Research in the news.

A new research study on composition reports

An analysis of research papers written in first-year composition courses at 15 colleges reveals that many students simply copy chunks of text from the sources they cite without truly grasping the underlying argument, quality or context...

The researchers analyzed the students' 1,832 research citations and assigned each of them to one of four categories:

• Exact copying -- a verbatim cut-and-paste, either with or without quotation marks.
• "Patchwriting" -- the copying of the original language with minimal alteration and with synonyms substituting for several original words (patchwriting is often a failed attempt to paraphrase, they said).
• Paraphrasing -- a restatement of a source's argument with mostly fresh language, and with some of the original language intact; it reflects comprehension of a small portion, perhaps a sentence, of the source material.
• Summary -- the desired form of citation because it demonstrates true understanding of a large portion, if not the entirety, of the original text; summarizing was identified by the researchers when student writers restated in their own terms the source material and compressed by at least 50 percent the main points of at least three consecutive sentences

The paper speculates that this indicates a lack of engagement: apathy. Students don't care. They provide an example and conculde

students tended to rely heavily on their sources -- so heavily, in fact, that students rarely seem to fully own the material and marshal it to form a novel argument, the researchers said.

“The compelling, unnerving issue is that the student has nothing to say,” said Howard of the piece that drew so heavily on WebMD. “How could she, since she's writing a research document from reference materials?”

This is the big question. Why do students seem to have nothing to say? Part of the problem may stem from deficits of reading comprehension. Many students don't seem to understand what they read and balk at, or shy away from, meaningful resources. They don't read, but is it right to assume they can't? Or are they accustomed to pretending to be ignorant to keep instructors' expectations low. I used to do that. It was a big mistake.

The article also speculates that most sources are merely the first hits from a google search. Do students understand how lame that sounds? Why or why not?

I'm seeing this on the iSearch, which necessarily is topic that students care about. Maybe the research only looked at early drafts. I do want to see the process, but on the final paper reference material won't cut it.

This relates as well to something I'm seeing in the Metaphor paper. What's up with people quoting the dictionary? That's common knowledge. By college - dictionary definitions are assumed to be common knowledge - In the past I've chalked this up to a lack of sophistication or understanding of rhetoric, but perhaps it is instead (or as well) a deficit in research skills.

Research is an active process. It is a hunt: an exploration; an adventure. At least it is when it's done right.

I need to make reading logs regular assignments - and we need to do more "think/pair/share" in the classroom.

Quoting the dictionary: Faculty responses

In an unscientific poll of Composition 1 instructors at JCCC, 8 have weighed in. When asked how they felt when a writer quoted the dictionary in the introduction of an essay, 7 of 8 chose “Arrgh. I hate it” with the remaining voter selecting “I rarely see it work but it doesn’t bother me.” No one chose a positive (“I love it”) or neutral (“Fine. Whatever.”) response. The survey was anonymous, faculty had to follow a link, and perhaps that attracted only those with strong feelings; however, there seems a consensus that quoting from a dictionary does not succeed in comp. 1 classes or higher classes.

In response to the question I posed to the faculty list-serv , however; colleagues offered more useful, nuanced and reflective replies. I asked (all emphasis – bold – is mine):

How do instructors here feel about students quoting the dictionary (particularly in an introduction)? This may be a personal bias I need to address. I don’t generally like it, and I’ve had colleagues who felt strongly about it, but I once taught from a writing textbook that encouraged the practice…..-I’d like to be able to honestly tell students if this is a personal style issue specific to an individual instructor, or if citing the dictionary is generally unsuccessful with college writing professors.

Prof. Brannan explained:

particularly for developmental writers, patterns and other structure are critical. The dictionary gambit can be used as fluff--which it often is in Comp I, II, and beyond--but is useful for our 106 and 102 writers. It is especially useful when these students also see the classifying/dividing element in good dictionary definitions and have the concept of specific, detailed examples reinforced.

In the Precomposition class (roughly the equivalent to JCCC’s ENGL 106 ) I once taught elsewhere, the book suggested incorporating a dictionary definition. This lends support to Prof. Brannan’s thoughts. Prof. Lillich expressed:

I just finished grading a batch of definition essays and had several students use dictionary definitions as jumping off points/introductions. This is the developmental level in Engl 106, where the chapter on writing the definition essay suggests incorporating the dictionary into your pre-writing and using your specific definition in your essay. I really think it all depends on what level writing you are teaching AND who your students are.

