首页> 外文OA文献 >Why Do I Have to Write That?: Compositionists Identify Disconnects between Student and Instructor Conceptions of Research Writing that Can Inform Teaching
【2h】

Why Do I Have to Write That?: Compositionists Identify Disconnects between Student and Instructor Conceptions of Research Writing that Can Inform Teaching

机译:为什么我要写这一点?:合成主义者确定了学生与教学写作的概念之间的断开,可以告知教学

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

A Review of:Schwegler, R. A., and Shamoon, L. K. (1982). The aims and process of the research paper. College English, 44(8), 817-824.Objectives – This classic article discusses research-based writing assignments. Schwegler and Shamoon sought to identify differences between college students’ and college instructors’ conceptions of research and research paper assignments, particularly in terms of their purpose and process. The authors also sought to identify common features of academic research writing that could inform writing instruction about research writing. Design – Qualitative interviews with college instructors and students about their views of the research process and about forms of research writing. Instructors were also interviewed about evaluation standards for academic research papers.Setting – Unspecified, though the description suggests a college or university in the United States. Subjects – College instructors and college students. (Number of subjects unspecified.) Methods – The authors, a university writing program director and a writing program instructor, conducted one-on-one interviews with college instructors and students about their views of research and the research paper. Questions focused on conceptions of the research process, the purposes of research, and the forms that research writing takes. Instructors were also asked about standards for effective evaluation of research papers. The limited description of the research methods and interview questions employed in this study hinder the ability to critically assess its validity and reliability. Potential limitations of the study, such as selection bias or unclear wording of interview questions, cannot be adequately assessed based on the provided information. The authors also do not identify limitations of their study. As is discussed in more detail in this review’s commentary, the study does not conform to the conventions of most research studies from the behavioral, health, physical, and social sciences. The authors’ methods, however, may be better understood in light of particular disciplinary approaches and debates in Composition Studies. Main Results – Interviewees’ responses illustrated notable differences between college instructors’ and college students’ conceptions of the process, purpose, forms, and audiences of research paper assignments. While instructors understood the research paper to be argumentative, analytical, and interpretive, students generally described it as informative and factual. Students, when asked why research papers are assigned, identified purposes such as learning more about a topic, demonstrating one’s knowledge, or learning to use the library. Instructors indicated that the purpose of the research paper includes testing a theory, building on previous research, and exploring a problem that has been presented by other research or events (p. 819). At the same time, most instructors described research as an ongoing pursuit of “an elusive truth” (p. 819), rather than as primarily factual in nature. According to Schwegler and Shamoon, instructors also indicated during interviews that research and writing involve a clear though complex pattern that is evident in the structure and conventions of research papers. For example, the research process usually begins with activities like reading, note-taking, identifying problems with and gaps in current research, and conversing with colleagues. These instructors also reported that writing conventions which are implicitly understood in their fields are used by other scholars to evaluate their peers’ work. Reflecting on these interview responses, Schwegler and Shamoon suggest that