Home About Us Media Kit Subscriptions Links Forum
EDUCATION UPDATE BLOGS
Good Writing is Memorable: Scientific Proof - Vicki Cobb

Good Writing is Memorable: Scientific Proof

  |   Comments   |   Bookmark and Share
Every writer has two problems: something to say (content) and a way to say it (style). When it comes to expository text, traditionally there is plenty of content but not much style. Think of all the boring lectures you've sat through. Then compare them to a performance by an electrifying 
Medieval illustration of a Christian scribe wr...

Image via Wikipedia

speaker. Same content, big difference. A master professor is memorable. The same thing is true of writing. When the op-ed columnists of The New York Times write, people read. But that's just anecdotal evidence. I'm a scientist by training, and I recently tracked down a study that proves good writing is memorable. Instead of quoting the boringly written study, I'm going to let you in on the succinct remarks of Marjorie Scardino, a former editor of a Pulizer Prize-winning newspaper and the first female CEO of a Fortune 100 company, when she gave the keynote address at an award dinner in 1998 at the Columbia University School of Journalism. She said, in part:

Having looked for many years for a way to prove the obvious truth -- that journalists tell it better -- I finally have found, while rambling through the field of education, scientific proof:

About 10 years ago there was a study done -- documented in education journals, in fact, though with little publicity -- about how people best learn history. The study went like this: three pairs of writers, each representing different training, and therefore different styles, taught a history lesson to students in their own way, and the results were calculated. 

The first pair was text linguists, people who are trained in linguistics and psychology and tend to take a structured, formal approach to writing and language. They think about writing, but they don't teach people how to write.

The second pair was college composition teachers. They were trained in English or education. They tended to focus on the process one goes through in writing rather than the product produced. They did teach people to write, using this process approach.

The third pair was magazine editors, from Time magazine, in fact. Their training ranged generally through a liberal arts education, and they learned much of their craft on the job. They wrote for a living, and their job was to get the story told memorably ... and quickly.

These three pairs were asked to rewrite two passages from a U.S. history book to make them more readable, understandable and, most of all, memorable: to aid learning. One of the passages dealt mainly with the end of the Korean War and problems over Formosa; the other dealt with early American involvement in the Vietnam War.

The pairs were then matched with groups of [300] 16- and 17-year-old students, who were asked to judge their work. For each pair, one group read the original passages, and the other read the revisions. They then immediately wrote down everything they remembered from the passages, and the number of ideas they had retained was scored. Although I'm simplifying, I'm assured the methodology was kosher.

Without going through the intricacies of how each revision team worked, the results were stark:

1) Students reading the text linguists' revision recalled 2 percent more than those reading the original versions, a trivial difference.

2) Students reading the composition instructors' revisions recalled 2 percent less than those reading the originals. Wrong direction, and also not significant.

3) Students reading the magazine editors' versions, however, recalled 40 percent more than those reading the originals.

Needless to say, the academics were dismayed, and they wanted another chance. So the study was run again, with the same methodology. The second time, with the benefit of learning what the successful versions had been, there was a little change for the academics, but not much. The basic results were exactly the same.

So while this could be an advertisement for the brilliance of journalists, it is probably better used as a reminder, to us as publishers as much as anyone, of the importance of presentation to substance -- the power of clarity and style.

The original study was done in 1988 by seven academics at five different universities. But science is science. Time doesn't change the significance of the work of Galileo or Darwin. This study seems quite relevant to me over 20 years later. What amazes me is that there are editors and educators out there who still don't get it. Good writing and high interest stories trump low reading levels and student apathy and enable higher performance on assessment tests. Duh!

Leave a comment

Recent Entries

Assessing the Assessors: A Challenge to CETE
Recently I received an email from a “passage writer” at the Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation (CETE) in Lawrence,…
Authors on Call: Videoconferencing in Class
iNK Think Tank has been pioneering a new kind of interaction with schools through Authors on Call, a group of…
As Good as It Gets
Over the years I have done countless school author visits, traveling to 49 states (only missing North Dakota) Canada and…
OpenID accepted here Learn more about OpenID
Education Update, Inc. All material is copyrighted and may not be printed without express consent of the publisher. © 2011.