There seems to be consensus. There’s a time and place for it, but Comp 1 students should be in the process of moving out of the practice. Prof Allen wrote:

At the risk of sounding like I worry about template writing a lot, I think this comes back to that. Students are given certain patterns, tricks of the trade early in their writing experiences and they are never moved out of that. What I don't know is why. Are they not given enough opportunities to think? After all, writing requires the ability to think not just regurgitate facts. Or are they encouraged to stick with what "works" for so long that they fear leaving the security of it? What I do know is that the definition opening is one of those strategies encouraged early on as an "opening technique" for young writers.

Maybe my overexposure to the technique (because I teach comp 1) has contributed to some sort of allergy. The repetitive exposure results in a numbness or fugue in others. Prof. Karle explains:

Dictionary definitions are boring and, as I tell my students, a missed opportunity to say something that is actually interesting to the reader and significant to the paper's argument. I also tell my students that if they must define a word, their own definition (for example of the word hero) would be far more interesting to the reader.

Prof. Schmeer tells writers that their goal is to:

grab our attention and “delight the reader”--that is, engage us and make us want to keep reading. Dictionary definitions are the written equivalent of Ben Stein’s character in “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.” It helps to show a YouTube clip of the roll-call scene in FBDO or read students papers aloud in a Ben Stein voice when you explain this. They get it right away…
But beginning writers need templates to follow. I think we all forget that we needed templates at some point, too. Learning to think isn’t easy. Learning to trust your thinking is harder. Learning to trust that what you put on the page is often a poor representation for what you think and you need to think harder and represent those thoughts better is impossible unless you are willing to put forth the effort.

I’m going to share the video link in class next semester to provoke a free write on the analogy Prof. Schmeer talks about (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7zYyTotwfE). I like analogies. Prof. Fitzpatrick posited:

I have always thought of things like modes or the known/new pattern or even “claim-logos support-pathos support-ethos support” models as solid training wheels for students to use while they are finding their bearings in this new world of academic writing. ….But you don’t keep training wheels on forever, and the trick is helping students know when to take those training wheels off —and I think it is particularly difficult in late 106 …and early Comp1 (where some students come in with the stock patterns, which have given them success in high school and that are damn near required for standardized tests, and assume every kind of thought can be squeezed into one of those templates). That is something that, in my opinion, needs to be done on an individual basis with the student and the intention of the essay. But, for me, the place to start is to make sure students understand that these things are training wheels (or scaffolding) that will disappear once the ideas have enough wherewithal to support themselves.

This dialogue responds to the question much better than a simple and reductive rule for or against a practice; hopefully my students will read it. Lance Armstrong could show up to a bike race with training wheels and those who knew of him wouldn’t laugh He’d likely win the race, but for most riders, once they reach sufficient proficiency with a bike the training wheels become a hindrance rather than a help. ( I imagine he’d use them like the wheel weapons in the chariot race in Ben Hur, or like those vicious chrome plastic lug nut covers on semis).

Prof. Heflin makes an important distinction and relates the question to larger issues of research

if the student feels compelled to justify her/his point of view on an idea with a definition, I require that they use an authoritative dictionary, not a common one....so I remind students that they are not doing research by using a common dictionary, but merely doing preliminary research. I push my students to realize that the easy sources can be accessed by anyone, but a scholar accesses the authoritative, hard to find sources, which helps to build the writer's own authority in the process… that is also the rationale I give about avoiding using Wikipedia or eHow or any other abbreviated or condensed encyclopedia--it is not authoritative enough in and of itself (besides other issues).

All comments collected from email over the period of 12/9/10 to 12/12/10 and reprinted with permission of the authors.

Citing the Dictionary

For some reason people like to start papers with by citing a dictionary. Maybe writers think it kills 2 birds with 1 stone in that a) it's an in-text reference and demonstrates a quote and b) gets something on paper.

I hate seeing quotes pulled from a dictionary. Call it a pet peeve; call it a fetish; call me an irascible curmudgeon and pedant, but it makes me cringe. I'd rather chew aluminum foil than read a dictionary quote of common word.

To make it worse, most dictionary quotes I see from students include several meanings of the word, in various parts of speech, and fail to identify what particular meaning will be focused on. It looks like filler - a great ploy to break writer's block and get started on a rough draft - but not something that should survive to a final draft.

