Research Paper Writing

 Another old grad school paper I found while looking for something entirely different. 

Writing Process
Enrico
November 27, 2007

New Structures for Research Writing

    Patricia J. Collins' “Bridging the Gap” raised my interest in investigating research paper writing.  All the freshmen at Leavitt complete a big research project every spring.  For the three years we have given the assignment, no one has been satisfied.  The students find the project long, boring, and unrelated to their lives and other content.  Meanwhile, the teachers feel frustrated that the students merely repeat the information they found, sometimes not even in their own words.  They show no determining of importance or synthesis of ideas.  This project frustrates my whole network, and I hoped to find some information that we could apply this spring when we undertake our research project again. 
    The three articles I found were all from College Teaching.  Initially, I was concerned that the information would not apply to high school freshmen, but because the research papers described were for college freshmen, the information actually fit very well.  Each article discussed the typical college freshmen research paper done in a writing course that is meant to give students an overview of how to do research.  This is the same purpose of our high school freshmen research project: we aim to prepare them for the research they will do the other years of high school.  All three articles present ideas to get students to use critical thinking while researching, synthesizing information, and enlivening their writing.  Also, all three work on breaking the large assignment down into smaller more manageable pieces. 
    James E. Foley's “The Freshmen Research Paper” (2001) details a research project with a different focus.  Tired of boring research papers, Foley assigned students people instead of topics.  However, he did not want reports on celebrity gossip and trivia, so he chose predominate persons in their majors.  Foley used examples of New York Times obituaries as models to show students how to focus on the person's work, not the details of his or her life.  The students' end products would be to write obituaries for their assigned person, but they also had smaller assignments due along the way to help scaffold their work on the project.  In the end, Foley found that not only were the majority of papers no longer boring, but that the students' overall work was much better showing growth not only on research but also on writing.
    Unlike, Foley's article, the other two pieces did not focus on the project as a whole, but rather gave ideas for the structure of the assignment presented to the students.  Stephen L. Broskoske's “Prove Your Case: A New Approach to Teaching Research Papers” (2007) suggests elaborating for students the connection between a lawyer preparing a case and the students preparing their research papers.  Broskoske states, “I draw out the analogy in terms of how lawyers frame their case (as the students define their topics), search out evidence (as the students search for sources), present the evidence (as the students write the paper), and make the closing argument (as the students draw conclusions)” (2007).  Using popular trials currently occurring in the media, Broskoske links the considerations lawyers must take while preparing a case to the decisions student must make as they follow the research process, such as narrowing a topic, presenting creditable evidence, and using an authoritative tone.  Broskoske concludes that the majority of students who used this approach would recommend it and use it again.
    Mardi Mahaffy's “Encouraging Critical Thinking in Student Library Research: An Application of National Standards” (2006) compares to Broskoske's article in that it gives ideas on how to present the research assignment.  This piece discusses the wording of the research assignment or prompt.  Mahaffy presents the five standards for information literacy published by the Association of College and Research Libraries and explains how re-wording a traditional research assignment can help students to demonstrate those standards.  For each of the five standards, Mahaffy explains how re-writing part of an assignment can lead students toward meeting that standard.  For example, to help students “determine the nature and extent of the information needed” Mahaffy suggests asking students to build their background knowledge on a topic using an encyclopedia and then craft two possible thesis statements as opposed to a more traditional assignment which would merely state “choose an issue that you would like to explore further” (Mahaffy 2006).  Unlike the others, Mahaffy does not present any data on how well using this technique works. 
    In my research, I only found two points in these readings lacking for my own personal use.  First, Broskoske's ideas would probably not work for my students.  Most of them would not have the appropriate background knowledge on how a court case or lawyer works for them to understand the analogy.  If we wanted to create a new project that also discussed court cases, maybe something that linked to a text with a trial (ex. To Kill a Mockingbird) or a text that could have a mock trail, then this would perhaps merit the amount of pre-teaching that would be involved to make the analogy accessible for the students.  Secondly , since these articles were for college students, one area was overlooked.  None of the articles discussed formats of or management for note taking.  I found Collins' description of taking notes without looking at the original text unrealistic.  Not only do my students use printouts and photocopies that they will like to highlight, but I would never chose to take notes in that fashion myself.  Since Collin's discussion of note taking left me unsatisfied, this is an area I can investigate further in the future.
