Last changed
14 Aug 2013 ............... Length about 5,000 words (35,000 bytes).
(Document started on 2 April 2012.)
This is a WWW document maintained by
Steve Draper, installed at http://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/best/triad3.php.
You may copy it.
How to refer to it.
Web site logical path:
[www.psy.gla.ac.uk]
[~steve]
[best]
[this page]
[triad 1]
[triad 2]
[triad 3]
[cost triads]
Reading, discussing, writing
By
Steve Draper,
Department of Psychology,
University of Glasgow.
"Reading maketh a full man, conference a ready man, and writing an exact man."
This aphorism and the essay it comes from suggest that studying, in fact I
would say Higher Education (HE), rests on three activities: reading,
discussing, and writing. Since Bacon is often cited as the first to publish an
explicit scientific method, we should consider whether this formula is a
general educational one and not limited to essay-based Humanities subjects. It
comes from an essay by Francis Bacon in 1625, and in 1753 Samuel Johnson wrote
another essay elaborating on it (local
copies). Together they make the case for the importance of each, and how
omitting any one leads to weaknesses: all three are required for rounded
learning. We might say that they correspond to receiving ideas, interacting
about / with ideas, and generating one's own detailed idea.
Currently it may constitute a relevant and insightful critique of HE where
there is far too little discussion by students of ideas. The measure of this
is the number of minutes per day a given student is actually speaking about
some intellectual idea. (Listening to discussion may have some other value,
but does not count at all under this heading, as Johnson's essay makes clear
if you look at it with this question in mind.)
If we were to take this as a serious educational rule, then for each course we
need to consider an even division in times spent on each of reading,
discussing, and writing; and also an equal weight of assessment for each.
(A rather different explanation, more psychological than educational, would
explain discussing vs. writing in terms of extraversion/intraversion.
Susan Cain on the power of introverts (20 mins).
"There's zero correlation between being the best talker and having the best
ideas." Correct: but the point from Johnson is that everyone is better for
having both skills, not either/or; and regardless of the personal disposition
measured by the personality dimension.)
Finally, you might like to consider Bayard's (2007) arguments about the
importance and inevitability of discussing (i.e. talking about) books you
haven't read.
Paying more attention to discussion
Bacon and Johnson were both stressing the equal importance of the three, but I
suspect HE today needs to focus particularly on discussion. My argument is,
that when people had to travel and thus live with each other in order to
study, discussion didn't have to be particularly arranged for. Today
universities are over-crowded and many students commute to them. Peer
discussion is increasingly unlikely to happen naturally.
Perhaps a modern equivalent of discussing might be video games; or online
question banks. Like discussion, they are interactive (not pure
self-generation) and reactive, making a complementary learning activity to
reading and writing. This argument then amounts to the ideas that discussing
is powerful for learning because:
- We learn whenever we have to convert our knowledge into a new format: and
discussing requires a different organisation than writing or reading do.
- Discussion requires quick thinking in response to unexpected objections
and questions. Thinking on your feet, rather than without pressure; being
reactive, responsive, adapting your response to other people.
Another reason to focus on discussion is the (neo-)Vygotskian idea that
dialogue is especially important in learning: precedes each conceptual
development. A particular form of this view is explored by Sfard (2008).
There is however rather direct evidence on the importance of discussion from
Treisman's work (1983, 1992; Fullilove & Triesman, 1990).
He studied the differences in habits of students from different minorities at
U.C. Berkeley; found the Asian Americans spent a lot of time discussing work
together and the others did not; introduced interventions to get the others to
discuss, and had a big success in subsequent grade improvements.
One might however try to summarise his success in different theoretical ways
e.g. (Tinto-like) social and academic integration; discussion (this page);
a combination of collaborative learning and problem-based learning (what Chinn
& Martin (2005) call it).
Thinking = writing
Confucius discusses the role of "thinking": shouldn't thinking (which we could
call "reflection" if it makes us feel better) be part of education?
