See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/339578428

Using the process approach to teach writing in economics

Article in The Journal of Economic Education · February 2020

DOI: 10.1080/00220485.2020.1731384

CITATIONS READS

7 393

1 author:

Jill Caviglia-Harris
Salisbury University
52 PUBLICATIONS 1,209 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jill Caviglia-Harris on 24 August 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

THE JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220485.2020.1731384

ECONOMIC INSTRUCTION

Using the process approach to teach writing in economics

Jill Caviglia-Harris
Economics and Finance Department and Environmental Studies Department, Salisbury University, Salisbury,
MD, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Economists largely agree that writing is fundamental to understanding and composition; process
communicating economics and can serve as an effective way to teach stu- approach; product
dents to “think like economists.” However, only a small percentage of pro- approach; writing across
the curriculum; writing
grams include writing-intensive courses, a major research paper, or a instruction
senior thesis, and even fewer devote class time to the writing process. This
article provides a multi-dimensional classification of process-based writing JEL CODES
assignments that are categorized according to two criteria: writing skill A20; A22
and economic understanding, and outlines how economists can use these
approaches in a range of economic courses that do and do not include a
research paper.

The benefits of learning to write well in college cannot be denied: students become more knowl-
edgeable, can better grasp complex material, and can become empowered to advance their own
ideas, careers, and missions. Even though many economics instructors believe that teaching writ-
ing and research is fundamental to learning economic concepts and theories, writing instruction
is not a foundational element in many of our courses, programs, or approaches to teaching
(Schmeiser 2017). Furthermore, the writing instruction methods used in the limited economics
courses that teach writing often rely on product-based approaches that focus evaluation on the
end product or final paper (McGoldrick 2008b) instead of process-based approaches that provide
feedback at the prewriting, drafting, and revising stages (George 2014; Graham and Sandmel
2011; Frankenberg-Garcia 1999).
Smith, Broughton, and Copley (2005) argue that economists largely agree that writing is fun-
damental to understanding and communicating economic theory and serves as an effective
approach for teaching students to “think like economists.” As a result, a large majority of depart-
ments include a writing component in the major. However, only a small percentage of programs
include writing-intensive courses, a major research paper, or a senior thesis (McGoldrick 2008b;
Siegfried et al. 1991), and even fewer devote class time to the writing process. This gap is likely
due to a lack of graduate training in writing instruction (Schmeiser 2017), classroom time con-
straints, and doubts about one’s own writing (Hansen 1998; Siegfried et al. 1991).
In this article, I outline how and why economists should use the process approach for teaching
writing and higher-order thinking and provide a series of exercises that can be used to teach writ-
ing in a range of economic courses that do and do not include a research paper. Some of these
short exercises are designed to be used in the classroom and to complement longer writing assign-
ments that can serve as homework or research papers, while others focus on the term paper writing
process. The intent is to bring lessons from composition theory into the economics classroom.

CONTACT Jill Caviglia-Harris jlcaviglia-harris@salisbury.edu Professor, Economics and Finance Department and
Environmental Studies Department, Salisbury University, Salisbury, MD 21801, USA.
ß 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 J. CAVIGLIA-HARRIS

I continue by outlining empirical evidence of the process approach to writing from composition
theory, reviewing advances in teaching writing in economics courses, and then use these lessons to
inform a series of multi-dimensional exercises that can be used in any economics classroom to
teach writing.

Teaching writing in economics courses

Economists formally recognized that the process approach should be applied in economics
courses with the American Economic Association’s (AEA) commissioned report on the state of
the economics major (Siegfried et al. 1991). This report asserts that writing is fundamental to
teaching students to “think like economists” and that both (1) integrating Writing Across the
Curriculum (WAC) into the teaching of economics and (2) focusing on the writing process could
help to achieve these goals. A series of papers outlining different process approaches were pub-
lished in this time period, including those on in-class reflective papers (Crowe and Youga 1986),
writing projects (McGoldrick 2008a; Davidson and Gumnior 1993) position papers (Fels 1984),
and writing-intensive courses (Hansen 1993).
Despite this call, writing instruction in economics courses continues to be dominated by prod-
uct-based approaches that require students to write outside of the classroom and instructors to pro-
vide summative feedback as part of the grading process (McGoldrick 2008b). Composition theory
suggests that this type of feedback does not significantly impact writing quality (Frankenberg-
Garcia 1999; Myhill et al. 2013). While many economics instructors approach student writing this
way, notable exceptions include writing approaches that address mechanical proficiency while
increasing student understanding of content (Field, Wachter, and Catanese 1985), peer evaluation
to improve student thinking and writing skills (Smith, Broughton, and Copley 2005) and writing-
intensive courses that are team-taught with writing instructors (Horton, Selting, and Gallaher 2003;
Docherty et al. 2010). Although these approaches highlight innovative ways that economists can
incorporate feedback into the writing process, there remains little empirical evidence of which types
of writing assignments improve student understanding of economics and/or improve writing skill
in the economics classroom (Simpson and Carroll 1999; Hansen 1998). Lessons from composition
theory and the empirical study of these approaches can fill this gap.
Early study in composition theory established that the process approach (and not the product
approach) could positively impact student-written outcomes (Holbrook 1964; Kohl 1967). More
recent research suggests that the process approach improves the quality of student writing (Keen
2017; Graham and Sandmel 2011; Ferris 2006) and that several aspects of the approach—includ-
ing writing-to-learn, goal setting, peer collaboration, and real-time feedback—are most effective;
while the product approaches (including instruction on paragraph structure and feedback on
grammar) were either found to be less impactful, or not impactful at all (Troia and Olinghouse
2013). These findings on the most and least impactful approaches for teaching writing and con-
tent are used to identify and classify a series of exercises that can be used in economics classes to
improve writing and/or economic understanding.

