‘The extent to which the writing is coherent’:

what are we looking for?

Coherence of writing is an aspect of assessment referred to in various MAPDLE assignments.
It is assessed in the core module, the dissertation and most of the elective modules.

This resource was created at the 2020 annual MAPDLE tutors’ meeting to identify what
tutors are looking for in students’ written work in terms of the work’s coherence. This
resource will help tutors with supporting and guiding students’ written work.

Part A is a summary of the points shared across the descriptions of coherence in students’
writing recorded by groups in the Google Docs document at the meeting. These ideas have
been categorised according to levels in written work: text level; paragraph level;
word/sentence levels. Part B is a summary of key points from the discussion at the meeting.
Part C is the final Google Docs document that was collectively created during the meeting.

PART A: summary of points of shared understanding of what we are looking for when we
are assessing the coherence of students’ writing

Points of shared understanding

• The text is organized with a clear thread and flow to the discourse.
The writing is built around a central theme with each part of the
text contributing to a main line of argument.
Text level • The writer states their purpose and point of view directly.
• Ideas and arguments are developed in a logical and linear manner.
• Signalling words are used to make clear how the various parts of
the text are related.

• Clear topic sentences are used.

• Ideas and arguments are relevant to the developing discourse.
Paragraph level
• References are clearly connected to a developing discourse.
• Connectives are used to link and order ideas.

Word/sentence • Succinctness
levels • Terms and concepts are used precisely and accurately.
PART B: summary of important points that emerged in the discussion at the meeting

What do we mean by professional writing?

• Students are encouraged to write for a professional audience and with a professional
purpose in mind.
• The first person is appropriate for students to use in order to 'own' their work, to
discuss and explain their own professional experiences and to reflect on their
learning.
• Students can be encouraged to avoid over-formal and heavy prose. It is therefore
acceptable in professional writing to use: verbs rather than nouns; active rather than
passive voice; phrasal verbs rather than Latin derived equivalents.

What issues do we need to be aware of when supervising students from different cultural
backgrounds with different understanding of academic conventions?
• Hedging was identified as an example of how different academic cultures approach
the analysis of data: while we might expect to see a writer use hedging in a
discussion of their findings, other traditions may not expect this.
• Students need to adapt to the rhetorical conventions of academic discourse
expected by a UK Higher Education institution. This is not about imposing a ‘correct’
way of structuring text, but developing awareness of the contrast between the
discourse norms of different academic cultures.

PART C: final Google Docs document collectively created during the meeting

Group 1

Our description of what coherence looks like Important points from our discussion
-’the red thread’ - a central thread of
rationale -linking between sections, the whole text and
-text works towards clear objectives in some modules across
- every idea relates to the main idea assignments/portfolios (can draw how
-everything relates explicitly (See appendix they’re linked like a spidergram)
5/As mentioned in the previous paragraph) -’the red thread’ - central idea(s) is/are
or implicitly to another part of the text developed from start to end
(cohesive devices & semantic relationships)
-logically organised; ideas developed
logically (reasons, examples, explanations)
- in some modules, coherence comes with
cohesion between sections, whole texts or
across portfolios.
-it’s succinct
Group 2

Our description of what coherence looks like Important points from our discussion
- Fullness, completeness of argument
- Flow - Needs confidence in argument that
- One whole, integration should be nurtured by supervisor
- Throughline, thread, tying together, - Writer responsibility
suturing
- Consistency of argument
- Synthesis
- Connection
- Doesn’t have to be signposted
linguistically, more a sense of a
connected, linked argument, may be
thematic
- The ‘extra mile’
- Academic ‘voice’

Group 3

Our description of what coherence looks like
● We know it when we see it: Don’t
have to stop and think why is so
saying this : often it’s easier to
notice absence of coh
● Analyses as well as describes
● Critical and indep thinking evident
thru clear and justified explanation
● Explanations which are not muddled
● Consistency of a viewpoints
● Argues, rather than asserts: supports
argument with data
● There may be different paths to
Rome: different styles of writing can
be coherent
● Coherence may mean diff things to
writers from diff ed backgrounds?
Intro-body-conc in harmony
Important points from our discussion
● Do people from diff cultures have
diff u’standings of coherence?
● We think we need to respect diff
ways of writing: they may not be
ours, but if we can follow the
arguments, this is coherent
● We thought Ponts 5,6,8,9,10 from
sheet are things we’re looking for
● We’re not int only in ac lang: we;re
writing for a professional audience,
too

Group 4
● Accuracy in terms of punctuation, typing
mistakes, referencing etc. (consistency of
problems, those which can be )
● Organisation, development & flow of ideas -
logical organisation of ideas within and
between paragraphs
● Development and clarity of ideas
● Specificity and precision of use of
terminology/academic language
 ● Being succinct, lack of waffle and over-
explaining, talking around a subject rather
than about it.
● Register (esp. formality) & appropriateness
Group 5
Readability
Signposting
Responsibility
Organisation
Planning
Explicitness
Group 6
Our description of what coherence looks like -
Ideas need to be clearly organised and
structured with the argument building upon
itself.
There are two levels of ideas - synthesis of
the arguments they have read, and
development of their own ideas, relevant to
their context / topic.
We’re looking for a clear ‘shape’ so that the
reader can see where the argument is
leading - not circular and repetitive, but
seeing the ‘path’ , or dynamic progression.
Sometimes, it looks like a funnel, starting
with global ideas, and then narrowing down
to more specific points. Sts should ‘Tell
their story’, rather than the reader having to
work it out.
Critical distance between the input ideas
and your perspective on them.
Academic writing and professional writing
Clarity-simpler can sometimes be clearer
Not always complex
Phrasal verbs-can be useful at times
facts and figures
Formality?
Objectivity
Hedging
Important points from our discussion
Have we experienced this as a problem?
It often seems to be an issue with other
universities. The issue seems to focus on the
superficial (language vs content).
Problems include - cohesion, and use of
cohesive devices, but they are still not
‘coherent’ in terms of their ideas. Need to
clearly understand the genre and who the
audience is and how to address them. Sts
unaware of conventions of the genre, and
also lack of awareness of the reader and the
fact that they may not understand the
writer’s local context.
Explicitness - sometimes lots of references
for banal points and lack of references for
other more important sources.
Have sts got something to say? They can’t
just reference the paper they read, they need
to form a critical argument. They present
the facts but don’t justify.
The ability to synthesise - be critical of what
you’re reading, and go beyond just quoting
the references. Establish their own
argument, and draw the ideas together into
a coherent line of thought.
Primary and 2ry points need to be seen.
 The reader needs to not be the one doing all
the work, they need to see a clear path and
see how the ideas build on each other.
Sometimes, it looks like a funnel, starting
with global ideas, and then narrowing down
to more specific points. Other times it’s a
path, leading somewhere. Or a ‘drama’
with beginning, main act, twists and turns
and ending.

The purpose of the writing is not just to

demonstrate that you have done the reading,
but I need to see your unique position on
this.

Group 7
Our description of what coherence looks like Important points from our discussion
Relevance ● How clear and easy ideas are to
Organization understand for the reader
Accuracy ● Taking into consideration Cultural
Flow of ideas element
Academic conventions ● Effective use of cohesive devices,
meta language
● Academic and professional side