I generally hate seeing dictionary quotes because its tried so often and almost never works - not that it can't be done. Maybe it's like cutting your own hair. I've known just one person who can pull it off, but I've know dozens who failed miserably. I strongly recommend against it. I can simply turn my head from looking at a bad haircut, but I'm required to read what students write, so for now I reserve the right to dock points for style.

I do encourage writers to define their terms as they use them, but be specific to the context and usage of your term, and define it in a way personally meaningful: preferably in your own words. All dictionary definitions of common words are going to be similar, so most such definitions are common knowledge and would be trite.

Mike Shapiro at UW- Madison writes

Three quick usage rules:

1. Incorporate a definition into your essay only when that definition is unusual and interesting—as a general rule, give definitions only for meanings that are uncommon (example: the theological sense of disgrace) or that have gone out of use since Shakespeare’s time.
2. Use the definition to further your argument. If you take the space to spell out an unusual meaning of disgrace but don’t explain how that unusual definition betters our understanding of the sonnet, that space will be wasted.
3. Don’t begin an essay with a definition. Although this might give you a way to break the blank page, your reader is more interested in the argument of your essay than in the OED definition of “love.”

A thread started on a public discussion board has a student asking if it's ok to quote the dictionary because her teacher said it was a rule she couldn't. There's a great discussion and only a little teacher-bashing.


Oh, and if one were to quote a dictionary, it'd better be the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), or a specialized dictionary like the Urban Dictionary or the Devil's Dictionary.

Real graphic for comparison contrast

While we're on the subject of sugar

From Laughing Squid

Venn Diagram defines terms: geeks, nerds, dorks, etc.

This excellent example of a Venn diagram was produced by The Great White Snark and recommended by Boing Boing. For image url double click on image, or http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z167/Great_WhiteSnark/Nerd_Dork_Geek_Venn_Diagram.jpg

What I'm learning Re: SRTOL Papers - Rhetoric

These comments apply to many papers.

I see semantic confusion facts vs. opinions (if this is a rhetorical ploy - it doesn't work on the well-educated; consider your audience).

I hear semantic confusion. Define terms as you will use them. The papers have taught me that voice may be to dialect what an individual is to a small community. Voice may be personal and unique - and dialect may be where we find social connections and collective identity. No class has discussed "Voice" as eloquently as this semester. Consult reference books but don't directly quote them unless absolutely necessary. Paraphrase - define for yourself. Goals of this class require demonstration of nuanced understanding of at least all the terms and concepts listed here. 2 people used the word "slang." What did I say about that? (Scroll down page of link to see written record).

People still call America a "melting pot"? For at least a couple decades (before most of you were born) I've read and been told this metaphor oppresses individual rights. Everything that goes into such a pot loses its individuality and unique/ distinctive characteristics and integrity. It disappears into the stew (or is it a pot of molten metal which produces new alloys? As a kid I saw metal), hence the politically correct image: we are a "tossed salad." Each item contributes to a whole while retaining its integrity and individual flavor. At least a dozen or so papers so far go off on the melting pot analogy. Is the tossed salad thing political correctness gone too far? Do we need the melting pot analogy? Why? Are students reacting against political correctness or have they simply been exposed exclusively to conservative/ dated images?

The people who founded this country spoke English so ... (immigrants should learn it, we should all have a standard dialect, etc)? This argument reminds me of the assertion that English was good enough for Christ, it should be good enough for immigrants. Re: English roots of our founders:

1. What about the millions of Native Americans who'd lived here for millennia. Don't they count? Why not?
2. What about California and the west, as well as Florida - which if we discount native Americans (big if) were settled by Spanish speakers and which Spain claimed or settled before England or colonials?
   
3. In lands added to the United States by the Louisiana purchase (from France) - this includes Kansas - the original white settlers/ missionaries spoke French.
4. BTW - Most know Kansas takes its name from the Kansa Indians - so why the superflous "s" at the end? Appleton's Journal- volume 15 page 758, published in 1876, as well as other sources - notes that it is the phonetic English pronunciation of notes taken by French missionaries. In French final "s" sounds get dropped. Our current state name results from a mispronunciation due to common ignorance of French and or the etymology of the name. If we appeal to tradition/ origins should we start pronouncing our state's name "Kansa"?

