[reading time: 20 minutes]

It seems obvious that undergraduates should use essays to answer the question that has been set. However, the main comment made on essay papers is “Answer the Question”. Academic guides often use detailed explanations of the terms used in questions to help students. However, as this complaint crops up time and again, there seems to be a more fundamental problem of communication between those creating questions and those required to answer. This piece is an attempt to address this by discussing why the essay is counterintuitive, then looking at what the ideas are behind an essay, and finally look at an alternative way of approaching the essay.

So why the difficulty?

Perhaps the chief explanation is that step-by-step reasoning and finding evidence to tackle a particular problem is not a regular occurrence for most. Take, for example, day-to-day conversations, the main way that people communicate ideas. In a conversation, ideas bounce back and forth. There is a to and fro of questions, examples, arguments, interpretations and interruptions. There are deviations from the main topic or an entirely new topic is created and then the old topic is revisited (or not). Even subtle alterations of body language and tone can change a discussion’s dynamics.

Also, narrowly focusing on a subject is rarely how we think. Our thoughts tend to wander from one thing to another. If, for example, you are reading a novel your imagination will start working. You might wonder what a character is feeling or what comes next or how it will all end. Thoughts often “jump out” rather than going from A, to B, to C. In many ways this type of thinking is a good thing. We are not computers or mathematical equations; we can use our imaginations, make strange and wonderful connections and develop unique points of view and novel insights.

This difference between everyday thinking and communication on the one hand and the academic attitude to writing about a problem on the other can help explain why students often feel uncomfortable with essays. In the same way that children finishing GCSE maths are happy never to have to solve a quadratic equation again, undergraduates on finishing their degrees can sometimes be heard saying how much they disliked essays and how pleased they are to see the back of them. There are two points here. The first is that students can experience essay writing as a constraint on how they normally think and express opinions. The second is that essay writing can seem a very artificial exercise which, like solving quadratic equations, by and large only occurs in education.

From the other side of the classroom there is another problem. The academic tutors that are insistent that the student “answer the question” already understand why this is important and have made this approach to knowledge an important part of their lives. Clarifying the need to answer the question can often seem like explaining the obvious. Explaining the reasons for setting questions in particular ways and getting answers that directly respond can also seem repetitive. Often the necessary working assumption is that “how to do essays” has been covered so that the tutor can get on with teaching their subject. Another factor at work is that lecturers are loathe to spell out details of a question because they want students to think about it and analyse it themselves. The result can be that many undergraduates are uncertain about why they are doing essays and being asked to conform to a rigid style of response. Sometimes, even as they collect their degrees, students have not quite understood why these degrees required such an amount of formal writing.

Having set out some of the reasons essays are unintuitive, what is the idea of having essays answering set questions? Are criticisms that essays are artificial and constraining correct? Why would someone create this type of obscure, anachronistic exercise? Couldn’t tutors be more flexible and instead accommodate students’ creativity? Why require them to stick rigorously to jargon-laden questions?

To understand the importance of essays, it is necessary to draw out how this type of formal writing is connected with the modern world’s approach to knowledge and how it is a partial solution to the limitations of previous forms of communication. The question for those wanting to test ideas and develop knowledge was (and is) how to do it. Informal discussion, the way that people have communicated for millennia, is often unsatisfactory. Although sometimes great insights can develop from a remark made in a conversation this is haphazard and often derives from a great deal of experience or prior thought. Instead, an approach is needed that is systematic and can continue developing.

A historical detour is useful here. The word “essay” first appeared in the fifteenth century where it meant to “test the quality of”. The fifteenth century English word developed from the Old French assay, itself a development of the Latin word exagium which means “weighing” (Oxford University Press, 2011). We still use weighing in everyday speech when talking about ideas: people are said to weigh up the arguments. Likewise in law, juries are asked to weigh the evidence. Justice has even adopted the symbol of a woman blindfolded with sword and weighing scale. The period when essay started being used is significant. The fifteenth century saw the drawing to an end of a period marked by superstition, often referred to as the Dark Ages. The idea of being able to test the quality of ideas was developing. Towards the end of the fifteenth century, in 1473, William Caxton produced the first English language printed book. Knowledge was expanding throughout Europe and, using this knowledge, previous ideas about the world were beginning to be tested. The century saw a doubling in the number of universities in Europe to satisfy a “thirst for knowledge”. These institutions were to play an important role in both the Protestant Reformation and the Renaissance (Grendler, 2004: 1-2).

It had become clear that our individual perception of the world was on its own insufficient to understand it. However even when we made and communicated discoveries, there could be facts that pointed to one conclusion and yet facts that pointed to the opposite conclusion. The solution was to apply logical reasoning to these discoveries. This involved creating theories based on a chain of reasoning and evidence – with each bit of evidence being checked and assessed – that sought to understand a particular problem. If a theory had been tested enough and still seemed to explain the situation then others could start to use the theory and do this without trying to understand every new thing as if it were completely new. Theories could then become tools or methods to help understand novel situations.

One example of how this works in practice is Darwin’s theory of evolution. Darwin collected detailed information about the wildlife on the Galapagos Islands and tried to explain the small variations in the birds he found there. His chain of reasoning led him to argue that natural variations within a species could produce a particular bird that did very well in its particular environment. This variation would allow the bird to survive and successfully raise offspring where other variations of bird would cause it to die or to produce less offspring. The successful variations would then become more common and the species would break into different types exploiting different food sources. Eventually the differences might become so large that entirely new species would emerge. Darwin posited that this process of natural selection explained the many species of wildlife. Over many years this theory has been tested as a way of seeing nature and now informs all those examining natural life. Scientists trying to answer the question of how characteristics were transferred and how variations were made looked for, found and modelled the double helix of DNA.