"I used to sit alone thinking about this and that. Sometimes I even forgot my
meals or bedtime. Still I gained very little. Later I shifted to reading
omnivorously, but I did not benefit a great deal either. At long last I came
to see that reading in a mechanical way without using my brains was no use. On
the other hand, if thinking is divorced from the reality and no due attention
is paid to reading, one will continue to feel puzzled by many things. One
should constantly review what he has learned and combine reading with
thinking. In thus making use of the theories one has learned to guide his
thought and help analyze the problems at hand, progress will be achieved."
(Confucius)
I suggest that writing, from the standpoint of learning, plays the part of
thinking: the effort of writing forces careful thinking. Johnson says nothing
about anyone else having to read what you write: the point is the precision
and order that writing demands of you, and plenty of time to do it (unlike in
conversation).
In that case, Confucius (two thousand years earlier) was also pointing out the
complementary requirements for reading and thinking = writing in
successful learning.
Calculations as the counter-part of writing
In essay based subjects, writing is how we find out what we think; or perhaps,
work out more implications and consequences for our initial view.
In calculation-based subjects (STEM subjects like maths and physics) perhaps
calculations are the corresponding activity. (By "calculation" I include
arithmetic, algebra, and mathematical proofs.)
You certainly see physicists who are arguing or thinking scribble down rough
calculations both for themselves, and as part of a discussion with others.
Calculations are pieces of reasoning, usually beyond what we can hold in our
heads with accuracy and confidence: and that is just why writing prose is so
valuable to thinkers in other disciplines.
In STEM subjects, students are typically required to do regular "problems"
i.e. calculations, just as in essay-based subjects students are generally
required to write regularly. But they need all three activities, as Feynman
said in 1963 (in the Preface to his published physics lectures):
"I think, however, that there isn't any solution to this problem of education
other than to realize that the best teaching can be done only when there is
[....] a situation in which the student discusses the ideas, thinks about
the things, and talks about the things. It's impossible to learn very much by
simply sitting in a lecture, or even by simply doing problems that are assigned.
But in our modern times we have so many students to teach that we have
to try to find some substitute for the ideal. ..."
Manual skills, procedural learning
So far, this page is about book learning (of declarative / conceptual ideas),
in contrast to the learning of practical skills
(as in triad 1 and triad 2).
For that, reading, discussing, writing seem to be a fundamental trio. When
reading the author's intention is dominant, in discussing both parties' ideas
are important, and writing is where the learner's own goals and ideas drive
the activity. Similarly, the trio correspond to receiving, negotiating,
generating ideas; and to interaction with an expert, peers, and oneself
(reflection). The directions of transfer are inwards (to the learner), in both
directions, then outwards. We might equally refer to it as listening,
reacting, then thinking and doing. (And when Confucius speaks of teaching, it
seems to have been dialogic and not essentially similar to reading or
lecturing.)
However if we consider learning a skill, e.g. cooking or surgery, the trio is
transformed into: watching it being done, trying it out under supervision, and
finally teaching someone else to do it. In this case, the middle phase is
interacting primarily with the materials rather than with a peer, and with the
teacher who has to respond to what the pupil does (rescuing their errors)
rather than following a planned course of their own. The final phase of
teaching a skill is typically where the student for the first time takes
control of the overall activity and also adds to their manual actions
reflection and an attempt to articulate the activity: corresponding to writing
for a desk-based learner. Hence the surgeons' slogan "See one, do one, teach
one". Or observing, attempting, directing.
Confucius and other connections
In "The uncommon reader", Alan Bennett portrays various consequences of
becoming a serious reader. Discussion doesn't become a large feature, possibly
because his protagonist is royal. However the structure of his piece is that
what is begun by starting to read inevitably ends by becoming a writer, so he
too seems to be following the structure articulated by Bacon and Johnson.