Writing exercises for the economics classroom

Table 1 includes a multi-dimensional classification of process-based writing assignments that are
categorized according to the ability to improve writing skill and economic understanding (Troia
and Olinghouse 2013), where writing skill is improved with formative feedback, and economic
understanding is improved with assignments that require students to apply and use economic
concepts in their writing. This first classification identified in this table is free writing: assign-
ments that are done without structure or detailed feedback. These assignments, which don’t
necessarily help improve writing skill or economic understanding (because students are not
 PROCESS APPROACH FOR WRITING 3

Table 1. Multi-dimensional classification of process-based writing assignments for economics classes.

Marginal improvements in writing
Larger improvements in writing
Marginal Improvements in Economic
Understanding
1. Guided Free Writing (including
journaling, brainstorming)
3. Grammar Exercises (including lessons
on verbs, nouns, word choice,
punctuation, etc.)
Larger Improvements in Economic
Understanding
2. Response Papers (including short
papers, the one-minute paper and
lecture summaries)
4. Real-time Process Assignments
(including peer evaluation,
workshops, drafts, revision)

provided formal feedback and therefore cannot correct errors), have been found to empower stu-
dents (Li 2007). They provide important guidance in the early writing stages, including addressing
writer’s block, helping students select a topic and helping students to identify their focus. The
second classification includes response papers, or short papers that require students to summar-
ize, outline or identify key concepts taught in class (or covered in a course reading). These papers
can be done in or out of class and can be used to improve economic understanding if the feed-
back is provided individually on assignments or more generally in a following lecture. The third
classification includes grammar exercises that focus on improving reader understanding. The con-
tent of these exercises need not be specific to economics, and therefore may have little impact in
improving economic understanding. The fourth classification includes real-time process assign-
ments that focus on economic content and writing instruction. These exercises can be done in
class and involve student and instructor feedback on grammar, writing, and economic content.
Examples of exercises that fit these four categories follow.

Guided free writing

Free writing is one of the process-based approaches first proposed to teach composition to college
students (Elbow 1998). Feedback is limited to input on ideas rather than on writing skill. It is
writing to write, with the intent to provide practice. Because there is little empirical evidence that
this approach results in any improvement in writing skill (Troia and Olinghouse 2013; Li 2007;
Fox and Suhor 1986), these exercises fit under category 1 and are best suited for objectives that
could benefit from student “empowerment.” The exercises to follow are “guided” free writing in
which the in-class activities include direction on topic and approach.

Brainstorming paper ideas

Brainstorming exercises were designed to address writer’s block (Field, Wachter, and Catanese
1985). The exercise outlined here can be used to help students identify topics for short response or
research papers. Borrowing from Rao (2007), this exercise can be broken down into three steps:

1. Think–pair–share: Have students think about possible topics of interest by summarizing a

lecture or reading (for a short response paper) or outlining possible research paper topics
(for a research paper) and write them down on paper. Next, pair students, have them
read each other’s responses, and then note similarities and differences.
2. Report out: Have student pairs read the topics they note as possible contenders for paper
topics and write these on the board.
3. Classify: Group the listed ideas into categories with input from students in the class.

After this process is completed in class, students are asked to provide a short response paper
on their topic of choice to be handed in for instructor feedback.
4 J. CAVIGLIA-HARRIS

Developing research questions

Research questions can be used to guide student writing and direct revision. This statement
should be clear, focused, and draw from multiple sources, but it can be difficult for students to
identify because, although the freedom to choose a topic assures that students will work on some-
thing of interest, this freedom can be overwhelming. This exercise is intended to help students
with this process. Students can begin to identify the question they’d like to address (to be revised
throughout the writing process) in class using the following steps:

1. Identify topics of interest: Ask students to list as many topics that they can think of that
they would like to learn more about.
2. Ask questions: Ask students to think about the history and economic relevancy of these
topics and then have them question the conclusions they draw. Have them begin with
open-ended “Why” questions and then follow up with “What if” and “How” questions
(Berger 2014).
For example: (The topic of interest is deforestation, and the student had learned that defor-
estation has historically been high in Brazil). Why is deforestation occurring in the tropical
forests of Brazil? What if we were to create policies to reduce the rate of deforestation?
How would these policies be designed?

The instructor can provide guidance and answer questions in class as students work through
this process (with online resources and journal articles is ideal). Students could be asked to pro-
vide a short response paper to be handed in at a future lecture for instructor feedback. Another
option is for the instructor to assign a short response paper prior to class and have students work
on the exercise using this prior knowledge.

