|
Ann
M. Johns |
|
To appear in Feedback
in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues (Ken and Fiona Hyland, eds). Cambridge University Press Student Reflections on Their Research Processes: The I-Search Paper Self-evaluation and reflection have been central to the teaching and learning of writing for decades. The Writing Process Movement, which began in North America in the 1970s, first introduced teachers to student reflection as central to pedagogy (Silva, 1991). Theorists argued that “writing is not a straightforward plan-outline-write process” (Taylor, 1981). Instead, it is a “complex, recursive, and creative process or set of behaviors…” (Silva, 1990, p. 15-16). Because of this, instructors encouraged students to plan, draft, revise and edit their papers and to reflect on their writing processes, thus developing a metacognitive awareness of their strategies for producing an essay. More
recently, genre theorists and practitioners have discussed how text structure
and content,
context, audience, writer purposes and writer and discourse community ideologies
influence the success of written texts. In this paradigm, writers must have
a sophisticated meta-knowledge of a variety of contextual and personal factors
as they plan and execute their drafts and revisions and reflect upon their
work
(Bawarshi, 2002; Hyland, 2002; Johns, 1997). In
the campus context described in this chapter, first year university
students had often been assigned research papers with few instructions
and little
assistance in their anthropology, business, sociology, history, or other
content classes
As their writing instructor, I decided that it was important for students
to have experiences with research scaffolded with activities and opportunities
for reflection. In this chapter, I will discuss the most extensive of
these projects.
After describing the context and the three-part assignment (Papers 5,
6, and
7), I will discuss the students’ answers, in their I-Search Paper
reflections (Paper 7), to the following questions: The Context The
North American campus that enrolled the students discussed here is
large, diverse, and comprehensive. In an effort to
increase student
retention
and
degree completion, the campus developed a learning communities
program, Freshman Success
(See http://dus.sdsu.edu/fsp/integrated curriculum & Johns, 2001), in which
cohorts of 20-25 students are enrolled together during their first university
semester in a “package” of classes including general education(GE)
/breadth class (e.g. history, biology), a study group for this class, a writing
class, and a university orientation class, for a total of eight academic units.
During the semester discussed here, my writing students were enrolled in a “package” of
classes in which an oral communications class served as the adjuncted GE course.
Our package cohort consisted of twenty students, only three of whom were mono-lingual.
Eleven were Spanish-speakers, identifying themselves as “Mexican,” “Latino,” or “Mexican-American.” Two
were Chaldean, Arabic/Chaldean speakers who had been born in Iraq. Four had been
born in Vietnam. The three monolingual students, born in the United States, were
African-American/Italian, Armenian-American, and one who identified herself as “just
Anglo.” The
students were qualified for university study; however, their scores
on the English Placement Examination revealed that they
required additional
academic literacy practice, particularly in reading and grammar.
In their first classroom
reflections, all indicated that they had completed some research
in secondary school, but several said that their efforts had
been minimal,
e.g., “I
just copied some stuff from the encyclopedia.” The Writing Curriculum Though
one of the goals in Freshman Success is to integrate the work of
the writing and “content” (or GE) classes (see Johns,
2001), I discovered during this particular semester (Fall 2003) that
the communications teacher and I did
not share objectives for the students. This GE instructor
was much more interested in building student self-image than in content
or skills, arguing that “these
kids have had enough problems. We shouldn’t make them
work hard. Instead, we should build their self-esteem.” Having
taught capable, diverse students for many years, I was much
more interested
in preparing them
for university
study: in helping them to read, write, and think like university
students, which, of
course, can also be an avenue to improved self-esteem. Thus,
I developed a rather ambitious, independent academic writing
curriculum
which
required eight
papers
in eight different genres, using my own curricular materials
(Johns, in process) for writing assignments. Because many
instructors in
the disciplines
use the
popular media for readings and research (see, e.g., Melzer,
2002), all student assignments on contemporary topics came
from either
the Internet,
Newsweek,
or the local newspaper, The San Diego Union-Tribune, to which
the students subscribed. During
the fall 2003 semester, the Bush Administration was planning to invade
Iraq. The French opposed the U.S. plans,
a matter of
some discussion
in the
North American media. So I decided to use writing assignments
to raise the students’ awareness
of the current issues and debates as well as to introduce
them to different academic and professional genres. Since
many American
students
(and
other citizens of
the United States) tend to be remarkably unenlightened
about the world situation in which the United States plays
a major
role,
I decided
that I would need
to devote considerable time to the building of student
topic knowledge before they
began writing their papers. Thus, they were given several
readings which we discussed in class, after which the three-part
assignment
was explained.
