody
else who had stolen all the books but hadn’t got this one. (first year,
unistructural essay)
I spoke to the teacher at (X) State School. She gave me some literature
on muscular dystrophy, that’s what I based my literature review on. (third
year, unistructural essay)

Eighty eight per cent of first year students, including all who wrote unistruc-
tural essays, engaged in simple searches. Similarly, one third of third year
students engaged in simple, brief searches, including two thirds of those who
wrote unistructural essays. A Pearson chi square (19.00, p < 0.0001) revealed
a significant relationship between type of search and essay conceptual
structure.
In addition, the different value given to, and amount of effort expended
on finding references was apparent in students’ final essays. A two way
ANOVA for SOLO category of essay and year of study conducted on the
number of reference citations in the essay revealed a statistically significant
relationship between reference citations and SOLO category (F = 9.001,
d.f.= 2, p < 0.001), but no significant differences by year of study (although
the differences between means were in the predicted direction of third year
students using more references than first years.) These results are similar to
those of Mahalski (1992) and Norton (1990) who both found a statistically
significant relationship between the number of references cited and essay
marks, and in this study too, not only were number of reference citations
significantly related to essay conceptual structure, but also to the mark
received (Pearson correlation coefficient: r = 0.504, p < 0.0001).

(ii) Note taking. Students’ descriptions of how they took notes from their
readings were placed in two categories. The first represented a straight-
 FROM CONCEPTION TO PERFORMANCE 461
Table 3. Number of students, by year and by essay conceptual structure, who reported
either simple reproductive or more active, constructive note taking

Essay SOLO conceptual structure

Unistructural Multistructural Relational Total
1st yr 3rd yr 1st yr 3rd yr 1st yr 3rd yr 1st yr 3rd yr

Simple reproduction 18 6 5 4 1 23 11
Active, constructive 2 4 6 2 10

forward copying or highlighting of main points with the emphasis on

reproduction. The second involved a more active process with an attempt to
reorganise material, integrate themes or compare and contrast views, across
several sources. Table 3 details the number of students, by year and type of
essay, who reported either simple reproductive, or more active, constructive
note taking.
A Pearson chi square (22.88, p < 0.0001) revealed a statistically signifi-
cant relationship between essay conceptual structure and note taking strategy.
The data indicate that all students writing unistructural essays reported simple
reproductive note taking.
I basically took down notes out of the books . . . especially the stages
and then their ideas and how they thought children should draw. . . . I was
just sort of skim reading and taking down notes. (first year, unistructural
essay)
I took notes . . . Just letting it come out of the book. (third year, unistruc-
tural essay)

In contrast, two first year students who wrote higher quality essays, and
a majority of third year students who wrote essays with a more sophisti-
cated conceptual structure, took more extensive notes and used a system for
organising and integrating their notes. In some instances this was a fairly
straightforward system of labelling material, across sources, that belonged to
the same topic, while in other cases students also spoke about their attempts
to conceptualise and reconstruct the material as they were organising their
notes.
What I do is I read with a highlighter. And I highlight what is appropriate
and then I have a sheet of paper and I’ll write my bibliography on it, like
each article I put No. 1, and I have a whole heap of other sheets, and
I’ll have headings up the top, like if I’m talking about mainstreaming or
if I’m talking about the characteristics of disabled students, and so each
462 JENNIFER CAMPBELL ET AL.

Table 4. Number of students by year and by essay conceptual structure whose reports of essay
construction involved either “building information” or “building arguments”

Essay SOLO conceptual structure

Unistructural Multistructural Relational Total
1st yr 3rd yr 1st yr 3rd yr 1st yr 3rd yr 1st yr 3rd yr

“Building information” 18 6 2 5 20 11
“Building arguments” 5 3 7 5 10

page will have numbers down the side, what book I’m looking at, and I’ll
list from my highlighted, what’s appropriate, I’ll write my notes on there.
So I’ve got where it comes from and when I’m writing my assignment I
can get all my sheets on mainstreaming or something like that. (third year,
relational essay)
There were about 4 or 5 stages and every author called them something
different, just so they could say it was their own work I think! So every
time I wrote it down I had to write “also called the this stage, this stage”.
And there were a few things that one author wrote but the majority didn’t,
I tried not to include that stuff. I tried to include what everyone said,
so that I got the most solid definition and opinion I could. (first year,
multistructural essay)