Narrowing the research topic

Students generally need to narrow writing topics to reduce scope to something that is manageable
and enables them to draw correct conclusions for the issue they are addressing. For example,
conclusions that could be drawn for the impacts of deforestation on streamflow tend to be site-
specific (streamflow in the Brazilian Amazon has been shown to decrease after deforestation,
while streamflow in India has been shown to increase after deforestation). A paper on the
“Impacts of deforestation on streamflow” would be too broad to capture these differences. Once
students identify a broad writing topic, they can narrow this by using the old familiar question
words, such as who, what, where, when, why, and how. Students can be stepped through this pro-
cess by asking them to:

1. Apply the question words: Ask students to iteratively add question words to what they are
studying.
Broad topic:
1. (what):
2. (what and where):
3. (what, where, who):

1. Example: Broad topic: Economic Indicators

1. Inflation (what)
2. Hyperinflation in 1970 America (what, when and where)
3. Hyperinflation in 1970 America and the Role of Foreign Relations (what, when,
where, how)
 PROCESS APPROACH FOR WRITING 5

2. Broaden and narrow the questions: Ask students to broaden and narrow their scope to
help them to think about this issue differently (Berger 2014).
Example: The question, “Does deforestation have lasting impacts on hydrological sys-
tems?,” could be narrowed by asking, “Does tropical deforestation impact the rivers in
the Brazilian Amazon?,” or broadened by asking, “How does tropical deforestation
impact climate change?”

The instructor can provide guidance and answer questions in class as students work through
this process (with online resources and journal articles is ideal). Students could be asked to pro-
vide a short response paper to be handed in for instructor feedback or could be asked to pair up,
discuss answers and report out good ideas and questions to the class. Another option is for the
instructor to assign a short response paper prior to class and have students work on the exercise
using this prior knowledge.

Response papers
The second category of process approaches provided in table 1 includes writing exercises designed
to help students better understand complex economic concepts. Empirical studies identify
response papers such as the one-minute paper (where students are asked to answer what was the
most important concept learned in lecture that day and the muddiest point still remaining) as
effective ways to improve economic understanding (Chizmar and Ostrosky 1998) at a relatively
low cost to the instructor (Stead 2005). The exercises that follow build on this approach, asking
students to provide a short paragraph response during the last five minutes of class. These exer-
cises fit under the process approach because they include instructor feedback that can be used to
improve understanding of economic content and writing. Largely borrowing from Crowe and
Youga (1986), these assignments ask students to think about, summarize, and question concepts
discussed in class and include the following options:

1. Explain an economic concept: At the end of class, ask students to explain a single topic,
theory or concept discussed that day in class.
2. Illustrate a concept: At the end of class, ask students to provide an example of a topic,
theory or concept discussed that day in class that applies to them.
3. Explain a concept before and after: At the beginning of class, ask students to explain a
single topic, theory or concept to be discussed that day in class. At the end of class, have
them comment on this conclusion by noting what was right, what was wrong and what
they better understand.
4. Explain a graph: At the end of class, ask students to provide the main takeaway of one
graph discussed in class.
5. Explain an equation: At the end of class, ask students to provide the main takeaway of
one equation discussed in class.

These papers are handed in at the end of class for feedback that is largely focused on eco-
nomic understanding (rather than writing and grammar). This feedback can be provided indi-
vidually and/or more generally in a following lecture (where the instructor could focus on the
more common errors or confused concepts).

Grammar exercises
Addressing some grammatical errors, particularly those linked to invention, arrangement, and
style (Sams 2003) can improve writing if they are addressed with the process approach and
6 J. CAVIGLIA-HARRIS

supported in the classroom (Myhill et al. 2013). Classroom games (Bullard and Anderson 2014)
and analytical approaches (including diagraming, imitatio1 and the sentence sequence) are cre-
ative ways to bring short grammar lessons into the classroom (Sams 2003). However, it is
unlikely that economists will find these approaches to be useful. Instead, it is likely that any
time spent on grammar is best focused on issues that impede understanding of economic con-
cepts. The exercise below, which builds on Oldenburg (2006), is one way to accomplish
these objectives.
Instructions: Students are provided with a rank-ordered (from most to least prevalent) list of the most
common grammar errors identified in their papers. These can be a subset of those found in studies of
college writing (see appendix A). Students are asked to choose one of these (making sure there is no
duplication among students), research the grammar point outside of class, and prepare a handout. This
handout should succinctly explain the issue and include three examples of a phrase with and without the
grammatical error. Short, five-minute presentations on these errors can be used at the beginning or end
of lectures and can focus on the three examples: the first is provided to the class as an example, the
second and third are to be corrected by the class before the handout (with answers) is provided
to students.

To keep the focus on economic understanding and argument (instead of on the mechanics of
grammar), economics instructors can provide a short list (from those provided in appendix A)
for students to choose from that they have noted to hinder readability in the assignments they
review. For example, three grammar errors that stand out as likely to impact reader understand-
ing (and therefore muddle economic concepts) include lack of agreement between the subject and
verb, vague pronoun references, and dangling or misplaced modifiers. Examples of these (uncor-
rected and corrected) errors are provided in appendix B.