    Foley's ideas match my students the best.  Currently, my school has a research project that is based on science content.  The students do not invest in the topics that are handed to them.  Also, my freshmen are not familiar and comfortable with scientific non-fiction and the lack of adequate background and models makes the writing of the paper difficult for them, which aligns with what we have discussed about modeling in class and read in Spandel's chapter on watching others write (Spandel 2005).  Foley's use of obituary format enlivens the writing and provides an accessible model for students, both of which my students need.  The creativity necessary to write an obituary reminded me of the types of projects presented in Collins' piece.  When I read “Bridging the Gap,” I found the list of formats available for presenting their final projects interesting, creative, and fun (Collins 1990).  While I want to offer my students engaging choices for how to present their information, I also see the importance of practicing the non-fiction format.  Keeping that in mind, overall, Foley's topics and format could improve the research assignment, making it more accessible to my students. 
    Similarly, the way Foley breaks down the project also would aid my students.  I am particularly interested in the library scavenger hunt he mentions because Collins did not discuss locating sources because she gathered the materials for her younger students.  While both the librarian and science teachers at Leavitt gather some sources, our goal is for students to locate and evaluate their own sources.  All students get library orientation, but it isn't very gripping.  Having a scavenger hunt once or twice after the orientation would help the students to apply and review the information.  The format would be competitive and fun and could be positively reinforced with prizes.  Foley's annotated bibliography and oral presentation would also work well for my students because we focus on citing and speaking skills freshmen year. 
    Lastly, just before the final assignment is due, Foley takes a week to conference individually with each student.  This connected to Collins' article as well.  She describes how she did status of the class inventories and meets with students during working time to help them along.  Even though Foley is formal and Collins informal, both styles of conferencing give students direct help with their projects.  Currently, the freshmen research project in my school is used as a local assessment and for that reason I am not allowed to help the students much or else it influences the validity of the scores.  However, I want to conference with my students to help.  So often, students just need a little extra help with citing, flow, or adding analysis and I am unable to give them that while they are working. 
    Due to my frustration with our current project and enthusiasm for Foley's ideas I am planning to present my research to my network in hopes that we will scrap, or at least revise, our current assessment and try one which provides more opportunity for the students to connect to their topics, provides more models for the final project, and assesses not only the end product, but many steps along the way giving helpful feedback.  If my network is willing to create a new assessment, we could also use Mahaffy's ideas on how to word the prompts to get more critical thinking.  As our assessment is at present, students are handed a topic by their science teacher and told to research it with a focus on current findings and that they must have one Internet, one journal, and one book source minimum.  This assignment prompt is exactly like the traditional one Mahaffy presents in this article.  Even if we do not create a new assessment, we at least need to re-word our current one so the directions prompt the information literacy standards Mahaffy discusses (determining the scope of the project, accessing needed information, evaluating sources, accomplishing a purpose with the research, and understand legal issues of researching like plagiarism) (Mahaffy 2006). 
    Two of Mahaffy's ideas raise interesting points that contrast our current research assignment.  First, Mahaffy criticizes dictating to students an exact type and number of sources.  He states, “prescribing the types of sources the student is to use sidesteps an opportunity to help the student in developing critical thinking skills” (Mahaffy 2006).  He explains that when students investigate all types of sources, they must evaluate them more fully on their own; while independence is an ultimate goal at Leavitt, our current assignment structure might be limiting the students.  Secondly, Mahaffy mentions using an annotated bibliography in substitution for a formal paper.  He describes students documenting all of their sources and then writing about how each source was useful or not useful and which source was overall most valuable.  This assignment  would work well for the goals of our current freshmen research assessment.  For this assignment, the English department is only concerned with research process, not writing.  The annotated bibliography would be easier for the students to write and the teachers to grade while also fostering in-depth evaluation of sources.  However, the downfall of this assignment is that the students may not ultimately synthesize the information they have gathered if all that was asked of them was a bibliography. 
    Overall, I found it enlightening that college professors struggle with the same problems I do with my high school researchers.  I am excited to present the ideas I have discovered to my network in hopes of bring about some effective change to our assessment. 


Works Cited
Broskoske, Stephen L.  (2007).  Prove Your Case: A New Approach to Teaching Research Papers.
      College Teaching.  55.  31-32.
Collins, Patricia J.  “Chapter 2: Bridging the Gap,” pp. 17-31.  Coming to Know: Writing to Learn in
     the Intermediate Grades, 1990.  New York: Heinemann Educational Books. 
Foley, James E.  (2001).  The Freshmen Research Paper.  College Teaching.  49.  83-86. 
Mahaffy, Mardi.  (2006).  Encouraging Critical Thinking in Student Library Research: An Application
     of National Standards.  College Teaching.  54.  324-327. 
Spandel, Vicki.  (2005).  The Nine Rights of Every Writer.  New York: Heinemann.