It
included: Because of their initial frustrations with the assignments, I wrote samples
for Paper 5 and 6 and posted them on Blackboard, our campus course management
system.
I was ambivalent about writing these sample papers, though, for two reasons:
the texts might be too sophisticated (mature?) for freshmen and, as we know,
the students might be tempted to copy my work. However, since I had no student
samples and even the most proficient and motivated students were experiencing
considerable difficulty, I wrote, and discussed in the class at some length,
the sample texts. Students felt that having the samples was useful, and though
they followed the suggested structure, they did not copy the language from
my texts.
The
I-Search Paper, Paper 7, was a great relief to the students after
their Paper 5 and 6 experiences,
since it allows for
introspection rather than
the interpretation
and integration of other’s texts. The instructions
for this assignment, adapted from other I-Search
Papers, were the
following: Paper 7: The I-Search 1) The opening: Two points must be made before examining the students reflections found in Paper 7, the I-Search. First, and perhaps most important, the I-Search assignment traditionally requires “scripted” comments---not open-ended ones common to many “process” classrooms. Secondly, the students completed their I-Search papers before they were given their grades for Papers 5 and 6, so they were not influenced by teacher evaluation as they reflected upon their strategies and processes and evaluated their work.
The
I-Search papers were very complete, for the most part, and quite personal.
One reason for the success of the papers, of course, is that
the students were
able to discuss themselves and their own processes. They were familiar
with reflection from their high school experiences, and they enjoyed
talking about
themselves because, after all, they were 17- and 18-year-olds. But there
were benefits for me and writing pedagogy, as well: through the
I-Search Papers,
I gained was able to better understand what worked, and what didn’t,
in the three-part research sequence. In this section, I will examine each of the chapter research questions mentioned
in the first part of the paper, citing uncorrected and typical (or outstanding)
student examples. In every case, I will indicate the gender and first language/culture
of the student making the entry: Research
question selection: My first research question was “What were
the students’ research questions and how did they select them?” Before
I begin, it is important to note that the students were to choose from a limited
number of possible research questions and they were given some basic readings
for Paper 6 (the actual research paper) before they began their own research.
Why were they not given complete freedom to select and read sources for a research
paper? Because my colleagues and I have discovered over the years that with
inexperienced, bilingual and Gen 1.5 students, we must select a focus among
the variety of skills required in research, rather than requiring students
to start from scratch. Considering the students’ test scores and their
relative lack of experience, most of their time was devoted to reading, exploring
the web (and evaluating websites), editing and writing. I wanted them to get
to work on these skills---not devote their efforts to frustrating searches
for topics and questions. So here are the students’ comments
on their restricted question selection: A Vietnamese-American (male) student had the following to say: A Mexican-American (male) student made other decisions: A third student, a Vietnamese-American woman, gave these reasons for deciding
upon her question: A fourth student, a Mexican-American male, was much influenced by a classroom
presentation by a French-born American invited to explain her relationships
with France (and the United States). The student said: The
comments cited represent the major reasons given by the class for selecting
research questions among the four presented to them.