Confucius doesn't mention writing at all in this way, but talks about thinking
which seems to play the same role. Confucius talks (at least in one translation
of the Analects) of thinking, reading, and teaching. ("Keeping silent and
thinking; studying without satiety, teaching others without weariness: these
things come natural to me." [Analect 7.2])
If we can equate thinking and writing with respect to their benefit to
learning, then this is writing, reading, and teaching; or doing it oneself (by
thinking or writing), seeing it (by reading another's expression of it), and
teaching (i.e. discussing it with another person). This suggests a close
analogue between Bacon's aphorism for conceptual learning, and the
practice-oriented surgeon's aphorism for skill learning: "see one, do one,
teach one".
- Reading, discussion, writing. [Bacon]
- Reading, teaching, and thinking. [Confucius]
- See one, do one, teach one. [Surgical training, triad 2]
Another angle on read / discuss / write may be the framework offered in Fonseca
& Chi (2011). They compared the observed learning gains for learning:
- (Inattentive)
- Passively (e.g. reading)
- Actively (e.g. using a highlighter on text, making notes)
- Constructively (e.g. explain key terms, perhaps like writing)
- Interactively (e.g. discussing with a peer)
Summary points
- The triad manifests differently for procedural (skill) and declarative
(concept) learning.
- Declarative: Read, discuss with peers, write
- Procedural (what the learner does at each point):
Watch, attempt under supervision, instruct (direct another
person's attempt)
- Procedural (what the teacher does at each point):
Model, coach, scaffold [These terms come from Collins et al.
on "cognitive apprenticeship".]
- There are some striking accounts, both fictional (Alan Bennett's above)
and biographical (Jeanette Winterson), of wide reading leading eventually to
writing (becoming an author). This would fit with interpreting {read, discuss,
write} as a developmental sequence.
However more fundamental (and constructivist) is that each person needs to
compare and relate (in whatever order they occur): their own thoughts, reading
other's ideas, and personal experience.
There are probably very large individual differences. My nephew Cai, for
instance, seems to have given up reading books (partly because he reads with
immense care, which suits poetry but not novels) but writes all the time.
- Does everyone need the triad i.e. discussion as well as reading and
writing? Or are individual differences important enough, that some do not
need all three?
We probably just do not know enough: it could be we just don't remember
reliably when discussion happened which shifted our thoughts. We probably
remember discussion less than either reading (which requires a physical book
or device) or writing (which requires effort and physical actions by us).
- Discussion (it is argued here) is essential for complete studying /
learning. However the converse is not true: discussion is not an important
part of the various functions of conversation in general.
Discussion for learning enrichment is relatively unusual, and requires
particular circumstances (detailed in Howe's experimental work).
- Catalysis: learning typically happens after, not during, discussion.
Draper (2009).
- Proust (de Botton argues) is a major denier of the triad in the sense
that he showed an unusually strong split between engaging with a person's
ideas, and being friends with them. For Proust, conversation was above all
about fostering affection, not delivering unpleasant judgements on their ideas.
However because he preferred affection above all, does not mean that he never
mentioned or discussed his ideas at all; nor that what discussion there was
had no effect on developing his ideas, as the triad claims is necessary.
- Perhaps it isn't "really" overt discussion that is productive, but the
underlying functions which are also brought out by reciprocal peer critiquing
e.g. exercising judgement, considering many alternative views (not just our
first one). Discussion may be a natural forum for these underlying functions,
but perhaps the benefit only depends on them being triggered no matter how.
For example I review an article but it makes me think about what I've written
myself. I never talk to the other author, nor get a response to my review,
yet the activity may work on me like a discussion.
- Perhaps reading and writing are about single big structures (a book or
paper); but discussion is about a) rapidity of response; b) exercising
parts of the argument separately from each other.