Real-time process approaches

Real-time process approaches include a set of activities that focus on economic content and
writing and take place in class with feedback from peers and the instructor. Students can pro-
vide valuable feedback to their peers if they are trained with examples, provided detailed guid-
ance on what is to be evaluated, and are encouraged to be critical. Without this training first,
students will have a tendency to check for surface and mechanical error and will not have the
ability to evaluate content, arrangement, and style (Smith, Broughton, and Copley 2005;
Wallace, Jackson, and Lewis Wallace 2000). The following section includes two activities that
can be used to guide peer review and a third to help students build a clear argument that
focuses on improving writing by taking out adverbs and adjectives and using strong, active
verbs. All of these exercises can be based on student writing or articles from economic journals.
They are all presented as in-class exercises, but also can be completed out of class as homework
problems that are then followed by in-class feedback or reviewed outside of class by the peers
who present the feedback in class.

Evaluating paragraphs
This exercise on paragraph structure requires students to bring in a paper draft including at least
one paragraph or the instructor to bring in a paragraph from a journal article. Students are asked
to evaluate the main point (there should be only one) and flow of the paragraph after being told
that each sentence in a paragraph should provoke a question that is then answered in the sen-
tence to follow. In other words, the reader should think of each paragraph as a dialog; the read-
er’s questions are followed by the author’s answers (Chaubey 2018). By the end of the paragraph,
the reader should understand the main point and be able to identify the details that support it.
These lessons can be learned by having students answer the following questions for each set
of sentences:
 PROCESS APPROACH FOR WRITING 7

1. What is the question raised?

2. How is it answered?

And, once this is completed for each sentence in the paragraph, have students answer:

1. What is the main takeaway of the paragraph?

2. What are the important details?

An example using the opening paragraph from the highly cited Lee and Lemieux (2010, 281)
article is provided below:
Regression Discontinuity (RD) designs were first introduced by Donald L. Thistlethwaite and Donald T.
Campbell (1960) as a way of estimating treatment effects in a nonexperimental setting where treatment is
determined by whether an observed “assignment” variable (also referred to in the literature as the “forcing”
variable or the “running” variable) exceeds a known cutoff point. In their initial application of RD designs,
Thistlethwaite and Campbell (1960) analyzed the impact of merit awards on future academic outcomes,
using the fact that the allocation of these awards was based on an observed test score. The main idea
behind the research design was that individuals with scores just below the cutoff (who did not receive the
award) were good comparisons to those just above the cutoff (who did receive the award). Although this
evaluation strategy has been around for almost fifty years, it did not attract much attention in economics
until relatively recently.

1. Identify the question (Q) and answer (A) associated with each sentence (S).
S1: Regression Discontinuity (RD) designs were first introduced by Donald L. Thistlethwaite and
Donald T. Campbell (1960) as a way of estimating treatment effects … .

Q: What was this method first used to do?

A: To estimate if merit awards improved academic outcomes.

S2: In their initial application of RD designs, Thistlethwaite and Campbell (1960) analyzed the impact
of merit awards on future academic outcomes …

Q: How does the method work?

A: Students below and above a narrow margin around the scholarship cutoff are compared.

S3: The main idea behind the research design was that individuals with scores just below the cutoff
(who did not receive the award) were good comparisons to those just above the cutoff (who did
receive the award).

Q: Was this method used in other applications?

A: Not much over the 50 years to follow the publication of the 1960 paper.

S4: Although this evaluation strategy has been around for almost fifty years, it did not attract much
attention in economics until relatively recently.

Q: Did this change?

A: Yes, the method was applied more in the 1990s and afterward. (Answered in the next paragraph).

2. Identify the main takeaway (MT) and important details (ID) of the paragraph.
MT: Regression discontinuity was first introduced over 50 years before this article was published but
was not adopted by many economists in the years to follow.

ID: Regression discontinuity is a promising quasi-experiential method that uses marginal cutoffs to
identify effect.
8 J. CAVIGLIA-HARRIS

The real-time feedback provided by the instructor as students work through this exercise can
occur in various ways: (1) students can work on the exercise alone, then share answers with a
peer, and then provide these conclusions on the board, (2) students could first work on these
alone and participate in a snowball activity (where students work in groups of two and then these
groups merge, and merge again until there are one or two larger groups) and identify the “best”
answers in this process, or (3) the instructor could read answers as students work independently
and provide examples of responses on the board. Whatever the approach taken, the results should
be a set of public answers the students can use to evaluate and compare to their own. Students
also could be asked to hand in their answers for formative feedback from the instructor or a
peer group.

Identify the big idea

This exercise requires students to bring in a paper draft and trade this with a partner. The intent
is to enable students to address higher-order concepts related to the paper motivation. The part-
ner is asked to identify the key message the author wishes to communicate, the “Big Idea”
(Duarte 2010), and format this into a simple, declarative sentence with a subject, verb and the
two components: (1) the author’s point of view and (2) what is at stake. This format forces the
reviewer to identify the author’s stance and why the reader should care. These responses and dis-
cussion to follow can help the student authors to revise the paper argument.2
Example: What is this paper about? What is the key argument?
Answer: “The impact of behavioral nudges on food choices.”

(Note that this is not a big idea. It’s a topic because it does not include a point of view or what is at stake.)
Revision 1: “Behavioral nudges improve food choices.”

