If you use something, cite it!

Some salty language at the end if you scroll down, but it makes a good point. Original source here.

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.

Library Research Orientation

One point the librarian made that bears repeating - research takes time. I'm not talking about the reading of articles (that takes even more time) but finding good research is work. Students who got "A's" and "B's" last semester said they spent over 30 hours on research alone. That doesn't include the writing of the paper at all. This was easy for them because they picked topics they felt passionate about.

An idiom allegedly from Chinese goes, "if you give someone a fish, they eat for a day. If you teach them to fish they eat for a lifetime." Our goal in our class is teaching - and skills that transfer to a lifetime of use.

You have to hunt for research (hence the word "search" embedded in the term). CQ Researcher is like a barrel of fish for you to shoot at - I hope most of you don't need it - it doesn't impress me. It is not a database but an encyclopedia published in a journal format. Its primary virtue is ease of use. Sure, we may get more calories in you if we spoon-feed pre-digested information, but it isn't the calories that are important, but the ability to provide for ourselves. And CQ Research is processed. Sure a McDonald's Filet-o-fish will provide more fat and calories (not to mention salt) than a fish you catch and prepare for yourself - but is is far less healthy, and ultimately less satisfying. We only prefer the taste if we've been raised on a diet of deep-fried and slathered in fat.

To teach this subject better, in the future I should create a handout with links - that students can follow. I also need to clarify that students NEED time to work on their own research.
Databases I recommend:

• Academic OneFile link
• JStor
  
• ERIC
• Gale (3 different databases - I'm thinking Gale Virtual is the way to go first).
  
• PsycArticles
  

Resources I would use sparingly - no more than one source per paper.

• Wikipedia - not a bad place to start to learn language and to poach resources, but it's a lot like peeing in the shower: not something you need to brag about.
  
• CQ Researcher. It's research lite. It may be credible, but it doesn't impress anyone. In some ways it's inferior to wikipedia. The same scatological analogy applies.
  

Another thought on comments made regarding procrastination: computers changed the process and meaning of "writing a paper." 30 or 40 years ago research was done with bound indexes, card catalogs that took up enormous space, and rows and rows of physical books. Writers would copy from books by hand into notecards (or notebooks) then rearrange notes and recopy by hand into their notebook rough drafts - and repeat until the last minute and TYPING often happend the night before the paper was due.

Research today all happens at a computer/ word processor - so "writing" isn't divorced from research - but the two are connected throughout the process. Also, the myth of writing a paper the night before it's due in college and still getting an "A" is an college urban myth that ranks right up there with the one about people who only show up for tests and Ace classes - or that drinking bong water is an awesome psychedelic experience.

Why might fools or sociopaths repeat these college myths?

Alcove Spring

There isn't too much on Alcove Springs online yet, except where it's mentioned in just about every account of the ill-fated Donner party. I'm collecting resources, so let me know if you have anything. I'm helping a niece with a research project and started to get interested. It has an undiscovered feel to it, though it was one of the first and most popular stops along the Oregon Trail.

When I was growing up nearby, the spring was private property, and so not many people actually saw it. That helped preserve the site. The associations with cannibalism and doom likewise didn't appeal to many (not to mention band of agnostic vigilantes rumored to protect the site), but as several pioneers noted in their logs, it might be one of the most romantic spots in the country, and it feels unspoiled.




Don't know why blogger want's to rotate the ancient graffiti. Ironic that preserving graffiti is important to maintaining the spot, but the name was carved by one of America's most famous cannibals.


Been thinking about the bittersweet my niece found on the trail. There was no vine in sight and I looked, and the stuff brings a good price at farmer's markets... so I'm thinking somebody inappropriately harvested it and dropped a twig on the way out.

I love this place, but don't want it to get more famous.

iSearch: advice

1. It's never been a good sign when a writer changes topics without including research from their initial idea. It generally indicates procrastination and lack of effort. Will have to rewrite prompt to control this. Either take one of my suggestions, or show research from initial topic and
   
2. 2 hours reading research is not a sincere effort. For a capstone project assigned the first day of class you should expect to spend at least 15 hours reading, and that doesn't include time spent looking for material. Heck, we spent 3-4 hours in class finding material this semester.
3. ALL work read should be included in your works consulted. Yes, I understand tutors may tell you that if you don't directly cite a source it doesn't go on your works page. That isn't exactly true - if information is not common knowledge the source deserves to be cited. The assignment prompt asks for ALL WORK READ on a "works consulted" page.
   
