Introduction Practices 5

Writing in business courses: an analysis of assignment types, their characteristics, and required skills

Over the last 20 years, research on writing in academic contexts has examined the types and nature of writing tasks students encounter in university classrooms. This line of research is both pedagogically and theoretically motivated. At the pedagogical level, writing researchers and teachers hope to better understand second language students’ writing needs in order to better prepare them for academic tasks.Task analysis as a means of identifying students’ writing needs has received much attention in research conducted in the English for Academic Purposes (EAP)context. At the theoretical level, writing researchers hope to better understand the nature of communicative conventions in different discourse communities as well asstudent acquisition of those conventions. Examining the purposes and features of writing tasks is seen as a means to understand the discursive practices in different communities, the values associated with those practices, and student socialization into discourse communities. Earlier research on writing tasks tended to encompass assignments from different academic disciplines and favored the survey methodology (e.g. Bridgeman &Carlson, 1984; Casanave & Hubbard, 1992; Eblen, 1983; Johns, 1981; Kroll, 1979;Ostler, 1980). While survey studies provided useful information on the types of writing assignments required in university classrooms, their results were sometimes difficult to interpret due to the methodology used. For example, researchers often provided pre-determined categories of writing assignments (e.g. term paper, essay, book review) and asked the respondents, often faculty members in content areas, to indicate which categories of writing tasks were assigned. One potential problem with this methodology is that terms used by the researchers to refer to the writing assignments might be interpreted differently by survey respondents, as Braine (1995) points out. As a result, it is not clear to what extent tasks reported in the studies accurately represented those actually required in the classroom. More recent research has focused on tasks from a single discipline or from a few selected disciplines (e.g. Braine, 1989, 1995; Carson, 2001; Hale et al., 1996). The difference in disciplinary focus can be seen as a reflection of a difference in the theoretical orientation of the studies. According to Braine (1995), ‘‘this shift in focus is based on the assumption that separate disciplines are singular discourse communities with their own writing conventions’’ (p.114). Consequently, analysis of writing tasks has aimed at identifying, describing, and contextualizing the genres that students are expected to perform in different discourse communities, which are defined as the ‘‘group(s) of individuals bound by a common interest who communicate through approved channels and whose discourse is regulated’’ (Porter, 1986:38–39). This goal to understand genres students need to perform in different discoursec ommunities is reflected in the research methodologies chosen. Researchers have examined what Hodder (1998) refers to as ‘‘mute material evidence’’ (e.g.classroom artifacts related to the writing tasks) and some have also conducted interviews with faculty and students (e.g. Carson, 2001). Some researchers(e.g. Braine, 1989, 1995; Carson, 2001; Hale et al., 1996) adopted and extended Horowitz’s (1986) inductive approach to analyzing writing tasks, which is characterized by first collecting information on writing assignments and then deriving categories of writing tasks based on analysis of the information gathered. For example,Braine (1995) analyzed 80 handouts collected from professors teaching courses inscience and technology and identified five genres ‘‘based on their instructional specifications,required task(s), and organization’’ (Braine, 1995: 119): summary/reaction, experimental report (lab), experimental report (design), case study, and research paper. In another study, Hale et al.(1996) adopted a similar approach but used a more comprehensive classification scheme. This study is perhaps one of the most extensive thus far, involving analysis of writing tasks from 162 courses offered in several disciplines at eight universities. What distinguished these studies from the early onesis that classifications of writing tasks are grounded in the analysis of actual materialson writing. Research on writing in academic contexts has also examined the functions of writing, the context for writing, and the role writing plays in helping students learnthe discourse practices of a community (Berkenkotter, Huckin, & Ackerman 1991;Herrington, 1985; Prior, 1998). For example, Herrington (1985) examined the natureof writing tasks in two chemical engineering classes, which she called Lab and Design, respectively. Utilizing a variety of research methods, including open-endedand discourse-based interviews, class observations, student and faculty surveys, andanalysis of student written products, Herrington found that the two classes functionedas two discourse communities, with the Lab as a ‘‘school forum’’ and Design as a ‘‘professional forum’’. In these two forums, writing served different purposes, and writers assumed different roles, wrote for different audiences, and used different types of warrants to support their claims. Herrington’ s findings showed that ‘‘writingcan function as a way of introducing students to what it means to think and actin various disciplinary forums’’ (pp.354–3 55). Much research on academic writing tasks has focused on science and engineering(e.g. Braine, 1989, 1995; Jenkins, Jordan, & Weiland 1993; West & Byrd, 1982), although as a field of study, business is the most popular among international students in the United States and attracts 20.9% of all international students, morethan any other field of study (Davis, 1998). In one of the often cited studies on business writing, Canseco and Byrd (1989) analyzed 55 course syllabi from 48 different graduate business courses and identified seven types of assignments: exams, written responses to problems, projects, case studies, papers, reports, and miscellaneous assignments. Their analysis offered useful information on business writing assignments and revealed that writing assignments in business courses often required teamwork and were controlled by the instructors. However, because assignments were categorized based on terms used in the syllabi and because descriptions ofthe different types of writing assignments were not provided, it is not clear in whatways, for example, a project was different from a report. Research from Business Communication, an interdisciplinary field devoted to research pertaining to business communication practices and instruction, has shed considerable light on various aspects of spoken and written communication in the business world and classroom. Research published in the last ten years in the two major outlets of business communication research, namely Business Communication Quarterly and The Journal of Business Communication, focused on several areas, including (a) faculty and students’ perceptions of students’ communication needs interms of students’ strengths and weaknesses in writing and the tasks expected ofthem in the real business world (e.g. Epstein, 1999; Plutsky, 1996; Reinsch & Shelby,1997); (b) business communication instruction and standards in MBA and undergraduate business programs (e.g. Bogert & Butt, 1996; Knight, 1999); (c) faculty vs. business professionals’ perceptions of several aspects of student writing (e.g. LeonardW. Zhu / English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004) 111–135 113& Gilsdorf, 1990; Seshadri & Theye, 2000); and (d) effects of instruction oncertain aspects of writing (e.g. Campbell, Brammer, & Ervin, 1999). - Move 1

Business communication research has provided a wealth of information on various aspectsof written business communication, yet relatively little research has been devoted to systematic analysis of writing tasks required in business courses, although researchers have compiled lists of writing assignments expected of students by using terms from course syllabi collected (e.g. Bogert & Butt, 1996). However, the need to better understand business writing assignments has certainly beenrecognized, as reflected in the recent research on the ‘‘case write-up’’ (e.g.Forman & Rymer, 1999) and its related case method (Dorn, 1999; Rogers &Rymer, 1998). - Move 2

The study reported in this article examined writing assignments in undergraduate and graduate business courses by analyzing faculty descriptions of and guidelines onwriting assignments, student writing samples, and faculty interviews. Its purpose is two fold: (a) to perform task analysis to understand students’ ‘‘target needs’’(Hutchinson & Waters, 1987, cited in Jordan, 1997) in business classrooms, and (b) to contribute to an understanding of discursive practices in business courses. Two related questions were examined: 1. What types of writing assignments are required of students in undergraduate and graduate business courses? 2. What are the characteristics of the major types of assignments, and what knowledge and skills are needed to complete the assignments? In the following sections, I will describe the data collection and analysis procedures, report the findings, and discuss the potential implications of the findings for future research and instruction. - Move 3