(This is closer to a big idea. This now includes a point of view, but the stakes are not identified.)
Revision 2: “Schools need to adopt behavioral nudges if they are to play a role in reducing childhood obesity.”

(This is a big idea.)

Similar to the exercise above, the real-time feedback provided by the instructor can occur in
various ways: (1) students can work on the exercise alone, then share answers with a peer, and
then provide conclusions on the board; (2) students could first work on these alone and partici-
pate in a snowball activity (where students work in groups of two and then these groups merge,
and merge again until there are one or two larger groups) and identify the “best” answers in this
process; or (3) the instructor could read answers as students work independently and provide
examples of responses on the board. Whatever the approach taken, the results should be a set of
public answers the students can use to evaluate and compare to their own. Students also could be
asked to hand in their answers for formative feedback from the instructor or a peer group.

Identifying the strength of verbs and nouns

This exercise on word choice requires students to bring in a paper draft including at least one
paragraph or the instructor to bring in a paragraph from a journal article. Students are told that
good writing focuses on verb and noun use and limits adverbs and adjectives (McCloskey 1985).
This exercise illustrates this general rule. Before students answer these questions in regard to their
own work (or that of a peer), an illustrative example using one paragraph from a journal article
can help students with the process. An example using the opening paragraph from the highly
cited Blattman and Miguel (2010, 3–4) article is provided below:
 PROCESS APPROACH FOR WRITING 9

Instructions: Read the following paragraph.

Internal civil conflict has been commonplace during the past half-century, a fact that, until recently, escaped
the notice of most economists. Civil wars, or those internal conflicts that count more than 1,000 battle
deaths in a single year, have afflicted a third of all nations. Counting civil conflicts, or those that count at
least twenty-five battle deaths per annum, increases the incidence to more than half. This internal warfare is
not just extremely common, it is also persistent. Figure 1 displays the cumulative proportion of all nations
experiencing wars and conflicts since 1960. Twenty percent of nations have experienced at least ten years of
civil war during the period.

Instructions: Underline all adverbs. Bold all adjectives and modifiers.

Internal civil conflict has been commonplace during the past half-century, a fact that, until recently,
escaped the notice of most economists. Civil wars, or those internal conflicts that count more than 1,000
battle deaths in a single year, have afflicted a third of all nations. Counting civil conflicts, or those that
count at least twenty-five battle deaths per annum, increases the incidence to more than half. This internal
warfare is not just extremely common, it is also persistent. Figure 1 displays the cumulative proportion of
all nations experiencing wars and conflicts since 1960. Twenty percent of nations have experienced at least
ten years of civil war during the period.

Instructions: Improve upon the sentences by taking out the adverbs and/or adjectives and replacing them
with verbs and/or nouns. Two possibilities are noted below. Here the modifiers are likely necessary. The
focus is on the adverbs. The edits are highlighted in bold:

Example #1: Internal civil conflict has been commonplace during the past half-century, a fact that has
escaped the notice of most economists. Civil wars, or those internal conflicts that count more than 1,000
battle deaths in a single year, have afflicted a third of all nations. Counting civil conflicts, or those that
count at least twenty-five battle deaths per annum, increases the incidence to more than half. This internal
warfare is not just extremely common, it is also persistent. Figure 1 displays the cumulative proportion of
all nations experiencing wars and conflicts since 1960. Twenty percent of nations have experienced at least
ten years of civil war during the period.

Discussion: This paragraph is improved by deleting the two adverbs. First, the adverb “recently” is deleted
from the first sentence with no loss in meaning. The reader is still left with the understanding that this is
a recent occurrence because the sentence is written in the present tense. Second, the adverb “extremely”
is deleted from the second edited sentence with no loss in meaning, because “more” common
is redundant.

Example #2: Internal civil conflict has been commonplace during the past half-century, a fact that has
escaped most economists. Civil wars, or those internal conflicts that count more than 1,000 battle deaths in
a single year, have afflicted a third of all nations. Counting civil conflicts, or those that count at least
twenty-five battle deaths per annum, increases the incidence to more than half. This internal warfare is
common and persistent. Figure 1 displays the cumulative proportion of all nations experiencing wars and
conflicts since 1960. Twenty percent of nations have experienced at least ten years of civil war during
the period.

Discussion: This paragraph is further improved by deleting additional unnecessary words associated with
two adverbs. First, “the notice” is deleted from the first sentence with no loss in meaning. Second, the
phrase “warfare is not just common, it is also persistent” is reduced to the more succinct (and powerful)
“common and persistent.”