Some, probably the
largest group, were influenced by the information they had
already gathered, readings
that would provide depth for their work—or would the
easiest to exploit when writing their papers. Others chose
a question
because they
were particularly
interested in a subject, e.g., culture. A third group, observing
the American life around them, wanted to investigate why certain
events
were occurring
before the invasion of Iraq. A fourth group, perhaps the weakest
in terms of English
literacies, were those attracted to the (rather charming) speaker
who came to the class. In some cases, the members of this group
used our
French-American
visitor as the primary source for their papers. Selection of sources: The second cluster of questions for this chapter relate to student reflections in their I-Search papers are about the research process itself—the students’ Internet searches for sources appropriate to their research questions. A
Mexican-American male student began
by discussing his successes, but also mentioned some of
the time-consuming tasks that
resulted from his work on the Internet (e.g., trying other
links): For one of the most diligent students, a Vietnamese-American,
the search was frustrating because he had trouble making
choices: These
students, all of whom were familiar with Internet searches, had considerable
difficulty finding sites relevant
to their
research questions—and
interpreting the arguments in the texts on the web. It
is not surprising, then, to find more direct references to vocabulary
in the students’ work,
such as this comment by a Mexican-American woman: An Anglo-American woman student, perhaps speaking
for much of the group, found the vocabulary on the
websites more
daunting than finding the sites
themselves: One
Vietnamese-American woman who had had considerable experience
with integrating sources into texts made these
comments about the sites she selected and their value in terms
of the arguments in her research paper: An African-American woman, also with considerable
experience with research papers, had this to
say about the search: What these comments tell us about a central element
of the project, the search for appropriate sources,
is that
for diverse students whose academic English
and reading skills are in the developmental stage,
there are a variety of frustrations related to
finding, and especially,
exploiting, their sources
for research.
For some, there are problems with locating sites
that deal directly with their selected research
question. For others,
there are the difficulties
with reading
(and evaluating) the texts, particularly working
through the vocabulary. Even the most adept students
were challenged
by locating the types of detail
that
are central to their question. Did the students follow Raimes’ advice, read together in class? Here again, they were honest about their work, and their comments indicate that language (again) was a barrier to making the decisions that Raimes suggests. This, for
example, is a comment by a Mexican-American
woman: For another Mexican-American student, quoting
and paraphrasing depended upon what was new
or striking
for her: One
student (a Vietnamese-American woman) decided that the “gut instinct” approach
was best: A Latina decided that she needed direct
quotes for both sides of the argument
she was making: Another
student, also a Latina, decided to quote the speaker and to paraphrase
the websites: One of the Latino males pointed out how
difficult accurate paraphrase can be: A
Vietnamese-American student (a woman) made every effort to paraphrase
in order to make
the paper her
own: As
can be seen from these approaches to quotation and paraphrase,
students made a number
of choices. Based upon a variety
of factors.
Some quoted those who spoke in
the classroom presentation (or were quoted
directly)
and attempted
to paraphrase much of the
rest. Others quoted what “stood out,” or
whatever the sources or followed their “gut instincts”.
Several others had considerable
difficulty putting the
language of the texts
into their own words without
changing the meaning. After
deciding whether to quote or paraphrase
selected
text,
the students
faced other
challenges, one
of which was to
insert their
source material
into their
papers. All of the students
had difficulty framing
their citations,
i.e., they
often did not know
how to make
effective use of
the sources within
the text,
relating them to their
own arguments. This “framing” issue
is one faced by writers
at a number of levels,
and they
will
be practicing
it
throughout
their academic lives. The student who achieved the highest
grade on the project, a Vietnamese American
male, discussed
how
his drafts improved
as he wrote and how he devoted considerable
time to a paper about which he could
be proud: At
the opposite end of the grading (and reflection) scale was
a Vietnamese-American woman who “hated the whole project” and said, “I
do not think I developed
any skills or knowledge
that I
have not had
before.” Between these two were the students who
voiced frustration but felt that they
might have grown
as researchers
or writers in a number of ways, e.g.,
in their
ability to revise from the top-down.
For example, a Mexican-American woman
said: Some students, such as this African-American
woman, learned more about planning as
they conducted their
research: Others,
particularly those for whom computers were somewhat
intimidating , had difficulty with various
elements
of the process—and
with their
own approaches to it. This
Mexican-American
student
(male) had trouble
controlling
his anger,
but he found some solace in
the fact
that
computers,
like people,
need a
rest: The last research question
for this chapter focuses on what the
students believed
that they had learned
from the experience. As
in the
case of all of their reflections, these
comments will assist me and my colleagues
to revise the
assignment sequence,
the scaffold, and perhaps the objectives
for the class, in the coming years. Three
of the
students mentioned this goal in their comments.