(iii) Structuring and drafting the essay. In his interview, a third year student
writing a relational essay compared his recent essays with those written a few
years ago, claiming his writing was now “far tighter” and involved “build-
ing an argument”, whereas previously he was “building information”. This
distinction reflects that made by Hounsell (1984a) between the essay as argu-
ment or arrangement, and it was used to classify students’ descriptions of
developing a structure for their essay and writing their first draft. Students’
responses were placed in the first category if they included descriptions of
“building” or sequencing information. Responses were placed in the second
category if descriptions included a focus on developing themes, arguments,
or comparing and contrasting views. Table 4 reports the number of students
in each category, by year and by essay conceptual structure.
A Pearson chi square (29.01, p < 0.0001) revealed a statistically signifi-
cant relationship between the SOLO conceptual structure of students’ essays
and the way in which they reported structuring and drafting their essay. The
data indicate that all students writing unistructural essays spoke in terms of
“building information” sequentially.
 FROM CONCEPTION TO PERFORMANCE 463

At first it was just a whole lot of information, and that was a bit of a
problem, I didn’t know what I’d start with, that took a lot of jumbling
around and sorting out. . . . Really just the sequencing, I got things out
of books, I’d do all of that out of one book then if it was the next page
from that book I’d follow on sort of thing. The sequencing wasn’t that
difficult, it was just within the information, where to stick bits. (first year,
unistructural essay)

The simplest descriptions categorised as “building arguments” involved

comparisons of different views or theories and these were largely provided
by students writing multistructural essays.
I’d talk about someone’s theory, then go on with how they are similar to
other people’s, and then I’d relate them, I mean they’re all fairly similar
so you can relate them back and group them like that, they’re individual
except they are together. (first year, multistructural essay)

This more complex way of structuring an essay, requires more effort as well
as cognitive sophistication and some students spoke of their problems in
developing an appropriate conceptualisation of their essay.
Because I hadn’t formulated any ideas, like there was kind of three major
theories involved in that development, like two are pretty similar and then
there’s the third one which isn’t, and I tended to agree with the third one,
but there wasn’t much evidence to support my argument, so it was kind
of like, the other two were interrelated but one that was what I kind of
agreed with I couldn’t support, so I was kind of chopping and changing I
think. (first year, multistructural essay)

Other students writing relational essays described developing a more inte-

grated structure which encompassed their whole essay.
So I sat down to write and nothing was coming out, I knew what I wanted
to say, I had a structure of my essay in my mind written down, so I sat
down and I thought about it and one of the big things that came out was
that I don’t seem to have the overall picture. It’s not all inter-related for
me. So I’ve got this point and that point and that point, and when I’m
trying to put it into essay form I’m trying to relate it by cause and effect
. . . And when I really stopped again and re-evaluated everything that I’d
read about, it was much easier to start again and I could actually do an
introduction . . . So I really found I had to clarify everything for myself,
and really see how it fitted together in order for it to gel. (third year,
relational essay)
464 JENNIFER CAMPBELL ET AL.

Overall, the student interviews suggested that planning and structuring the
essay could occur at all stages of the preparation and writing process. The
student who wrote the most sophisticated multistructural first year essay, for
instance, stated that:
I think that my ideas change the most as I’m doing all my reading and I
have new information and think, ‘Oh that’s not what I thought before’ and
then move everything about in my mind . . . Everything is set in my head
so that when I write the essay I don’t have any conflicting ideas. I know
what I am going to write. (first year, multistructural essay)

In contrast a third year student who wrote one of the most complex relational
essays said that she did not make a plan of her essay before writing.
No, I’ve noticed I don’t do that, but a lot of other people do. I don’t know
where I am going and then I look at it and go okay, that needs to go there
and move it around. (third year, relational essay)

As described in the following section, this student achieved a tightly

integrated essay structure through successive revisions of her earlier drafts.
Torrance, Thomas and Robinson (1994) have identified two alternative
commonly used writing strategies. They classify writers like this student,
who develop content and structure through extensive revision, as “revisers”,
while the previous quotation exemplifies a “planner”. Mahalski (1992) also
summarises the results of several studies which indicate that the presence
or absence of a written plan is not linked to essay mark, and that students
engage in a variety of planning strategies. The present results indicate that
planning and structuring of the essay can take place during reading, note
taking or writing, and support Hounsell’s (1984b) findings that it is how
students conceptualise their reading and writing – whether the intention is to
reproduce or to reconstruct – that is important in determining the quality of
the essay.