4. If information is common knowledge it shouldn't go in your "what I learned" page.
   
5. Citing an encyclopedia, dictionary, ehow, Wikipedia, about.com, or ask.com is like peeing in the shower. I don't care that you do it, but please don't talk about it. Quoting such sources makes you look bad.
   
6. 
   

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.

Why I want to do quantitative research

I'd like my dissertation to look at quantitative data related to student use of online educational network technologies and sucess in writing classes: that is if my committee will agree.

I've heard from a few colleagues - and at least one technology guru - that I should look at actual writing and do pre and post tests of authentic writing. Eventually I will - but that's not the research I need to do first.

Everyone understands that writing today involves technology - in the product and in the process - but I want to recognize in my research that success in writing involves more than coding lexical items in conventional syntax - it also involves crafting educational identities and finding one's voice, it involves negotiating new and fluid cultural rules, it involves making friends with one might have an authentic audience for one's writing, it involves peer feedback, establishing trust, complaining about teachers and having fun.

It has been thoroughly documented how difficult - if possible - it is to control an experiment on live humans for all the different linguistic input between a pre and a post test. In order to perform any meaningful analysis of authentic writing in order to examine the effects of technology - a monumental amount of research needs to be done on the specific context of the population.

Also, meaningful change on core educational skills like reading and writing happens over time. No intervention so far has had drammatic effect in less than a semester or even year, so what conclusions we gather over said intervention's effect is suspect.

One challenge is the bias against quantitative research among English teachers. I agree with an old business teaching colleague / reverend who used to say "statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is interesting, but what the conceal is vital;" however, that doesn't make swimwear irrelevant or useless. And while skinnydipping may be a more natural and authentic experience, I wouldn't do it in a river or lake without going in first with a suit. I've been in more than my fair share of ponds and rivers, and the first time you go in one should always wear a suit - and I recommend foot coverings as well. It may slow down your swimming, but cutting yourself or slipping on rocks can be worse.

Textbook Annotated Bibliography

How to write an annotated bibliography is covered in depth in the Comp 121 textbook. You can also check our social bookmarking site for loads of references online.

NOTE:

1. Refer to MLA handbook for how to cite sources - examples may be dated and
2. Double space everything.
3. Examples for visual reference - not arbiter of accuracy.
4. click on images of samples to enlarge.
5. Like everything else - it needs a heading. Don't trust the samples tho - too many are wrong - and that's just evil.
6. MLA handbook free online here. How to cite a work in an anthology (many English textbooks are anthologies) page 16, Sample Student Paper on page 40 (see this for heading format and page # placement).
   

Spotting bias in texts (cherry picking part 2)

Sugar is good food (!?)The good folks at Boing Boing shared this after finding it at an individuals blog dedicated to vintage ads.

See also: Fox News Advocates Shutting Down Libraries

Zen and the Art of Cherry Picking.

Road trip to dad's to help out on the farm got me thinking about the fundamental interconnectedness of all things, and how picking cherries relates to teaching and learning writing.

1. The tendency for novice writers to "cherry pick" their data. It doesn't strengthen a writer's position to ignore data that may not agree with your a priori position (what you thought before you learned anything). Teachers want you to look around, become an expert and present a balanced look at the situation, then clearly define and articulate your position. Besides, rejecting too many choices shuts you off to possibilities and limits your experience.

2) "Bruised fruit can sometimes turn out to be the sweetest" (Grandma Dixon). It takes some experience to know what is and isn't useful, so don't be too picky and don't be afraid to benefit from collaboration and judgement of others. Someone else will be washing and pitting - they can help you when you have doubts - better to pick than to leave it on the tree. Just because an article doesn't look like it supports what you think your thesis will be - reading the article may provide ideas that will - or maybe your position will change to something easier to defend - which isn't necessarily bad. Some positions deserve to be changed. That's learning.

3) Going after low-hanging fruit is easy - but less rewarding than you might think. It's harder to find anything original that hasn't been consumed by anyone walking by if it's really easy to access. Like using wikipedia. It's low-hanging fruit: easy to access and generally thought to be up for grabs by anyone - but technically it does belong to the owners of the tree and or land it grows on. If it's community property then it isn't worth quoting. A little work will improve your experience exponentially. (needs work).