Because this exercise requires independent reading and the detailed analysis of text, it is likely
that real-time feedback provided by the instructor is best focused on getting students started (the
instructor could read draft answers as students work independently and provide examples of
responses on the board) and/or providing examples like the one noted above that the class can
work through together. Formative feedback can be provided for assignments handed in as home-
work from either the instructor or a peer group.
10 J. CAVIGLIA-HARRIS

Discussion
I have been using writing-to-learn exercises (fitting in category 2) to increase student understand-
ing of complex economic theory since taking my first WAC workshop over 20 years ago. It was
not until I started teaching a writing-intensive course that I began to apply the activities found in
each of the quadrants presented in table 1. The approach I have found most important, inde-
pendent of the activity, is the use of before and after examples (as is noted in the “Evaluating
Paragraphs,” “Big Idea,” and “Identifying the Strength of Verbs and Nouns” exercises and can be
accomplished by taking stock of the topics and ideas discussed before and after the other exer-
cises outlined in this article). This approach acknowledges that students often do not write well
because they do not know what good writing looks like. This lack of clarity is complicated by the
different disciplinary approaches to writing that students are taught throughout their college
careers (Bartholomae 2011) and is often confused by unfamiliarity with disciplinary differences.
In addition to clarifying disciplinary differences, these before and after examples can serve as
references for students, and reduce obstacles for those who struggle with writing. For example, in
one brainstorming session on a paper topic, the class together worked on helping a student nar-
row a paper topic (see the “Guided Free Writing” section) in the following steps:
Draft 1: The Effects of Renewable Energy on the Economy
Draft 2: The Effects of Renewable Energy on the Consumption of Electricity
Draft 3: The Economic Impacts of Renewable Energy Subsidies on the Consumption of Electricity

The discussion helped students see first-hand how the process could be used to apply concepts
discussed in class to narrow the topic. In another example, we revised the introductory para-
graphs of a paper. One of these lines was revised as follows (with class input):
Draft 1: Animal agriculture has huge impacts on the economics and the environment, mainly on the air,
water, land use, and world hunger.
Draft 2: This paper discusses the huge impact that eating meat has on the economy, climate change, water
conservation, and habitat loss.
Draft 3: This paper discusses the economic and land-use tradeoffs of beef consumption.

In this example we discussed how using more precise language improves writing.

Conclusion
Economists have recognized the importance of writing for developing economic thinking for de-
cades (McCloskey 1983) and have responded by incorporating WAC into the major (Siegfried et al.
1991). As a result, over 70 percent of economics programs report that they include a writing com-
ponent in the major, and many more term papers are written in comparison to 30 years ago
(McGoldrick 2008b). Even so, writing remains an activity that is largely undertaken outside of class,
leaving most of the writing instruction to occur as summative feedback on a paper. While the use
of process-based formative feedback is one step in the right direction, additional benefits can be
gained by providing in-class feedback and introducing real-time process approach exercises.
The exercises provided in this article can better help economists reach the dual goals that
many of us aim to reach: teaching content and writing in the discipline. One of the frequently
noted reasons for not teaching writing in economics classes (in addition to not having the easy-
to-use set of exercises provided here) is the time required. The old argument is one grounded in
opportunity cost: this approach takes much needed time away from covering lecture material.
Although not completely eliminated, the design of these exercises mitigates some of these startup
costs, and if integrated well into current topics, may offer an alternative method for covering
material. This is because students can simultaneously learn content while strengthening argument
 PROCESS APPROACH FOR WRITING 11

and addressing grammar errors, learn from the work of their peers while learning how to suc-
cinctly state their purpose, and develop a more nuanced understanding of economic theory when
asked to write about it.

Notes
1. The repeated and iterative rewording of a phrase through reorganization and substitution of words without
the intent to change the core meaning of the original phrase.
2. For more examples, see Duarte (2012).

Acknowledgment
The author is indebted to Elizabeth Curtin for her legendary instruction in the Salisbury University Writing
Across the Curriculum (WAC) program. These workshops inspired me to learn more about how to effectively
teach writing. Her continued feedback on all issues related to composition, grammar, and writing is much appreci-
ated, as is her feedback on this article.