Beyond read/discuss/write
In Bacon's and Johnson's times, it was still reasonable to think that there
were a limited number of important books (the classics) and that to become
educated was to read all of them personally. All of the above argument is
about such personal learning based on reading. Bayard (2007) however shows us
that, although we haven't admitted this to each other yet, it is absolutely
impossible for any of us to read everything important in our lifetimes. Even
if it once was, the nature of the world of learning in which we now live is
otherwise. An almost inevitable consequence is that we must equip ourselves
to talk about books we haven't read.
In practice, as opposed to in what we care to be aware of and announce, this
has always been a core academic skill. It comes out classically in making an
argument and citing authorities in support. When you do that, you are not
giving the proof but trusting (and requiring your own readers to trust) the
cited authority. Such abbreviation is essentially like the traditional
exercise of making a précis in that an original piece of writing is
replaced by a summary plus an explicit pointer of where to go for more detail.
And this too is a core intellectual skill:
deciding what summary of a large argument or report is adequate for
intellectual purposes. It is quite different from the trio discussed on this
page, and needs to be taught and practised differently.
However it also, like the trio above, does correspond to a deep feature of
human knowledge and learning: the socially distributed nature of our shared
knowledge. As Putnam (1975) showed, even for material facts which can be
grounded in independently observable facts, we almost always only know part of
what is to be known but we know where to go if and when more details are
required. This is essentially like knowing the précis, not the whole
thing; like being able to talk about Shakespeare, but not having seen or read
most of his plays.
It overlaps with the topic of "discussion"; but leads to a different deep
feature of studying.
Chi's Passive, Active, Constructive, Interactive
Chi (2009), Fonseca & Chi (2011) propose a framework of learner
involvement that goes: Passive, Active, Constructive, Interactive.
- (Inattentive)
- Passive mode is listening or reading
- Active is highlighting text, answering a question, ...
- Constructive is generating one's own explanations
- Interactive is peer interaction.
But isn't that essentially Reading, Writing, Discussion? (at least if we skip
"active" as the kind of notes you make while reading).
If this mapping is correct, then her view (and data) implies that peer
discussion (her Interactive mode) has bigger learning effects than the rest.
(On the other hand, perhaps discussion is what is most missing in ordinary
education,and so has the biggest experimental effect; but that directly
comparative experiments would show that all are equally important.)
Extended to social digital media?
This is Steve Wheeler's thought: to apply a version of
Bloom's taxonomy to student behaviour as
modified by social digital media, and end up with something like the
read-discuss-write spectrum.
His stages have the same developmental direction from reading through
discussion to writing.
And the pyramid narrows: quite rightly: for everything you read, you only
discuss some, and write about still fewer.
But he has 5 stages, not my 3.
Reinterpreting Wheeler's pyramid
I think his stages can be thought of as generated by crossing read/discuss/write
with the learner having a passive/reactive stance, vs. an active
(self-directed) one; thus connecting to Wheeler's lurking/loafing theme.
I.e. if active, the learner wants to learn about the topic and acts to achieve
this; but if passive, the learner is responding to a friend raising the topic,
a teacher putting something in front of them.
Labelling this "lurking or loafing" is perjorative: actually a
teacher-centered stance that presupposes that there is a clear joint task
(dictated by the teacher) and any failure to join in whole-heartedly is the
learner's fault, not the fault of the person imposing the activity.
In some situations that is true; and a teacher might argue it is true of
school. But it is NOT true of learning in general, where although this is
little acknowledged, we all spend a lot of time lurking and waiting for
something interesting. That is what newspapers and magazines are specifically
designed for; RSS feeds; browsing journals (as opposed to looking up a
specific cited article).
Lurking is in fact the mark of someone passively open to inputs from
elsewhere. A fully active, self-directed person would walk down the street,
ignore the fact that everyone was staring up at the same thing, and walk right
under the collapsing building because it wasn't their self-chosen goal to
research that at that moment. In other words, we get a lot of our
information, some of it the most important possible, not by being "active"
but by lurking.
