How We Understand: Using Student Writing to Assess Insight: Final Report 
Submitted to the Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

Patti Owen-Smith
Oxford College of Emory University
Atlanta, GA

Introduction

For the past several years I have taught courses in two interdisciplinary programs: Women's Studies (WS 208 " The Psychology of Women ) and Violence Studies (VS 385G - Sexual Assault Prevention Seminar).  Both of the courses share a common denominator in that each includes a theory /practice component and is writing intensive, each is taught from a feminist perspective, and each utilizes a collaborative, student centered pedagogy. However, for me, these courses are also woven together in a far more profound way. Each course appears to "ignite" the life of the mind in a way I have not seen in the more traditionally constructed courses.  In my experience the "epiphanies of learning" or the moments of spontaneous intellectual clarity, so valued by those of us committed to teaching and learning, are far more abundant and well articulated in these classrooms.  It is as if interdisciplinary work, praxis, writing, and a collaborative, engaged pedagogy join together to create Palmer's (1998) notion of a "pathway out of a thicket." 

While educational and cognitive psychologists are quick to define "insight," little empirical research is available to assess its occurrence in the classroom setting. Too, more often than not the methodology employed to document change in student understanding and insight involves an approach that privileges the teacher's perceptions over the learner's.  Ironically, very little emphasis has been placed on the voices of learners as important and necessary assessment tools.

My project investigated the "epiphanies" or insights in the learning process utilizing the student's perspective as manifested in her/his writing. The specific questions I sought to explore were the following: When and how does a moment of clarity occur for the student and what is the vocabulary used by the student to describe the specific insight?   What are the qualities embodied in insight?  Does the specific complexion of the course shape the moment of insight and if so how (i.e. what part, if any, is played by theory-practice or service learning, interdisciplinarity, a feminist perspective, and a collaborative pedagogy?) 

Methods

 Weekly journals in the Violence Studies seminar (N=15 students) and final reflection papers in the Women's Studies class (N=25 students) were used as data.  The journals in the Violence Studies seminar consisted of weekly 2-3 page responses to any aspect of the course and as such, served as a type of  ungraded, "free writing"  assignment.  The reflection papers in the Women's Studies class represented a graded, single assignment at the end of the semester whereby students reflected on their theory/practice experience in the community. 

The majority of cognitive psychologists and learning theorists generally agree that an  "insight" is a form of problem solving and involves what appears to be a sudden understanding of how elements of a situation are related or can be recognized to achieve a solution.  Therefore, as evidence of student-perceived insight, I coded only those sentences or phrases in the journals or reflection papers where this "sudden understanding" was clearly described by the student (i.e. "I just now realized," I've never thought of that until now," I see this all of a sudden," This is an eye-opening experience," etc.).  Two external readers also reviewed my coding approach and were in agreement with 96% of the selected entries. 

One hundred and nine insight descriptions in the Violence Studies Seminar and 61 insight descriptions in the Women's Studies class were documented (Total N= 170).  Seven categories of insight emerged from the analysis: 

            1.  Insight is the connection between the theoretical and the personal/emotional.

            2.  Insight is the discovery of information that refutes a belief; a "disorienting moment."

3.  Insight is the understanding of that which was previously misunderstood.

4.  Insight is disturbing producing confusion and struggle.

            5.  Insight is re-thinking  that which was known .

            6.  Insight is expanded understanding; knowing something at a deeper level.

            7.  Insight is produced by others; a received knowledge.

While all of the students' self-reported descriptions of insight fell into one of the above categories, the complexion and depth of the descriptions differed considerably and appeared to fall along a continuum.   In an effort to capture these differences for each category I assigned three dimensions for each category:            

Dimension 1  - The insight experience is reported as sudden with no reference to past events or future applicability; the insight is context specific.  Evidence provided is descriptive but not interpretative.

Dimension 2  - The insight experience draws upon a past event (s) that serves to illuminate the present understanding.  Evidence provided is descriptive, explanatory, and interpretative.

Dimension 3 " The insight experience draws upon both past and present events that facilitate personal connection to and future applicability of the subject matter. Evidence provided is descriptive, explanatory, interpretative, empathic, and evidences some self-knowledge.

Examples of student descriptions of insight are reflected in Appendices I and II.

Analysis and Discussion

            The purpose of this project was to investigate the meaning of insight as described by students.  Forty undergraduate students in two different classes described seven categories of insight.  I assigned three dimensions to each category in an effort to capture the differences in student expression of insight.  Several findings are noteworthy.

