Task representation

Flower (1990:35) defines task representation as ‘an interpretive process that translates the rhetorical situation - as the writer reads it - into the act of composing.’

Plakans (2010)breaks task representation down into initial task representation, topic determination, genre identification and source text use. However, Chan (2013) suggests a more detailed breakdown drawing on the work of Flower et al. (1990), Grabe and Kaplan (1996), Ruiz-Funes (2001) Plakans (2008, 2010) and Scardamalia and Paris (1985). Chan suggests that task representation determines the overall ‘shape’ and ‘feel’ of the participant's answer. Some of the key task representation decisions made by the participant include:

43

What to include- whether to include only ideas from the source text or whether to

add previous knowledge, comments or opinions. Whether to include all the ideas from the text or be selective.

What type of format to use- whether there is a standard format or style they are

expected to follow.

How to organise the ideas- should there be an overarching idea / theme, should the

ideas from the source text be summarised and presented in the order they appear in the source text or reordered for the writer’s purpose? Do participants even consider that they have any choice in this matter or should they follow a predetermined order?

The use of strategies by the participant when answering the question – So, for

example, does the writer use the source texts as a springboard to generate their own ideas or to illicit their own response? Does the writer read looking for themes / links? Does the writer tackle the task in a particular order?

What other goals need to be met - What other ‘goals’ influence the participant’s

approach? Does the writer want to get finished as quickly as possible? Does the writer want to impress the reader, or does he / she want to learn or improve their skills by doing the task? Kantz (1990:76) states that ‘task representations matter because they affect the written product’. However, Kantz's study found that the link between task interpretation and the finished product is not simple. Although students' initial thoughts and opening paragraphs seem to indicate one approach their final products did not always match the approach outlined. This led to confusion and differences of opinion amongst the lecturers grading the papers. This finding was echoed by Segev-Miller (2007:244). When following students working on a literature review over several months Segev-Miller concluded ...

44

the connections between the subjects’ task representations and the structures of their products were not that simple or direct.

Whilst many students started with complex task representations which looked likely to result in knowledge transformation some students reverted to a knowledge telling approach when they encountered difficulties. Conversely, the initial knowledge-telling representations of some of the subjects during the reading process evolved to produce knowledge-transformation in the finished text.

Smeets and Solé (2008) compared post-graduate students' thoughts about task interpretation on a synthesis course work task with their finished texts. The task was completed in class and students' attitudes were surveyed after they had read the task instructions but before they started reading and writing. Students were asked to report their task representation attitude by selecting the statement which best described their understanding of the task from a choice of six statements. Half the statements described a knowledge telling approach and half described a knowledge transforming approach. Additionally, some of the statements from each of the knowledge telling / transforming groups described a text -by-text approach whilst others described an intertextual approach. This creates four categories: knowledge transforming with intertextual approach; knowledge transforming with a text-by-text approach; knowledge telling with intertextual approach; and knowledge telling with a text-by-text approach. Some categories contained two statements whilst others only contained one. Finished products were scored according to the amount of elaboration that had taken place and the extent to which a new macro-proposition had been generated.

Smeets and Solé concluded that task representation did influence the quality of the finished product. These findings do not necessarily contradict those of Segev-Miller and Kantz

45

as Smeets and Solé's study represented a snap-shot in time. Perhaps given an extended period of time, some of those with a knowledge telling approach may have gone on to develop a knowledge transforming approach. Viewing the results of all three pieces of research, one might conclude that developing an understanding that knowledge transformation is a task requirement can take time and is unlikely to happen on tasks completed in a single session. Additionally, even when the task representation includes an intention to include knowledge transformation, the difficulty of achieving knowledge transformation may mean that the finished product fails to meet the aspirations of the task representation.

Allen (2004) carried out a case study of a Japanese student working in English on reading to write course work tasks over one semester. The student was a third-year undergraduate and Allen focused on task representation and integration of source materials. Allen concluded that ‘additional training may be needed to assist students to develop the ability to represent tasks and integrate source text material in a way that most effectively supports their text.’ (2004:87)

In accordance with Kantz, Smeets and Solé, and Allen, the researcher suggests that task representations evolve as the writer’s work emerges. Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that task representation cannot be deemed to be something that happens once at the outset of a task. Given enough time, writers revisit task representation continually, sometimes leading to an improvement in their finished product, sometimes abandoning their ideal task representation in the face of difficulties. Therefore, task representation is a complex and sometimes time-consuming process and one which does not guarantee the quality of the finished product.

46