References
Bartholomae, D. 2011. Inventing the university. In Cross-talk in comp theory: A reader, ed. V. Villaneuva and K. L.
Arola, 3rd ed., 523–54. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Berger, W. 2014. A more beautiful question: The power of inquiry to spark breakthrough ideas. New York:
Bloomsbury USA. https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/a-more-beautiful-question-9781620401460/.
Blattman, C., and E. Miguel. 2010. Civil war. Journal of Economic Literature 48 (1): 3–57. doi: 10.1257/jel.48.1.3.
Bullard, S. B., and N. Anderson. 2014. “I’ll take commas for $200”: An instructional intervention using games to
help students master grammar skills. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator 69 (1): 5–16. doi: 10.1177/
1077695813518778.
Cazort, D. 2014. Under the grammar hammer: The 25 most important grammar mistakes and how to avoid them.
2nd ed. Self-published: Douglas Cazort.
Chaubey, V. 2018. The little book of research writing: The structural challenge of communicating knowledge þ a
method to meet it. 2018 ed. Self-published, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Chizmar, J. F., and A. L. Ostrosky. 1998. The one-minute paper: Some empirical findings. Journal of Economic
Education 29 (1): 3–10. doi: 10.2307/1182961.
Connors, R. J., and A. A. Lunsford. 1988. Frequency of formal errors in current college writing, or Ma and Pa
Kettle do research. College Composition and Communication 39 (4): 395–409. doi: 10.2307/357695.
Crowe, D., and J. Youga. 1986. Using writing as a tool for learning economics. Journal of Economic Education 17
(3): 218–22. doi: 10.1080/00220485.1986.10845169.
Davidson, L. S., and E. C. Gumnior. 1993. Writing to learn in a business economics class. Journal of Economic
Education 24 (3): 237–43. doi: 10.1080/00220485.1993.10844796.
Docherty, P., H. Tse, R. Forman, and J. McKenzie. 2010. Extending the principles of intensive writing to large
macroeconomics classes. Journal of Economic Education 41 (4): 370–82. doi: 10.1080/00220485.2010.510392.
Duarte, N. 2010. Resonate: Present visual stories that transform audiences. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
——— 2012. HBR guide to persuasive presentations. Brighton, MA: Harvard Business Review Publishing. https://
hbr.org/product/hbr-guide-to-persuasive-presentations/11150-PBK-ENG.
Elbow, P. 1998. Writing without teachers. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fels, R. 1984. Student papers on macroeconomic policy. Journal of Economic Education 15 (3): 237–8. doi: 10.
1080/00220485.1984.10845077.
Ferris, D. 2006. Does error feedback improve student writing? New evidence on short- and long-term effects of
written error correction. In Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues, ed. K. Hyland and F.
Hyland, 81–102. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Field, W. J., D. R. Wachter, and A. V. Catanese. 1985. Alternative ways to teach and learn economics: Writing,
quantitative reasoning, and oral communication. Journal of Economic Education 16 (3): 213–17. doi: 10.1080/
00220485.1985.10845118.
Fox, D., and C. Suhor. 1986. ERIC/RCS report: Limitations of free writing. The English Journal 75 (8): 34–36. doi:
10.2307/819077.
Frankenberg-Garcia, A. 1999. Providing student writers with pre-text feedback. ELT Journal 53 (2): 100–106. doi:
10.1093/elt/53.2.100.
12 J. CAVIGLIA-HARRIS

George, A. 2014. Critical pedagogies: Dreaming of democracy. In A guide to composition pedagogies, ed. G. Tate,
A. Rupiper Taggart, K. Schick, and H. B. Hessler, 2nd ed., 77–93. New York: Oxford University Press.
Graham, S., and K. Sandmel. 2011. The process writing approach: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Research
104 (6): 396–407. doi: 10.1080/00220671.2010.488703.
Hairston, M. 1981. Not all errors are created equal: Nonacademic readers in the professions respond to lapses in
usage. College English 43 (8): 794–806. doi: 10.2307/376679.
Hansen, W. L. 1993. Teaching a writing intensive course in economics. Journal of Economic Education 24 (3):
213–218. doi: 10.1080/00220485.1993.10844793.
——— 1998. Integrating the practice of writing into economics instruction. In Teaching economics to undergradu-
ates: Alternatives to chalk and talk, ed. W. E. Becker and M. Watts, 79–118. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Holbrook, D. 1964. English for the rejected: Training literacy in the lower streams of the secondary school. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Horton, J., B. Selting, and R. Gallaher. 2003. Economics: Writing to learn and learning to write. Journal of Private
Enterprise 18 (2): 78–83.
Keen, J. 2017. Teaching the writing process. Changing English 24 (4): 372–85. doi: 10.1080/1358684X.2017.1359493.
Kohl, H. 1967. 36 children. New York: New American Library. https://www.abebooks.com/book-search/title/36-
children/.
Lee, D. S., and T. Lemieux. 2010. Regression discontinuity designs in economics. Journal of Economic Literature 48
(2): 281–355. doi: 10.1257/jel.48.2.281.
Li, L. 2007. Exploring the use of focused freewriting in developing academic writing. Journal of University Teaching
& Learning Practice 4 (1): 40–53. https://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol4/iss1/5.
McCloskey, D. 1983. The rhetoric of economics. Journal of Economic Literature 21 (2): 481–517.
——— 1985. Economical writing. Economic Inquiry 23 (2): 187–222. 10.1111/j.1465-7295.1985.tb01761.x.
McGoldrick, K. 2008a. Doing economics: Enhancing skills through a process-oriented senior research course.
Journal of Economic Education 39 (4): 342–56. doi: 10.3200/JECE.39.4.342-356.
——— 2008b. Writing requirements and economic research opportunities in the undergraduate curriculum: Results
from a survey of departmental practices. Journal of Economic Education 39 (3): 287–96.
Myhill, D., S. Jones, A. Watson, and H. Lines. 2013. Playful explicitness with grammar: A pedagogy for writing.
Literacy 47 (2): 103–11. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-4369.2012.00674.x.
Oldenburg, S. 2006. Grammar in the student centered composition class. Radical Teacher 75 (Spring): 56–57. doi:
10.5195/rt.2019.592.
Rao, Z. 2007. Training in brainstorming and developing writing skills. ELT Journal 61 (2): 100–106. doi: 10.1093/
elt/ccm002.
Sams, L. 2003. How to teach grammar, analytical thinking, and writing: A method that works. The English Journal
92 (3): 57–65. doi: 10.2307/822261.
Schmeiser, K. 2017. Teaching writing in economics. Journal of Economic Education 48 (4): 254–64. doi: 10.1080/
00220485.2017.1353459.
Siegfried, J. J., R. L. Bartlett, W. L. Hansen, A. C. Kelley, D. N. McCloskey, and T. H. Tietenberg. 1991. The status
and prospects of the economics major. Journal of Economic Education 22 (3): 197–224. doi: 10.2307/1183106.
Simpson, M. S., and S. E. Carroll. 1999. Assignments for a writing-intensive economics course. Journal of
Economic Education 30 (4): 402–10. doi: 10.1080/00220489909596097.
Smith, H. M., II, A. Broughton, and J. Copley. 2005. Evaluating the written work of others: One way economics
students can learn to write. Journal of Economic Education 36 (1): 43–58. doi: 10.3200/JECE.36.1.43-58.
Stead, D. R. 2005. A review of the one-minute paper. Active Learning in Higher Education 6 (2): 118–31. doi: 10.
1177/1469787405054237.
Troia, G. A., and N. G. Olinghouse. 2013. The common core state standards and evidence-based educational prac-
tices: The case of writing. School Psychology Review 42 (3): 343–57.
Wallace, R., A. Jackson, and S. Lewis Wallace, eds. 2000. Reforming college composition: Writing the wrongs.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
 PROCESS APPROACH FOR WRITING 13

