cac.ophony.org

To what extent should the acquisition of knowledge be a goal in education? In his article “How Knowledge Helps,” which appears in the Spring 2006 American Educator, cognitive psychologist Daniel T. Willingham argues, against much current opinion, that knowledge is more than just “grist for the mill”—raw material important only “because if we want our students to learn how to think critically, they must have something to think about.” According to Willingham, numerous studies in fact show a direct correlation between the amount of knowledge someone possesses and the degree to which she is successful in taking in, thinking about, and remembering new information. “The rich get richer,” as Willingham puts it.

For those of us involved with communications education, this would clearly be an argument in favor of content-rich initiatives like Writing in the Disciplines. Yet I can’t help but wonder what the “matter” of effective writing actually is, outside of the content the writer is attempting to control. More importantly, if there is writing knowledge per se, how is it acquired? I would guess that it is learned in the same way that spoken language is: through imitation. If so, the richer our contact with good writing is, the richer our writing will be (at least potentially).

Is there anything to this? Does anyone know of any studies investigating the relationship between how well one writes and how much one has read? What role should reading play in our efforts to improve writing skills?