Carol
Wittig
ENG
721/821
Abstract:
Research papers have been used in first-year composition
classes for many years as a process-exercise for teaching students about
academic research and writing. Many faculty
in the disciplines hold the belief that a “research paper” and its accompanying
“steps” can provide students with the knowledge and ability to then research
and write in the disciplines with practiced ability. Without connections to
disciplines or specific discourse communities, a generic research paper format cannot
be a beneficial learning experience for students. The research paper is still
too often approached via a legacy assignment from a not quite forgotten
current-traditional classroom.
Surrounded by concerns with the rules of grammar, organization,
citing sources and plagiarism, the possibilities and benefits of researched
writing are often overlooked. Alternatives are needed that encourage critical
thinking beyond compiling a required number of sources and reporting back what
students believe faculty “want” them to write. Connections are made and
concerns are raised between the concepts of information literacy, taught as
part of library instruction and expectations in a composition or first-year
writing classrooms.
Looking at methods for furthering invention, options are
presented for how students can approach research and enter a discourse
community through “new” doors. Liminal spaces, threshold concepts and “project”
based writing are all described as innovative approaches by which students can
move from research writing as “rhetoric of the finished word” to a “rhetoric of
doing,” stressing inquiry-based and disciplinary thinking.
This presentation and accompanying conference paper review the
research paper’s troubled past, as well as provide options for how this assignment
can be improved.
Bean, John C. Engaging Ideas: The Professor’s Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and
Active Learning in the Classroom. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA:
Josey-Bass, 2011.
Brent, Doug. “The Research
Paper: What is it and Why We Should Still Care.” Presented to the Canadian
Association for the Study of Discourse and Writing (draft under review), 2012.
Harris,
Joseph. Rewriting: How to Do Things with Texts. Logan, UT: Utah State
UP, 2006.
“Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education.” 2000. Association of
College & Research Libraries (ACRL). Accessed: October 9, 2013.
Jacobs, Heidi.
“Information Literacy and Reflective Pedagogical Praxis.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 34.3 (2008), 256-262.
Nelson, Jennie. “The Research
Paper: A ‘Rhetoric of Doing’ or a ‘Rhetoric of the Finished Word?’” Composition
Studies/Freshman English News 22.2 (1994): 65–75.
Norgaard,
Rolf. “Writing Information Literacy: Contributions to a Concept.” Reference Services Review 43.2 (2003):
124–130.
---.
“Writing Information Literacy in the Classroom: Pedagogical Enactments
and Implications.” Reference Services Review
43.3 (2004): 220–226.
Nutefall, Jennifer E, and
Phyllis Mentzell Ryder. “The Timing of the Research Question: First-Year
Writing Faculty and Instruction Librarians’ Differing Perspectives.” portal:
Libraries and the Academy 10.4 (2010): 437–449.
Purdy, James P., and Joyce R.
Walker. “Liminal Spaces and Research Identity: The Construction of Introductory
Composition Students as Researchers.” Pedagogy 13.1 (2013): 9–41.
Veach, Grace L. “At the
Intersection: Librarianship, Writing Studies, and Sources as Topoi.” Journal of Literacy and Technology 13.1 (2012): 102-129.
No comments:
Post a Comment