Appendix A
The following three lists of the top grammatical errors in college writing include many common elements and a
few that differ. Each was created using a different survey methodology.
The top 20 grammatical errors in college writing (Cazort 2014):
1. Wrong tense
2. Run-on sentence
3. Sentence fragment
4. Lack of agreement between subject and verb
5. Wrong word
6. Missing comma with a nonrestrictive element
7. Unnecessary shift in tense
8. Missing comma in a series
9. Missing or misplaced apostrophe
10. Unnecessary comma(s) with a restrictive element
11. Confusion of its and it’s
12. Dangling or misplaced modifier
13. Lack of agreement between pronoun and antecedent
14. Wrong or missing preposition
15. Vague pronoun reference
16. Unnecessary shift in pronoun
17. Comma splice
18. Wrong or missing verb ending
19. Missing commas in a compound sentence
20. Missing comma after an introductory element
The most egregious and serious grammatical errors (Hairston 1981):
1. Use of slang
2. Confusion of its and it’s
3. Wrong tense
4. The use of a double negative
5. Beginning a sentence with an object pronoun
6. Sentence fragments
7. Run on sentence
8. Failure to capitalize proper nouns
9. Lack of agreement between subject and verb
10. Sentences in which words are not parallel
11. Faulty adverb forms
The 20 most frequent errors in college writing (Connors and Lunsford 1988):
1. No comma after introductory element
2. Vague pronoun reference
3. No comma in compound sentence
4. Wrong word
5. No comma in nonrestrictive element
6. Wrong/missing inflected endings
7. Wrong or missing preposition
8. Comma splice
9. Possessive apostrophe error
10. Tense shift
11. Unnecessary shift in person
12. Sentence fragment
13. Wrong tense or verb form
14. Subject-verb agreement
15. Lack of comma in series
16. Pronoun agreement error
17. Unnecessary comma with restrictive element
18. Run-on or fused sentence
19. Dangling or misplaced modifier
20. Its/It’s error
14 J. CAVIGLIA-HARRIS

Appendix B
It is noted in the article that to focus on economic understanding and argument, instead of on the mechanics of
grammar, economics instructors can highlight grammar errors that impact reader understanding (and therefore
muddle economic concepts). Three options include focusing on lack of agreement between the subject and verb,
vague pronoun references, and dangling or misplaced modifier. Examples of these in economic writing follow.

Lack of agreement between the subject and verb

The following statements lack subject and verb agreement:

1. One third of the population are unemployed.

2. The individual decisions or the group outcome are what is being studied.
3. The unemployment rate and the inflation rate is down this year.

Corrected agreement between the subject and verb:

1. One third of the population is unemployed.

(The noun after the “of” determines the plurality when there are references to portions. Population is a
collective noun and is therefore singular).
2. The individual decisions or the group outcome is what is being studied.
(When or, nor, either/or, or neither/nor connects two subjects, the verb should agree with the
closer subject).
3. The unemployment rate and the inflation rate are down this year.
(When “and” connects two subjects, the subject is plural and therefore the verb should be plural).

Vague pronoun references

Vague pronoun references occur when a pronoun is used without a clear reference to its antecedent (i.e., the thing
to which it refers). These errors can occur when it, that, this or which (for example) are used and the reader is
unclear of the reference.

Example: Research on the wellbeing of individuals engaged in rural and urban labor markets builds on the
tools of microeconomics and experimental economics. It has advanced over the last century due in part to
changes in the field of economics.
Example corrected: Research on the wellbeing of individuals engaged in rural and urban labor markets
builds on the tools of microeconomics and experimental economics. This research has advanced over the
last century due in part to changes in the field of economics.

Dangling or misplaced modifiers

Dangling modifiers occur when the subject of the modifier (a word or phrase that describes or qualifies another
part of a sentence) is missing from the sentence, and instead another subject appears in its place.

Example: The author introduced the issue to the reader that was complex.
(“Complex” is intended to modify the issue, but because this is located next to the reader, it appears to
describe this person.
Example corrected: The author introduced the complex issue to the reader (option 1). The author
introduced the issue that was complex to the reader (option 2).

View publication stats