(iv) Revision. Students’ reported revision processes were classified as either

involving an exclusive focus on mechanical details: spelling, grammar, word
length, moving information around to improve sequencing (rather than to
improve arguments); or as also including a concern with developing ideas,
making better links between them, and with improving arguments. The
number of students in each category, by year and by essay conceptual
structure, is given in Table 5.
A Pearson chi square (22.88, p < 0.0001) revealed a statistically signif-
icant relationship between the conceptual structure of students’ essays and
the type of revision which they reported. The data indicate that all students
 FROM CONCEPTION TO PERFORMANCE 465
Table 5. Number of students by year and by essay conceptual structure whose reported
revision focused either entirely on mechanics, or included a concern with restructuring
ideas

Essay SOLO conceptual structure

Unistructural Multistructural Relational Total
1st yr 3rd yr 1st yr 3rd yr 1st yr 3rd yr 1st yr 3rd yr

Mechanics 18 6 5 4 1 23 11
Restructuring ideas 2 4 6 2 10

writing unistructural essays focused exclusively on mechanical details when

revising their essay, as did 60% of students writing multistructural essays.
I printed it out and I went through and I did all my referencing properly
which I hadn’t done when I was writing it, then I just had a look for
any grammatical errors or anything that didn’t sound right. (first year,
unistructural essay)
No structural changes, basically grammatical and maybe a little bit of
rewording, but I found it changed very little. Basically each time I write
an assignment I get closer to just writing out one copy. (third year,
multistructural essay)

It is interesting to note that the last student related improved essay writing
to a reduced need to revise, whereas students writing more complex essays
than his generally reported engaging in much more extensive revision, involv-
ing the development of ideas and arguments as well as the mechanics of
spelling and grammar. Only two first year students, whose essays were the
most sophisticated in the first year sample, reported revision involving recon-
ceptualisation. In contrast, half the third year students writing multistructural
essays, and all but one writing relational ones, reported engaging in this form
of revision. In addition, two students who wrote relational essays spoke about
extensively reconceptualising and reconstructing their essays following feed-
back they had sought from others. The following comment is from the third
year student described in the previous section who did not make a plan before
writing.
I came and saw my tutor. I like to do that, I like to clarify with people, is
this what you are after? That was probably the first draft or it might have
been the second, I might have made some changes, and she clarified a few
things about some of the theoretical side of it, and said why don’t you try
doing this? Or is this what you are after? And we had a really good discus-
466 JENNIFER CAMPBELL ET AL.

sion about it because I knew what I was talking about so anything she said
wasn’t over my head. Then I went home and put those bits in because a
lot of the stuff that I had said I hadn’t backed up with theory. And then
when I think its pretty good I get my boyfriend to read it and he just rips
things apart. He is very good. We have major arguments because he rips
it apart. So I did this literature review I completely rewrote, not rewrote,
restructured, reordered everything . . . The changes are never content. I get
content right the first time, but its certain structures perhaps. (third year,
relational essay)

Previous research is equivocal as to whether significant positive relationships

are found between the number of drafts students produce and their essay
mark (Mahalski 1992). Number of drafts may be more indicative of students’
writing strategies, whether they are “planners” or “revisers” (Torrance et al.
1994), than of essay quality. The present research also suggests that it is prob-
ably not the number of drafts per se that is important, but the way in which
students revise their essays. Clearly if revision results in improved spelling,
grammatical structure and general readability, increased marks could be
expected. These aspects of revision are important and seemed to be under-
stood by all students in the sample, even if the ability to put them into practice
varied. What is of greater interest is students’ differential understanding of
the need, through revision, to tighten the conceptual structure of their essay,
and this understanding would seem to be directly related to the quality of
essay produced. This relates to the findings of Hayes (1997) and Hayes,
Flower, Schriver, Stratman and Carey (1987) that inexperienced university
students focused revision activities on problems at or below the sentence
level (mechanics) while experienced writers also attended to global problems
(restructuring ideas).