            As can be see in Appendix III 55% of all insight descriptions fell into two categories: Category 1 (Insight is the connection between the theoretical and the personal/emotional) and Category 7 (Insight is produced by others; a received knowledge). It is not surprising that a large number of insight descriptions fell into Category 1given that both of these classes were structured around a political ideology and both involved a service learning component.  It seems apparent that insight might be facilitated significantly by both the opportunities to connect theory with practice as well as explore the challenges embedded in political ideology, particularly if that ideology is unfamiliar..  As Wiggins and McTighe (1998) consistently suggest in Understanding by Design, the development of deep understanding and insight is most likely to occur when students are given the opportunity to "practice trying out ideas and re-think what they thought they knew" (p. 21).  Evidence from these two classes, once again, suggests that the possibility for insight is more likely when the student can apply concepts and principles to real-life experiences and then confront their effects. Surprisingly, however,  (and perhaps sobering) was that an even larger percentage of descriptions fell into Category 7.  Many students wrote about their respective insights in passive voice or in passive ways as if knowledge and understanding came from sources external to the self.  There appeared to be no ownership of their own process of understanding nor sense of their personal voice, authority, or agency.  In spite of the fact that both classes utilized a collaborative, student centered pedagogy, many students continued to operate out of an "insight-as-received" mode.  Interestingly, when students did attempt to claim responsibility for their insight they often labeled it as either "confusion" or "frustration." In fact, 16% of student descriptions were in Category  4 (Insight is disturbing producing confusion and struggle). Similarly, students would often discount their insights with such phases as "I am probably nuts in saying this" or admit embarrassment that the insight was not recognized earlier (i.e. "Why did it take so long to make me realize the meaning.").  These findings should serve as potent reminders to us as teachers that the majority of our students have been well-socialized in institutions that not only support this mode of received knowledge but continue to encourage it in their curricular and pedagogical design.  Our students have learned to trust external voices and distrust and even deny their intuitive understandings.  Therefore, a "deconstruction" of these structures and modes of learning might be one of our first tasks in developing voice and personal authority in our students.

            As is noted above, the complexion and depth of the descriptions in each category differed considerably and seemed to reflect three dimensions of insight, each appearing qualitatively different from the other.  Although I have conceptualized these differences as dimensions, they might possibly be thought of as stages since Dimensions 2 and 3, in comparison to Dimension 1, reflect deeper understanding (i.e. interpretation, empathy, self-knowledge).   It is noteworthy that the majority of insight descriptions fell into Dimensions 1 and 2.  In fact, Dimension 3 responses were reflected in less than .005 % of student descriptions in Categories 3,4,5,6, and 7 (See Appendix IV).  Many interpretations might be offered.  Certainly this conceptual framework is based on students' written articulation of their insight and might not adequately capture the depth and breadth of their actual insight should they be given the opportunity to verbally describe their experiences.  Clearly follow-up interviews might add a deeper understanding of stages of insight development.  However, these findings suggest that insight is not static but rather a process and that there are qualities to and degrees of insight and understanding. These results also indicate that like deep understanding, this third dimension of insight might entail a more sophisticated analysis, one that requires a longer process but one toward which we as teachers might hope to move our students.

            While one of the questions I sought to answer involved whether or not the specific complexion of the course shaped the moment of insight, I found no clear connection between one particular method (i.e. service learning, interdisciplinarity, a feminist/collaborative pedagogy, etc).  Each of these methods was mentioned on a regular basis and, therefore, implied importance to the student: yet, no one single method seemed particularly more contributory to the insight in comparison to the others.  Although it was not my intent to compare the two classes since both were structured differently and involved radically different materials, I was impressed with the greater depth and richness of the journal entries as they elucidated the development of insight.  As Appendix III indicates, the incidence of reported insights was  greater in the Violence Studies Seminar where journals were used in spite of the fact that there were fewer students in this seminar (N=15) in comparison to the Women's Studies class (N=25).  The journals involved daily writing and reflection and as all writing teachers know, thinking and writing are intimately connected and significantly facilitate each other's development.  As Van Manen (1990) eloquently suggests in his commentary on hermeneutic phenomenological writing, "Writing teaches us what we know, and in what way we know what we know ….it allows us to reclaim knowledge and make it our own in a new and more intimate manner"  (p. 127).  If we as teachers are to empower our students as intuitive knowers and dissuade them from a sole reliance on external ways of knowing, it seems axiomatic that consistent writing is a pedagogical mandate.

            The conceptual framework of students' descriptions of insight reflected in the appendices and discussed above is markedly similar to some of our contemporary models of understanding.  Mansilla and Gardner's (1998) four Qualities of Understanding that include naïve, novice, apprentice, and master understanding capture many of the same characteristics that I found in the three dimensions of each category of insight.  Similarly, Wiggins and McTighe's (1998) six Facets of Understanding: explanation, interpretation, application, perspective, empathy, and self-knowledge are also clearly reflected in these dimensions.  This suggests that students'perspectives of their own insight and understanding appear very close to many of those teachers who are evaluating them as well as teaching for these qualities.  The good news is that we as teachers and learners may, after all, be on the same page!

            John Dewey noted that understanding usually comes from reflection and that reflection begins in doubt, hesitancy, or surprise.  The students in this study described insight in ways that indicated a sudden experience of enlightenment.  As is demonstrated in Appendices I and II, the vocabulary used by these students did capture in various ways Dewey's notions of doubt, hesitancy, and surprise.  However, for those students whose descriptions I assigned to dimensions 2 and 3, it seemed clear that insight is a process that both fuels and is fueled by reflection and as such represents both the beginning and culmination to deep understanding.

References

     Mansilla, V. B. and Gardner, H. (1998).  What are the Qualities of Understanding? In M. S.

     Wiske  (Ed.) Teaching for Understanding.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers

     Moustakas, C. 1994). Phenomenological Research Methods. London: Sage Publications

     Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching Lived Experience. New York: State University of New York Press

     Wiske, M. S. (1998). Teaching for Understanding. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers

     Wiggins, G. and McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by Design. Alexandria, Virginia: Association

For Supervision and Curriculum Development

Appendix I
How students Describe Insight  - Violent Studies Seminar

Appendix II
How students Describe Insight - Psychology of Women Class

Appendix III
Distribution of Insight Descriptions by Class and Category

Appendix IV
Distribution of Insight Descriptions by Dimensions and Categories