Here is
one: A Latina
whose research
question
dealt more
directly
with the
war in
Iraq had
the following
to say: One
Mexican-American male student
said
the following
about
refining
the
question he had
selected. Another
Mexican-American male found
the
question
in
conflict
with
his
approach
to
Internet
searches: How
the
students
reflected
upon
their
learning
depended,
of
course,
upon
their
prior
knowledge
and
their
willingness
to
plan
and
devote
time
to
the
project.
Not
surprisingly,
their
reflections
were
individual
and
divergent
in
this
section
of
their
I-Search
Paper. Conclusion
and
Suggestions
for
Teachers What
do
teachers
(and
students)
achieve
when
an
I-Search
Paper
is
assigned?
For
students,
the
paper
provides
an
opportunity
to
organize
their
reflections
and
to
talk
about
themselves,
to
develop
a metacognitive
awareness
of
their
research
and
writing
processes,
and
to
consider
how
they
will
approach
papers
in
the
future.
These
papers
also
give
the
students
the
opportunity
to
comment
upon
how
the
assignment
can
be
improved
(or
what
should
be
continued.) I-Search papers can also be quite valuable for teachers. From the student comments, I learned that even though I had controlled and supported some of the process (the research question, the genre, and the core readings) and I had suggested several websites, the students still found that exploiting the web texts was difficult for a number of reasons. In addition, they discovered that drafting a text in an unfamiliar genre (a position paper in the form of a memo) was challenging. Their
reflections also
indicated major
frustrations with
reading, perhaps
the most
significant of
which is
lack of
academic vocabulary.
In their
studies of
the largest
bilingual/Gen 1.5
group in
California, Scarcella
and Zimmerman
(2004) have
discovered that
even though
there are
many Spanish/academic
English cognates,
Latino students
tend not
to recognize
these relationships
as they
read and
write academic
English texts.
Academic vocabulary
building must
be a systematic
and concentrated
effort in
my future
writing classrooms,
and there
are now
some corpora
to support
this work
(see, e.g.,
Coxhead). From
the student
reflections and
classroom discussion,
I found
that examining
the reliability
of websites
was a
new concept
to most.
They had
considerable difficulty “reading” the URLs and making judgments about Internet
texts. As noted in one reflection here, some found these “information
competence” requirements
to be
a nuisance. What
went right
in this
class seemed
to be
the three-project
sequence: group
work to
explore website
credibility (Paper
5), a
short research
paper (Paper
6), and
an I-Search
Paper (Paper
7). However,
I was
probably attempting
too much
with genre
in Paper
6. Next
time, I
will require
a more “traditional” paper,
not a position paper. Also central to the assignments was the effort to expand
students’ knowledge of the world—no
matter how
much they
resisted it
----through readings,
speakers, and
Internet searches.
I will
continue this
effort in
future years. What
did the
students advise
me in
the last
section of
the I-Search
Paper about
future research
paper assignments?
Here are
some reflections
on that
question, all
of which
I am
attempting to
follow through
on as
I teach these
classes: I
adapted the
I-Search Paper
to fit
my students’ needs and the projects
outlined here. However, genres devoted to reflection can be used in a variety
of situations for student reflection upon a variety of research tasks. Through
these reflective papers, students tell the instructor about their needs, their “lacks,” their
successes and attitudes. I find that in this North American environment, at
least, students are open and honest in their comments—and
they are
often quite
accurate in
their assessments
of themselves
and of
their work. References Bawarshi,
A. (2003).
Genre and
the invention
of the
writer. Logan,
UT: Utah
State University
Press. Appendices Paper 5: [Due, November 6.] Hand in Assignments 1-5. (40 points) Paper 6: A position paper (120)
Home | Professional Activities | Teaching | Consulting & Service | Suggested Reading |