4) You think you've picked a spot clean - leave and come back and discover by looking at it from a different angle there's a lot you missed. Revisiting places you've been can be rewarding. Reread research - and search again using different terms and word choices.

5) It isn't about the cherries. My young son helped pick this year. He picked some bad cherries, he provided many distractions and kept my dad and I from being productive, and he on several occasions dumped perfectly good cherries into the grass for reasons that don't make sense to anyone over 3. But it wasn't just about the cherries. We could have bought the fruit at the market for less than what we spent on gas if that was it. He was learning. I was maybe teaching. Three generations of family were spending time together.

What can you learn thru Read/Write web; what skills are needed (research notes)

Luckin et al. (2009) asks how the read/write web interacts with learning and what sort of skills support the kind of learning that happens in this environment, and notes that researchers (Buckingham, 2007; Green and Hannon, 2007; Jenkins, 2006) have identified "learner criticality" as a constellation of essential cognitive skills. I'll have to read up on these sources to be sure of how the term is used, but it seems to be a more specific subset of meta-cognitive skills - which is an awareness and knowledge of self and learning - learning to learn.

Luckin et al's study of 11-16 year old British students found low use of wiki's (save for Wikipedia), blogs and podcasts by students, and high use of social networking sites, such as Facebook. The tremendous potential of the former applications are not as embraced by youth as we might have thought. Indeed, they found,

The types of activity revealed by the data illustrated little evidence of critical enquiry or analytical awareness, few examples of collaborative knowledge construction, and little production or publishing outside social networking sites. We also confirm the low level of computer activity at school when compared to use at home and also illustrate the difference in the type of activity being undertaken inside and outside school (100).

Luckin et al. also note a lack of sophistication in research and a lack of higher order thinking skills. We should remember that the population studied were only 11-16 years old, but elsewhere Carr (2010) argues that modern technology creates consumers of information who are less equipped to think deeply or construct meaning from that information.

Works Cited

• Buckingham, D. 2007. Beyond technology: Children’s learning in the age of digital culture. Cambridge: Polity.
• Carr, N. 2010. The Shallows Norton & Co.
  
• Green, H., and C. Hannon. 2007. Their space: Education for a digital generation. London: Demos.
• Jenkins, H., K. Clinton, R. Purushotma, A. Robison, and M. Weigel. 2006. Confronting the
  challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Chicago:
  MacArthur Foundation.
  
• Lenhart, A., and M. Madden. (2005). Teen content creators and consumers. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
• Luckin, R. et al. (2009)"Do Web 2.0 tools really open the door to learning? Practices, perceptions and profiles of 11–16-year-old students" Learning, Media and Technology. 34 ( 2) 87–104

Are students technology experts?

While there is no shortage of people with the view that today's young are fish, and social media and technology are the water through which they swim, that isn't the complete truth.

• Pew Reports note that young people are prolific creators and consumers of online content (Lenhart and Madden, 2005),
• O'Brien and Fitzgerald (2006) discuss their propensity to create and remix video and music,
• Lankshear and Knobel (2005) establish the popularity of writing blogs among the youth community

However, there is ample evidence that while this is true for some students, it is true of a minority of students and the majority are not especially tech savvy (Luckin et al., 2009; Green and Hannon, 2007). For most they can access content but do not create it.

Some of my students have written comments in their literacy narratives that echo this common assumption of universal technological skill, such as, "I was born in the technological age, so of course I'm good with all sorts of computer applications." [paraphrase]. But invariably I find that most students are unaware of many basic skills necessary for managing the online Learning Management System (ANGEL), and using and commenting on blogs, wikis and youtube. There are always many students who teach me things I didn't know, and a small few who seem to know more about the medium than I.

This has proven true at the 3 schools I've taught at since I started paying attention to the question - and includes both University and Community College students. A focus group I conducted back in 2008 indicated interest in a "technology boot camp" or intensive workshop in educational technology necessary for student success.

I have a feeling the responsibility for such learning-to-learn-with-technology will fall on teachers of gateway classes - in particular those of us who teach composition.