English is the most difficult language to learn? Says who? According to what criteria? What research or evidence supports this opinion (not fact)? I've heard this statement from people who speak only English, but I've never heard a non-native speaker of English say this. The polyglots I know rather emphatically say this is not true. Even a cursory web search (wikipedia, other) calls this assumption into question.

Response Comparison Contrast paper

This assignment assessed several things including:

1. thesis and/or thesis statement construction
2. research and citations
3. organization and rhetorical construction and success of argument.
4. all the mechanical and format concerns addressed on previous papers.
   

Several students have noted that the thing they liked most about this assignment is the range and freedom they have to explore their interests. Oddly, but perhaps predictably, that revealed the greatest common challenge we face - the crafting of workable thesis statements.

We need to do a workshop on the difference between a thesis and a topic. I've started a page collecting links to resources for the explanation of what a thesis statement is and tips on how to create one. Several links have online "thesis statement generators" which might be fun.

below are some thoughts and responses to what I've read this week.

Research
I'm a skeptic. I also come from a different background. You may live in a world where men are dominant and incapable of nurture, and women are never found driving cabs, working construction or in positions of leadership, but I've lived in places - both here and abroad - where these things can't be taken for granted.

Beware of unsubstantiated claims like, "some say," "research shows" and "people think." They need to be backed up with some kind of documentation. Without knowing who "they" are, these comments throw up red flags. What informs your opinion could be personal experience, a book or article you read, T.V. program, a video or other media available through ANGEL or class wiki, or whatever - but the reader needs to know where claims come from.

Even if you believe something to be true - imagine your audience. How well do you know them? Would they believe the same?

Several claims reminded me of a report I read that claimed second-hand smoke wasn't dangerous. When I looked up the original research it came from the National Tobacco Foundation or similar such agency. The research wasn't rigorous and it was biased. You can learn much by looking at people's research sources.

Wikipedia is more of an example of a research essay (a tertiary research soure) and not what college professors generally consider to be primary or secondary research source. I've long had a love -hate relationship with wikipedia - see previous post. But with wikipedia - it is their sources that are of more use. Check out their sources and draw your own conclusions.

And even if Wikipedia falls under "common knowledge" and therefor deemed unnecessary to cite - you must put anything you quote in quotation marks and provide documentation info on your works cited page. YOU CAN'T CUT and PASTE FROM ANYWHERE on the web without giving credit to your source - and believe me - people can tell.

Quoting sources
A general rule of thumb is that if 5 words or more in a row in your paper are found in your text you must put quotes around it - or if it is over 4 lines long set it off with a block quote. See quoting sources for details.

Anything cited, referred to, or quoted in your text must have documentation info on the works cited page. If not quotes or documentation exists and your reader finds the phrase word-for-word somewhere (and it's easy to catch - if you've taught a subject for a while and/or know how to use Turnitin.com)

Works Cited page
I advocate (and requested for this paper) a "Works Consulted" page rather than a "Works Cited" page per se, reasoning that any work that informed your opinion in researching this assignment should be referenced. I'm encouraging you to err on the side of caution. It's better to have a source on your works cited page that isn't referenced than not have a source that is used.

On the works page - each source should be formatted with a hanging indent. It's visually obvious when that isn't done. It screams "I didn't make the slightest effort to use any acceptable format for citations. I spit on MLA, APA, Chicago and Turabian." For instructions how to do this click here.

Coherence
Sleep deprivation (aka all-nighters), drugs and/or alcohol may seem like a source of inspiration - but the results are not coherent. Reread your drafts and make sure they make sense in the cold, sober, light of day.

Sources
In class, our sources have been decidedly feminist - you may be interested in:

• Cathy Young - proponent of equity feminism. Born in the USSR, but fluent in English as anyone, she's brilliant and not embraced by either feminists or masculists
• identity politics - I just learned of the term from my dialogue with you all over this paper. I haven't decided what to make of it or how (or if) to apply the lesson to my class
  
• wikipedia page on income disparity (thanks P)
• Warren Farrell - only man elected to the National Organization for Women's board of directors 3 times. He's now an icon of Men's Studies.
  

Questions from my reading of your papers

1. What is the relationship between care or nurture and dominance? Are they mutually exclusive?
2. Can one provide for another without it affecting power in the relationship?
3. Is gender disparity in any profession ever a good thing?