This would give the following stages. I show them as bullet points, so
development / time now goes down the page not up:
- Reading, reactive: watching, lurking, browsing
- Reading, mixed: follow links from something you read through
- Reading, self-directed: Tracking down a specific piece; Reading it all.
- Discussing, reactive; expressive: sharing, retweeting, liking, favouriting.
Mentioning in passing something you read.
- Discussing, reactive: Reply to email, add a comment
to a blog i.e. some new content generated but only because prompted by
someone/thing else.
- Discussing, self-directed: Commenting at some length. Feeling the need
to discuss something at length, finding a willing or at least acquiescent
partner for this.
- Writing, self-directed; expressive: writing for oneself e.g. diary,
notes, to work out what you think.
- Writing, self-directed: Creating, repurposing.
- Writing, reactive, instrumental: writing for a
specific audience; "curating".
| Reactive | Mixed | Self-directed |
Read | a | b | c |
Discuss | d | e | f |
Write | i | h | g |
An interesting feature is that the sequence begins passively and becomes more
active in the reading phase; the discussion phase is on the whole balanced
w.r.t. active/passive. The best discussions have two motivated people; and we
are often infuenced by whether others bring up a topic, which can amplify our
initial interest.
With writing, this is inverted: first writing is typically for oneself
(expressive), while the final writing stage is doing it only for others' sake
(instrumental): researching an audience, expressing it differently to suit
them (or, to spin it downwards, selling your soul to write formulaic novels or
advertising copy). And in between these is writing to first create and then
convince a new audience.
See Peter Elbow's (1987) memorably titled paper on this point:
"Closing my eyes as I speak: An argument for ignoring the audience" which
begins with the quotation "Very often people don't listen to you when you
speak to them. It's only when you talk to yourself that they prick up their
ears."
And the obverse of someone who ignores their audience in order to deliver what
they in fact value the most is a reader who is too limited in what they
want to engage with the best (most transformative) material: "If you travel
with us you will have to learn things you do not want to learn in ways you do
not want to learn".
[Doris Lessing, from a letter replying to a reader who had been seriously
disturbed by reading one of her novels. Quoted in Alan Yentob's "Imagine" TV
programme on Doris Lessing, broadcast Tues 27 May 2008, 10:35pm on BBC1]
Basically, the more self-directed the writer is, the more passive
the reader must be; and the more self-directed the reader is, the more
passively reactive the writer must be.
In fact it can be argued that, important as discussion is as part of rounded
learning, reading and writing are both fundamentally NOT dialogic: not
improved but only diminished by interaction.
Proust for instance said that the best way to get to know someone was not to
meet them but to immerse yourself in their writings; and Proust was in many
ways a highly sociable person.
Thus, while this page is written from a suspicion that there is too little
discussion in HE today for optimal learning, an opposite mistake may be admiring
social media and thinking that solitary reading and writing are less essential.
Bacon's whole point was that you need all three, and that a deficiency in any
one leads to characteristic pathologies, which he sketches.
I think this whole framework would equally apply, not only to writing, but to
drawing, painting, designing coffee mugs, creating pottery, ....