Works cited

Green, H., and C. Hannon. 2007. Their space: Education for a digital generation. London: Demos.
Lankshear, C., and M. Knobel. 2006. Weblog worlds and constructions of effective and powerful writing: Cross with care and only where signs permit. In Travel notes from the new literacy studies: Instances of practice, ed. K. Pahl and J. Roswell, 72–94. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Lenhart, A., and M. Madden. (2005). Teen content creators and consumers. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
Luckin, R. et al. (2009)"Do Web 2.0 tools really open the door to learning? Practices, perceptions and profiles of 11–16-year-old students" Learning, Media and Technology. 34 ( 2) 87–104

Research on Peer Feedback and CMC.

Currently reading "Peer Feedback Through Blogs: Student and teacher perceptions in an advanced German class" by DORIS DIPPOLD found in European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 21 (1) : 18-36. Published in 2009.

This article explores the question of how blogs can facilitate peer feedback in a second language acquisition environment. It concludes that blogs can be useful tools for collaboration and student feedback on peer writing in second language classrooms, but warns of dangers and need for training by both teachers and students. I appreciated the literature review which expressed ideas I take for granted that may not be common knowledge - and it exposed me to articles I need to track down. Dippold also notes that in educational writing "feedback" and "assessment," when used in discussions of formative assessment - are used almost interchangeably. The importance of this insight might be more important that she realizes.

Blogs allow student writers to reach a far larger audience than just a teacher and/or tutor, and help in the easier sharing or resources and ideas (Goodwin-Jones, 2003; Williams & Jacobs, 2004).

Because of the need to imagine and predict the possible reactions of their readers blogging promotes critical thinking (Williams & Jacobs, 2004; Oravec, 2003; Ducate & Lomika, 2005). Ducate & Lomika strove to build intercultural awareness in their research, which involved exchanges (travel as well as communication) between French and American students. Blogging uniquely enables peer feedback, which is essential to meeting objectives of audience analysis, tone, purpose, and the recognition of one's place in a discourse community united by an intellectual goal. Baggetun and Wasson (2006:460) explain:

We see that in order to generate feedback one needs certain skills, in particular, participation skills. As a student, you need to learn how to frame an issue you want to raise, relate it to a current issue, and know how to invite or ask questions so that someone feels tempted to reply. [y] SRL [self-regulated learning] also encompasses participation in learning communities and how to develop skills to engage in productive interactions with your peers.

There are several issues that make using peer feedback with ESL learners a tremendous challenge. Hyland and Hyland (2006) note that foreign language students prefer feedback from teachers to peers. This likely has something to do with the non-native speaking ability in English of their peers. If their "peer" were another comp. 1 or 2 student whose native language was English, then these results might be different. Also, ESL students resist having power over their peers and resist their peers having power over them (Liu & Carless, 2006).

Works Cited

Baggetun, R. and Wasson, B. (2006) Self-regulated learning and open writing. European Journal of Education, 41(3–4): 453–472.
Ducate, L. and Lomicka, L. (2005) Exploring the blogosphere: Use of blogs in the foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 38(3): 410–421.
Goodwin-Jones, R. (2003) "Blogs and wikis: Environments for on-line collaboration." Language Learning and Technology, 7(2): 12–16.
Hyland, F. and Hyland, K. (2006) State of the art article: Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39: 83–101.
Liu, N. and Carless, D. (2006) Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3): 279–290.
Oravec, J. A. (2003) Blogs as an emerging genre in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 14(2): 21–44.
Williams, J. and Jacobs, J. (2004) Exploring the use of blogs as learning spaces in the higher education sector. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(2): 232–247.

Research on Facebook: statistics.

Near the end of 2009, Facebook had over 300 million users and it's common stock value was about $9.5 billion (Womack, 2009). By the beginning of 2010 it had become the "most popular social network in eight of the 10 top internet markets in the world" an by June 2010 membership had grown to "upwards of 400 million members" (Weeks). Recent research conducted by the University of New Hampshire found that 96% of their students had Facebook accounts and that there was no correlation between Facebook use and student success. Chuck Martin, whose class conducted the study, says, "college students have grown up with social networks, and the study shows they are now simply part of how students interact with each other with no apparent impact on grades" (cited in Wright). We shouldn't just take him at his word though. Earlier research has gone back and forth - there is much debate on the impact of Facebook.

