Results of a Six-Year Paired Research Project: Social Sciences (Anthropology)
and
Developmental English (RW 97A and 101), 1997-2001.
Lynn Gamble, Department of Anthropology and Ann Johns, Rhetoric and
Writing
Studies, Freshman Success Program, San Diego State University
Teachers at Hoover High School, San Diego Unified School District
A
brief outline of collaboration faculties in this learning communities
program::
1. We made decisions about how standards and disciplinary values should
influence the focus activities:
a. For anthropology: importance of concepts, use of APA referencing
style, IMRD text structure, effective note-taking, integration of important
sources, understanding of content.
b. For English: coherent and organized texts, academic register, “reader
considerate” choices about use of connectives and other metadiscourse
(e.g., “Now that I have discussed xxx, I will move on to yyy.”)
Careful note-taking, drafting and revision. Peer review.
We organized our sets of responsibilities around these values. Both
of us
worked on note-taking, for example, but the English instructor was responsible
for the APA style and teaching the IMRD structure.
2. We made decisions about the theme, research question(s), sources,
structure and scoring of the final, jointly-constructed, paper.
a. Theme (appropriate to readings and lectures in both classes): Cultural
Persistence among Immigrants (broadly defined) in America.
b. Research statement, stated in a purpose/question format:
“ The purpose of my research we to investigate what traditions
have persisted in my family and in the family of a Hoover High student
after immigration
or change. My questions are the following:
1. What traditions have persisted in my family?
2. What traditions have persisted in the family of the Hoover High student?
3. How are our families similar or different in terms of cultural persistence?
(Note: These questions are answered in the “Results” section
of the paper.)
c. Sources:
1. Interview scripts (in the final paper appendix) and discussion:
a. SDSU students’ interviews with their families (which resulted
in a separate pre-paper for the anthropology instructor.)
b. SDSU students’ interviews with the Hoover students.
2. The anthropology textbook and lectures: Used for concept definition
(a final paper requirement) and background information.
3. Becoming Ethnic, Becoming American, a book of essays by college
students assigned by the anthropology instructor.
4.Short essays about anthropology or on related topics (e.g., Amy Tan’s,
“ My Mother’s Language”) in the English textbook. (Note:
Throughout
the term, students used these essays for other purposes, such as to
take notes relevant to their final paper, respond personally to the
author’s experience, build vocabulary and grammar skills, and
write short reflections or responses.)
d. IMRD text structure and scaffolding
1. Pre-paper: In anthropology, the students practiced interviewing techniques
and then wrote up their family interview paper.
2. Interview write-ups: For both classes, students visited Hoover High,
and using their interview techniques, conducted interviews with one
or two students. Interview write ups included
a. Writing a script of the actual interview,
b. Classifying the interview topics into categories (e.g., language,
religion, food…),
c. Drafting the results section to include interview information, concepts
and other sources.
3. Methodology draft: After the interviews, and after students had
completed additional research to understand more about their
Hoover student informants, the SDSU class wrote up their methodology
section for their English class. (They kept notes on their methods throughout…much
like an I-search paper.)
4. Results draft: This combined findings of both sets of interviews
as well as information from other sources.
5. Complete draft: In English, students prepared a complete draft of
the paper, including the introduction and conclusion – and the
citations and references. Drafts were peer-edited and reviewed as part
of the English
class grade.
In English, they also worked on academic register, grammar, and mechanics,
as well as practicing the referencing style.
6. Final draft: After several attempts at complete drafts, more peer
review for specific features of the text (e.g., organization of the
results section), students turned in their final papers with cover
pages, bibliography, etc. to both instructors.
In English, students turned in all texts that related to the final draft:
interview scripts, previous drafts, their pre-paper for anthropology..
The anthropology instructor received just the final paper….
e. Scoring:
Anthropology: Students were graded for
Concepts
Content:
Use of all required sources
Academic language
Coherence 80%
Score from the English class 20% (Averaged from the English class score)
English: 100% (A human migration portfolio)
Drafts
Attendance and participation in interviews
Oral presentation of the paper to SDSU and Hoover students
“Reader Consideration,” use of connectives and metadiscourse
Grammar and vocabulary use – and editing
See also Johns, Ann M. (2001). An interdisciplinary, interinstitutional,
learning communities program: Student involvement and student success.
In I. Leki (ed.),
Academic writing programs (Case studies in TESOL series), pp. 61-72,
Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.