Perceptions of writing prowess in honours economic students

Abstract

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.