Perceptions of writing prowess in honours economic students

IF 1.2 4区 管理学 Q3 ECONOMICS South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences Pub Date : 2022-09-19 DOI:10.4102/sajems.v25i1.4323
J. du Toit, Anmar Pretorius, H. Louw, Magdaleen Grundlingh
{"title":"Perceptions of writing prowess in honours economic students","authors":"J. du Toit, Anmar Pretorius, H. Louw, Magdaleen Grundlingh","doi":"10.4102/sajems.v25i1.4323","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"with numbers than with writing ability, some scholars on economics make a strong case for honing writing skills. To be an economist, is to be a writer, or in the words of McCloskey further states that writing ‘… is the Economist’s trade’. He also identifies the problem: Most people who write a lot, as do economists, have an amateurish attitude towards writing’ (McCloskey 1985:187). Therefore, the question: ‘How well do you think you write and Background: Economists are often asked to explain or foresee the economic impact of certain events. Except for theoretical and practical knowledge, clear communication of views is therefore required. However, post-graduate training in Economics mostly focuses on technical modules. Furthermore, students often overestimate their (writing) abilities – as described in the Dunning-Kruger effect. Aim: This article aims to establish if, and to what extent, perceptions of writing quality differ between students, subject-specific lecturers and writing consultants. Setting: Honours students at a South African university wrote an argumentative essay on a specific macroeconomic policy intervention. Methods: In this study qualitative samples (an evaluation rubric) were quantified for an in-depth analysis of the phenomenon, which allowed for a mixed-methods research design. The essays were evaluated by fellow students, the Economics lecturer, Academic Literacy lecturers and Writing Centre consultants and then their evaluations were compared. The evaluation form contained 83 statements relating to various aspects of writing quality. Results: Student evaluators in the peer review were much more positive than the other evaluators – in a potential confirmation of the Dunning-Kruger effect. However, despite the more generous evaluations, students were still able to distinguish between varying skills levels, that is, good and bad writing. Discrepancies in evaluations between the subject specialists were also observed. Conclusion: More conscious effort needs to be put into teaching economics students the importance and value of effective writing, with clear identification of the requirements and qualities of what is considered to be effective writing.","PeriodicalId":46244,"journal":{"name":"South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4102/sajems.v25i1.4323","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

with numbers than with writing ability, some scholars on economics make a strong case for honing writing skills. To be an economist, is to be a writer, or in the words of McCloskey further states that writing ‘… is the Economist’s trade’. He also identifies the problem: Most people who write a lot, as do economists, have an amateurish attitude towards writing’ (McCloskey 1985:187). Therefore, the question: ‘How well do you think you write and Background: Economists are often asked to explain or foresee the economic impact of certain events. Except for theoretical and practical knowledge, clear communication of views is therefore required. However, post-graduate training in Economics mostly focuses on technical modules. Furthermore, students often overestimate their (writing) abilities – as described in the Dunning-Kruger effect. Aim: This article aims to establish if, and to what extent, perceptions of writing quality differ between students, subject-specific lecturers and writing consultants. Setting: Honours students at a South African university wrote an argumentative essay on a specific macroeconomic policy intervention. Methods: In this study qualitative samples (an evaluation rubric) were quantified for an in-depth analysis of the phenomenon, which allowed for a mixed-methods research design. The essays were evaluated by fellow students, the Economics lecturer, Academic Literacy lecturers and Writing Centre consultants and then their evaluations were compared. The evaluation form contained 83 statements relating to various aspects of writing quality. Results: Student evaluators in the peer review were much more positive than the other evaluators – in a potential confirmation of the Dunning-Kruger effect. However, despite the more generous evaluations, students were still able to distinguish between varying skills levels, that is, good and bad writing. Discrepancies in evaluations between the subject specialists were also observed. Conclusion: More conscious effort needs to be put into teaching economics students the importance and value of effective writing, with clear identification of the requirements and qualities of what is considered to be effective writing.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对优秀经济学学生写作能力的认知
与写作能力相比,一些经济学学者对数字提出了强有力的理由,认为应该磨练写作技能。成为一名经济学家,就是成为一名作家,或者用麦克洛斯基的话来说,写作“……是经济学家的职业”。他还指出了一个问题:大多数写很多东西的人,就像经济学家一样,对写作持业余态度”(McCloskey 1985:187)。因此,问题是:“你认为你的写作水平如何?”背景:经济学家经常被要求解释或预测某些事件的经济影响。因此,除了理论和实践知识外,还需要清楚地交流意见。然而,经济学的研究生培训主要集中在技术模块上。此外,学生经常高估自己的(写作)能力——正如邓宁-克鲁格效应所描述的那样。目的:这篇文章的目的是建立如果,以及在何种程度上,写作质量的看法不同的学生,特定科目的讲师和写作顾问。背景:南非一所大学的荣誉学生写了一篇关于具体宏观经济政策干预的议论文。方法:在本研究中,定性样本(一个评价指标)被量化,以深入分析这一现象,从而允许混合方法的研究设计。论文由同学、经济学讲师、学术素养讲师和写作中心顾问进行评估,然后比较他们的评估。评价表包含83项陈述,涉及写作质量的各个方面。结果:同行评议中的学生评价者比其他评价者更积极——这可能证实了邓宁-克鲁格效应。然而,尽管有更慷慨的评价,学生们仍然能够区分不同的技能水平,即写作的好坏。还观察到学科专家之间评价的差异。结论:需要更加有意识地向经济学学生传授有效写作的重要性和价值,明确有效写作的要求和质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
29
审稿时长
52 weeks
期刊介绍: The South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences (SAJEMS) is a leading South African-based publication for interdisciplinary research in the economic and management sciences. The journal publishes and disseminates high-quality academic articles that contribute to the better understanding of the interaction between economic, environmental and social perspectives as applicable to the broader management sciences in an African environment. The editorial board therefore invites authors to submit their research from areas such as economics, finance, accounting, human capital, marketing and other related disciplines that break down common intellectual silos and prepares a new path for debate on the operation and development of sustainable markets and organisations as relevant to the broader African context.
期刊最新文献
Anti-consumption: Investigating the role of socio-psychological factors in motivating customers to help other customers not to shop Business-to-Business sellers’ motivations in sales performance – A six-dimensional framework proposition Unobserved heterogeneity of dynamic capability and sustainable performance of dairy microfirms How attitude, need for achievement and self control personality shape entrepreneurial intention in students A sectoral analysis of output elasticity of employment in South Africa
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1