This might seem a world away to a young person entering higher education, but it isn’t. The idea of education today has often been skewed towards getting a job rather than the expansion of knowledge, and so an understanding of theories and facts might seem to be enough for employment. However, the modern approach to knowledge, because it runs counter to most daily activities and relies on what are often long chains of reasoning, cannot just be learned by repetition or reading a text book. Practice and application is required to get to grips with complicated theories and to see just how, where and to what they can be applied. The preparation in undergraduate education is to understand a subject and related theories in such a way that they can be applied later in unforeseen circumstances and so that approaches and insights emerging later in one’s professional life can be independently assessed and put to work.

It is an understanding of this modern form of knowledge that should sound a warning to students against seeing themselves as consumers receiving an education. Rather this education is made on purpose to put students in an uncomfortable position of having to start thinking in a different way. And rather than tuition providing answers, it provides theories, arguments, ideas and knowledge. It is the student who then has to practice using these theories – i.e. do essays – so that they start to understand them in a more complete way. The tutor can act as guide but no more than that.

An essay then can be seen as necessary practice in the construction of logical arguments using theory and evidence – so for a particular subject the question set must be made in such a way that it ensures this practice deals with the material being taught. The question is meant to be difficult so that it forces students to address difficult theories and complex evidence. If an essay question is set too narrowly then the subject that is being taught is not broadly explored. However, if the essay question is too broad then focus is lost and the subject matter cannot be covered in depth. This means that the question can be seen as being a guide that can be helpful to the student: if they answer the question they can greatly improve their understanding of the subject being taught. The process of writing about a subject, of fixing words on the page, is at the same time a process of making it more fixed in your own thought. In other words, by explaining it in your essay you are clarifying it to yourself.

The wording of the question is also an important part of getting the balance between breadth and depth right and thus ensuring the essay is an effective teaching/learning instrument. The words used in questions – such as “critical account”, “interpret”, “examine”, “explain” – are used in their most specific sense. The question often takes a long time to understand, however if the ten words of the question are to be converted into 2,000 words of writing then the time is well spent. There is another important point here and a clue to help in writing. Words themselves are the basic building blocks of an argument – the bricks and mortar. Starting to see specific meanings in words is an important discipline in this type of modern knowledge which allows more exact expression and meaning where required (similarly, sometimes words with fuzzier, less exact meaning are needed as part of constructing an argument). The implication here is that there can be as much content and meaning in each sentence you write yourself.

The discipline of concentration on a particular question might seem to be a limit on creativity but can rather be seen as framework to allow creativity. Think of the modern pop song. Its three minute format is a constraint which has allowed an explosion of talent to come forward since it was introduced. By having something fixed concentration can be maintained. Students who, later on in their degrees, do a dissertation where they get to decide on their own topic understand that there are much greater difficulties to be found there – although other constraints are added to the dissertation format. However, the bigger picture is this: once you start to master how to do an essay your ability to communicate in a way that others can understand, follow and, perhaps, agree with increases. Your point of view can be clearer in an essay, for example, than in an informal chat.

Having hopefully explained what is behind the essay and why it is important to answer the question, I want to suggest an analogy that is instructive and can help fix the correct type of approach in mind. There is a form of speech that has many similarities with essays: the legal trial. This is a type of formal discussion that was developed alongside modern thinking that we are all familiar with from movies, television and the newspapers. In a trial there are rules to the discussion. The judge uses these rules to ensure the discussion is conducted in the set order. Each side gets to present its full arguments and evidence, which is done largely uninterrupted by the opposing side. However, each gets to test the other’s arguments and evidence. The judge ensures that the evidence presented matches important criteria to do with its reliability. However, the judge also filters everything presented to the court so that it addresses a very narrow question. In a criminal trial this narrow question is: is the accused guilty of the charges presented against them. Here the judge forces the focus on facts and arguments that touch on that one question.

Let’s stretch the analogy to breaking point. In an essay you are a defence trial lawyer. The question of guilty or not guilty of the charges has been replaced by your essay question – only address the court with evidence relevant to this question. The jury are the readers you are addressing. They must understand the arguments you are making, be wowed by the expert witnesses you call who backup your arguments, be impressed by the evidence you present and they must follow the theory you are creating for what really happened that on that dark night. However you must also anticipate the prosecution lawyer. Where there is clearly evidence that contradicts your account you must attempt to discredit it and explain the presence of those bloodstains as the result of a domestic accident. You must use your expert witnesses against your opponent’s. You must make the opposing expert witnesses sound uncertain in cross-examination. Remember, if you put forward what is just your opinion then the judge will throw it out of court as speculation and if you don’t stick to the question then the judge will rule it out of order, embarrassing and discrediting you in front of the jury. At the end of the trial the only measure of success is if the jury thinks that you defended your answer to the question successfully.

One final note. It may be that often the student is presenting whatever they do know about the subject, because they haven’t done the work needed to answer the question or even to understand the question. Only by thoroughly reading about the subject, by tackling the reading list and by following up on your thoughts by research will you be in a position to answer the question. Poor preparation cannot be fixed by this piece. However, students who don’t address the question at hand are extremely frustrating to those marking essays and hopefully after reading this they might understand why.

Mark Beachill

References

Grendler, P. (2004) “The Universities of the Renaissance and Reformation”, Renaissance Quarterly, Vol. 57, No. 1 (Spring, 2004) Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1262373 (Accessed 20 April 2011) Oxford University Press (2011) “Essay: Oxford Dictionaries” Available at http://english.oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0273980#m_en_gb0273980 (Accessed 20 April 2011)

Exercise: write in a paragraph why it is important to answer the question in academic essays