I'm looking for for info on whether 96% student usage of Facebook is typical.

Bibliography (note this is in an approximation of APA format - not MLA)

Wright, L. (2009) "Student grades not affected b social networking, new research finds" www.unh.edu/news/ accessed June 10,2010
Weeks, L. (June 9, 2010) "In your Facebook: social sites are everywhere" www.npr.org retrieved June 10, 2010
Womack, B. (November 19 2009) "Facebook Common Stock Valuation Jumps 42% to 9.5 Billion," Bloomberg.com retrieved June 10, 2010

Re: Students' Right to Their Own Language

Don't worry about taking the wrong position on this topic. I've argued both sides. In graduate seminars in Education, they teach that educators struggle to balance 3 needs or demands: the student, the society and the curriculum. No one can privileged all of these needs equally, and making any one concern a priority reduces the focus on the other 2. My position depends on the environment and what concerns seem the most critical or neglected in that context. Don't try to guess my position. It's a recipe for disaster for several reasons. I tried this a few times with professors and it never worked out.

The 4C's statement of students' right to their own language privileges society over individual students - as I see it from my seat in an American community college - and my bias runs counter to that. My experience and interests also lie with non-Native English speakers and linguistic minority groups, and yet I come to conclusions that may differ from the majority of my colleagues with similar experience and interests. My childhood personality and a variety of influences that shaped me since - thru my admiration or thru my rebellion - result in a pragmatism. Many colleagues I respect, and my sister, reject pragmatism.

How this relates to your writing:

Sometimes we write for discovery, not figuring out what we truly believe until we finish. Sometimes we start with a problem and write our way out of it - figuring out in the end through examining what we believe. Maybe in the past teachers taught you to start with a rockin' thesis statement and then find quotes to support your position, but isn't what true scholarship looks like at the college level. I recently made the analogy in class that too many students were using research the way a drunk uses a light post, for support rather than illumination.

Learning changes the way we think, or the tools we have for understanding. It stands to reason that what we read will affect our thesis. The thesis typically evolves.

More than a few students in my office this week have decided to scrap their papers and start over. That isn't a sign of failure. I've done that more than a few times myself. This happens in the writing process and we shouldn't consider the effort wasted.

diversity

I wonder if the cartoon (from SMBC) has a point. If so, what bigotry will traditional (18-21ish) students reject? And what bigotry will they hold on to? Interestingly within a week or so of this cartoon the reputable Pew Research Center wrote on this topic in, "Millenials views ...not so different." The matix below the cartoon comes from their research. You likely will have to scroll down for it - but it's provocative.

I wonder if profs tend to unfairly assume their students are less open- minded? Maybe it depends on the academic discipline. Or, as a few former colleagues have put it, "everyone is prejudiced." That statement has bothered me in the past. What's that say about the speaker? What about Mother Theresa? The statement may not be wrong, but...

If you're interested in this topic check out some links collected at the social bookmarking site under these tags: diversity, gender, or race

TheDaily Show's Wyatt Cenac takes a funny look at the subject on the Jan. 12th 2010 show.

Why some Journal Dates get Parenthesis (and some dont')

Someone asked why some periodicals (ie magazines or journals) put the year in parenthesis and some did not. Good question. I looked into that. Page 22 of the pdf notes:

DATES: Abbreviate the names of months except for May, June, or July:
Jan., Feb., Mar., Apr., Aug., Sept., Oct., Nov., Dec. Journals paginated
by volume or issue call only for the year (in parentheses). [emphasis mine]

It has to do with how periodicals are published. Some may not record exact month, but rather record volume or issue numbers. For those put the year in parenthesis.

Can anyone further clarify this issue? Please do in the comments.

Images in this post take from the free Norton online 2009 update to MLA documentation.

Research resources.

I now share research with students via JCCC library's electronic course reserve. Just go to the Billington Library homepage, then click the "course reserve search" link indicated by the red arrow in the top image to the right (click either image to enlarge).

It will open up a new page. Find the Instructor scroll down menu (indicated in figure 2 by the yellow arrow) and find my name.

When citing research refer to the 2009 MLA documentation (available free online in pdf if you don't have the handbook with you. See also our social bookmarking page on MLA, and previous posts). I find the sample paper particularly useful. Scroll