Conclusions

These results reinforce findings by other researchers (Prosser and Webb 1994;
Norton and Crowley 1995) that the important component in student essay
writing is not the adoption of particular strategies per se (making notes,
formulating a plan, revising successive drafts etc.), but students’ underly-
ing conceptualisation of both the nature and purpose of these strategies. In
general, the results demonstrate that there are major differences between
students who write unistructural essays and those who write relational essays
at every stage of the process. Students writing multistructural essays seem
to be at a point of transition in the trends noted on all variables analysed.
Compared to students writing essays with simple conceptual structures,
 FROM CONCEPTION TO PERFORMANCE 467

students writing more complex essays engaged in processes of reconstruc-

tion rather than “knowledge telling”, put more effort into finding references,
used organisational systems for integrating their notes according to topics
or themes, built “arguments” rather than “information” when structuring and
drafting their essays, were concerned with improving ideas and arguments as
well as mechanics when revising their essays, had a more sophisticated under-
standing of the concepts underlying the assessment criteria, and expected
and received higher grades. The results reinforce Marton and Saljo’s (1976)
original findings in which students’ differing conceptions of the learning task
influenced both how they went about it and, thereby, the learning outcomes.
The proportion of students writing essays of differing conceptual struc-
tures changed, as would be predicted, from first to third year in the direction
of increasing complexity. However, the small sample size, the volunteer and
hence possibly non-representative nature of the sample, and the lack of longi-
tudinal data, means that these proportions can not be regarded as definitive,
nor as necessarily indicating a developmental sequence. What the data do
indicate is that there is a relationship between students’ conceptualisations of
the nature and purpose of particular essay writing strategies and the struc-
ture and quality of their essays. Given the theoretical links to the SOLO
Taxonomy and Perry’s scheme of epistemological development, a develop-
mental process in the conceptualisation and construction of academic essays
may be hypothesised and used to inform pedagogical interventions, but its
empirical verification would require a more systematic longitudinal study.
From a pedagogical perspective, a key issue is how to change students’
conceptualisations of the essay writing process (Hounsell 1987). The findings
reinforce the view developed by Nightingale (1988) that there needs to be
an instructional shift from focusing on discrete skills to an emphasis on the
relationship between students’ understanding of the content and their ability
to write about it. Understanding needs to be taught as part of the writing
process, and students need help with building understandings representing
the body of knowledge they are working with prior to the final construction
of their essay (Entwistle 1995; Taylor and Nightingale 1990). For instance,
the processes of synthesising and critically evaluating need to be modelled
for students and practised prior to writing.
Production of a relational essay and development of a full understanding
of the academic conventions and ways of thinking underlying “critical evalu-
ation” provide pedagogical goals which the data suggest were not realised
by first year students in this sample. At least two of these students, however,
wrote high quality multistructural essays, demonstrated a partial understand-
ing of “critical evaluation” and engaged in the more sophisticated essay
writing strategies involving reconstruction rather than simple reproduction.
468 JENNIFER CAMPBELL ET AL.

This suggests that they would be likely to have the cognitive readiness
for further extension of thought and practice in these areas, and that such
pedagogical goals do not therefore set unrealistic upper limits for first year
students. Instruction and assessment criteria, nevertheless, need to be congru-
ent with students’ present level of operation. Students who are currently
writing unistructural essays and who have the conceptualisations that accom-
pany that level of operation are unlikely to make the leap straight into a
relational level of operation. The processes involved in constructing multi-
structural essays first need to be explained and practised by these students.
In contrast, those who are currently writing multistructural essays could be
introduced to relational concepts and ways of operating.