Summary notes, as a table
Relationships amongst versions of read/discuss/write, and to virtues
|
|
Read |
Discuss |
Write |
Bacon |
Reading |
Conference |
Writing |
Confucius |
Reading |
Teaching |
Thinking |
Chi (2009) |
Passive (active) |
Interactive |
Constructive |
Physics etc. |
Reading (equations as well as prose) |
Discussing |
Calculating |
The inner activity |
Knowing (understanding) |
Developing answers to critical challenges |
Self-correction of facile success in argument |
(neo-Vygotsky?) Interact with: |
An expert |
Peers |
Oneself |
Whose goal?: |
The author's |
Both |
The learner's |
Directionality: |
Inwards |
2-way |
Outwards |
Directionality: |
Receive |
Dialogue |
Transmit |
Directionality: |
Listening |
Reacting |
Directing |
Surgical analogue(4) |
Teacher models |
Teacher coaches |
Teacher scaffolds |
Surgical analogue(3) |
Watching |
Attempting to imitate it (under supervision) |
Taking charge (directing) |
|
|
|
Surgical analogue(2) |
Watch one |
Try one |
Teach one |
Surgical analogue |
See one |
Do one |
Teach one |
Virtue (if done the right amount) |
A full man |
A ready man |
An exact man |
|
|
|
If done too little, then to compensate you need: |
Cunning to conceal your ignorance |
Quick wittedness |
A big memory |
If done too much |
Sloth |
Affectation |
"The humour of the scholar" |
Benefit(2) |
Delight |
Ornament |
Ability |
Benefit(2.2) |
Amuse yourself |
"Talk well" for others |
Taking decisions, disposition of business. |
Benefit(3) |
? |
Grace |
Method |
References
- Francis Bacon (1625) "Of studies" in Essays (essay 50 of 58).
- Samuel Johnson's (1753) follow-up "On studies"
(first appeared, untitled, in number 85 of The Adventurer, August 28, 1753).
They can both be found in books of their essays.
Local copies in one PDF document
See here
and here for web copies of Bacon's 1625 essay; and
here for Johnson's.
- Confucius: the second quote was from Analect 7, on learning.
The analects are Confucius, as written down by his followers.
- Bennett,Alan (2006) The Uncommon Reader (Faber and Faber)
- Bayard,Pierre (2007) How to talk about books you haven't read
- Chi,M.T.H. (2009) "Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual
framework for differentiating learning activities"
Topics in Cognitive Science vol.1 no.1 pp.73-105
- Chinn,D. & Martin,K. (2005) "Collaborative, problem-based learning
in computer science"
JCSC vol.21 no.1 (October 2005) pp.239-245
[Cf. Treisman's work]
- Collins,A., Brown,J.S. & Newman,S.E. (1989)
"Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and
mathematics" in L.B.Resnick (ed.)
Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser
pp.453-494 (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum)
- de Botton,A. (1997) How Proust can change your life
- Draper,S.W. (2009a) "Catalytic assessment: understanding how MCQs and EVS
can foster deep learning"
British Journal of Educational Technology vol.40 no.2 pp.285-293
http://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/papers08cover.html#catalytic
- Peter Elbow (1987) "Closing my eyes as I speak: An argument for ignoring
the audience" College English vol.49 no.1 pp.50-69
- Fonseca,B.A. & Chi,M.T.H. (2011) "Instruction based on self-explanation"
ch.15 pp.296-321 in R.E.Mayer & P.A.Alexander (eds.)
Handbook of research on learning and instruction
(New York: Routledge).
- Fullilove,R.E. & Treisman,P.U. (1990)
"Mathematics achievement among African American undergraduates at the
University of California Berkeley: An evalution of the mathematics workshop
program" Journal of Negro Education vol.59 no.3 pp.463-478
- Howe, C.J., Tolmie, A. & Rodgers, C. (1992)
"The acquisition of conceptual knowledge in science by primary school children"
Brit. j. Dev. Psy. vol.10 pp.113-130
- Putnam H. (1975) "The meaning of meaning" in Mind, language
and reality (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press).
- Sfard, Anna (2008) Thinking as communicating: human development,
the growth of discourses, and mathematizing (CUP)
- Treisman,P.U. (1985) A study of the mathematics achievement of
Black students at the University of California, Berkeley
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation, UCB, Professional development program)
- Treisman,P.U. (1992) "Studying Students Studying Calculus: A Look at the
Lives of Minority Mathematics Students in College"
The College Mathematics Journal vol.23 no.5 pp.362-372
Web site logical path:
[www.psy.gla.ac.uk]
[~steve]
[best]
[this page]
[Top of this page]