References

Belenky, M.F., Clinchy, B.M., Goldberger, N.R. and Tarule, J.M. (1986). Women’s Ways of
Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice and Mind. New York: Basic Books.
Biggs, J.B. (1988). ‘Approaches to learning and essay writing’, in Schmeck, R.R. (ed.),
Learning Strategies and Learning Styles. New York: Plenum Press.
Biggs, J.B. (1989). ‘Approaches to the enhancement of tertiary teaching’, Higher Education
Research and Development 8, 7–25.
Biggs, J.B. and Collis, K.F. (1982). Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO Taxonomy.
New York: Academic Press.
Boud, D. and Falchikov, N. (1989). ‘Quantitative studies of student self-assessment in higher
education: a critical analysis of findings’, Higher Education 18, 529–549.
Boulton-Lewis, G. (1994). ‘Tertiary students’ knowledge of their own learning and a SOLO
Taxonomy’, Higher Education 28, 387–402.
Brooker, R. and Smith, D. (1996). ‘Assessing tertiary students in an education faculty:
Rhetoric and reality’, Higher Education Research and Development 15(2), 163–175.
Burns, J., Clift, J. and Duncan, J. (1991). ‘Understanding of understanding: Implications for
learning and teaching’, British Journal of Educational Psychology 61, 276–289.
Dart, B.C. and Clarke, J.A. (1991). ‘Helping students become better learners: A case study in
teacher education’, Higher Education 22, 317–335.
Entwistle, A. and Entwistle, N. (1992). ‘Experiences of understanding in revising for degree
examinations’, Learning and Instruction 2, 1–22.
Entwistle, N. (1995). ‘Frameworks for understanding as experienced in essay writing and in
preparing for examinations’, Educational Psychologist 30(1), 47–54.
Entwistle, N., Entwistle, A. and Tait, H. (1991). ‘Academic understanding and contexts to
enhance it: A perspective from research on student learning’, in Duffy, T.M., Lowych,
J. and Jonassen, D.H. (eds.), Designing Environments for Constructive Learning. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag.
Entwistle, N. and Marton, F. (1994). ‘Knowledge objects: Understandings constituted through
intensive academic study’, British Journal of Educational Psychology 64, 161–178.
Hayes, J.R. (1997). ‘A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing’,
in Levy, M. and Ransdell (eds.), The Science of Writing: theories, Methods, Individual
Differences and Applications. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum, pp. 1–27.
 FROM CONCEPTION TO PERFORMANCE 469

Hayes, J.R., Flower, L.S., Schriver, K.S., Stratman, J. and Carey, L. (1987). ‘Cognitive
processes in revision’, in Rosenberg, S. (ed.), Advances in Applied Psycholinguistics: Vol.
2, Reading, Writing and Language Processing. New York: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 176–240.
Hounsell, D.J. (1984a). ‘Learning and essay writing’, in Marton, F., Hounsell, D. and
Entwistle, N. (eds.), The Experience of Learning. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.
Hounsell, D. (1984b). ‘Essay planning and essay writing’, Higher Education Research and
Development 3(1), 13–31.
Hounsell, D. (1987). ‘Essay writing and the quality of feedback’, in Richardson, J.T.E.,
Eysenck, M.W. and Piper, D.W. (eds.), Student Learning: Research in Education and
Cognitive Psychology. Milton Keynes: Society for Research into Higher Education and
Open University Press, pp. 109–119.
Mahalski, P.A. (1992). ‘Essay writing: do study manuals give relevant advice?’, Higher
Education 24, 113–132.
Marton, F. (1975). ‘On non-verbatim training: Level of processing and level of outcome’,
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 16, 273–279.
Marton, F., Dall’Alba, G. and Beaty, E. (1993). ‘Conceptions of Learning’, International
Journal of Educational Research 46, 4–11.
Marton, F. and Saljo, R. (1976). ‘On qualitative differences in learning: I-Outcome and
process’, British Journal of Educational Psychology 46, 4–11.
Mowl, G. and Pain, R. (1995). ‘Using self and peer assessment to improve students’ essay writ-
ing: A case study from geography’, Innovations in Education and Training International
32(4), 324–335.
Nightingale, P. (1988). ‘Understanding the processes and problems in student writing’, Studies
in Higher Education 13(3), 263–283.
Norton, L.S. (1990). ‘Essay writing: What really counts?’, Higher Education 20, 411–442.
Norton, L.S. and Crowley, C.M. (1995). ‘Can students be helped to learn how to learn? an
evaluation of an approaches to learning programme for first year degree students’, Higher
Education 29, 307–328.
Perry, W.G.J. (1981). ‘Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning’, in Chickering,
A.W. (ed.), The Modern American College. San Francisco: Jossey-Boss.
Prosser, M. and Webb, C. (1994). ‘Relating the process of undergraduate writing to the finished
product’, Studies in Higher Education 19(2), 125–138.
Stefani, L.A.J. (1994). ‘Peer, self and tutor assessment: Relative reliabilities’, Studies in
Higher Education 19(1), 69–75.
Taylor, G. and Nightingale, P. (1990). ‘Not mechanics but meaning: Error in tertiary students’
writing’, Higher Education Research and Development 9(2), 161–175.
Torrance, M., Thomas, G.V. and Robinson, E.J. (1994). ‘The writing strategies of graduate
research students in the social sciences’, Higher Education 27, 379–392.