pedagogical approaches to writing instruction can be informed both by acknowledging disparities in students’ and instructors’ conceptions of research and by identifying shared characteristics of academic writing. The authors therefore make several general observations about the nature of professional research papers and describe the structure and conventions of academic research papers. They conclude that the structure of scholarly research papers across the disciplines reflects the research process. Such a paper opens with identification of a research problem and a review of current knowledge and is followed by a variation of four possible patterns: 1) Review of research, 2) Application or implementation of a theory, 3) Refute, refine, or replicate prior research, and 4) Testing a hypothesis ( pp. 822-823). Schwegler and Shamoon indicate that the key features of scholars’ writings are also apparent in student research papers which instructors evaluate as highly-ranked and absent in lower-ranked papers. Furthermore, they provide an appendix that outlines the essential textual features of a research paper (Appendix A) (p. 822). It is unclear, however, if these descriptions of scholarly research writing are based on the instructor interviews or on other sources, such as previous analytical studies or an analysis of academic research papers from various disciplines. The researchers do not articulate the specific methods used to arrive at their generalizations. Conclusion – The authors conclude that students’ and instructors’ differing conceptions of the research process and the research paper have important implications for writing instruction. Many of the interviewed instructors described research as involving methods that are quite different from those needed for most research paper assignments. The discrepancies between class assignments and academics’ approaches to research suggests that differences in instructors’ and students’ views of research often are not addressed in the design of research paper assignments. Instructors who teach the research paper should ensure that the purpose, structure, and style of assignments reflect what content-area instructors will expect from students. Schwegler and Shamoon argue that because the basic conventions of the research paper generally apply across disciplines, instruction about those conventions can be integrated into composition courses and lower-level undergraduate courses. Such an approach can assist students in better understanding and approaching research writing as would a scholar in the given discipline.
机译:回顾:Schwegler, R. A. 和 Shamoon, L. K. (1982)。研究论文的目的和过程。大学英语,44(8),817-824。目标——这篇经典文章讨论了基于研究的写作任务。 Schwegler 和 Shamoon 试图找出大学生和大学教师对研究和研究论文作业的概念之间的差异,特别是在目的和过程方面。作者还试图确定学术研究写作的共同特征,这些特征可以为有关研究写作的写作指导提供信息。设计——对大学教师和学生进行定性访谈,了解他们对研究过程和研究写作形式的看法。教师还就学术研究论文的评价标准进行了采访。设置 - 未指定,但描述暗示美国的学院或大学。学科——大学教师和大学生。 (未指定科目数量。)方法——作者是一名大学写作项目主任和一名写作项目讲师,就他们对研究和研究论文的看法与大学教师和学生进行了一对一的访谈。问题侧重于研究过程的概念、研究目的以及研究写作的形式。教师还被问及有效评估研究论文的标准。本研究中对研究方法和访谈问题的有限描述阻碍了对其有效性和可靠性进行批判性评估的能力。研究的潜在局限性,例如选择偏差或访谈问题的措辞不明确,无法根据所提供的信息进行充分评估。作者也没有指出他们研究的局限性。正如本综述的评论中更详细地讨论的那样,该研究不符合行为、健康、物理和社会科学的大多数研究的惯例。然而,鉴于作文研究中的特定学科方法和辩论,可能会更好地理解作者的方法。主要结果——受访者的回答表明,大学教师和大学生对研究论文作业的过程、目的、形式和受众的概念存在显着差异。虽然教师认为研究论文是论证性的、分析性的和解释性的,但学生们通常将其描述为信息丰富和事实性的。当被问及为什么分配研究论文时,学生确定了一些目的,例如更多地了解某个主题、展示自己的知识或学习使用图书馆。教师指出,研究论文的目的包括测试理论、建立在先前研究的基础上,以及探索其他研究或事件提出的问题(第 819 页)。与此同时,大多数教师将研究描述为对“难以捉摸的真理”(第 819 页)的持续追求,而不是本质上主要是事实。根据 Schwegler 和 Shamoon 的说法,教师在采访中还表示,研究和写作涉及一个清晰但复杂的模式,这在研究论文的结构和惯例中很明显。例如,研究过程通常从阅读、记笔记、识别当前研究中的问题和差距以及与同事交谈等活动开始。这些教师还报告说,其他学者使用在其领域内隐含理解的写作惯例来评估同行的工作。反思这些采访回应,施韦格勒和沙穆恩建议,通过承认学生和教师研究概念的差异以及确定学术写作的共同特征,可以为写作教学的教学方法提供信息。因此,作者对专业研究论文的性质进行了一些一般性观察,并描述了学术研究论文的结构和惯例。他们得出结论,跨学科的学术研究论文的结构反映了研究过程。此类论文首先确定研究问题并回顾当前知识,然后是四种可能模式的变化:1) 研究回顾,2) 理论的应用或实施,3) 反驳、提炼或复制先前的研究,以及 4) 检验假设(第 822-823 页)。 Schwegler 和 Shamoon 指出,学者著作的关键特征在学生研究论文中也很明显,教师评价为高排名,而在排名较低的论文中则缺席。此外,他们提供了一个附录,概述了研究论文的基本文本特征(附录 A)(第 822 页)。然而,尚不清楚这些对学术研究写作的描述是基于教师访谈还是其他来源,例如以前的我们的分析研究或对来自不同学科的学术研究论文的分析。研究人员没有阐明用于得出概括的具体方法。结论——作者得出结论,学生和教师对研究过程和研究论文的不同概念对写作教学具有重要意义。许多受访教师将研究描述为所涉及的方法与大多数研究论文作业所需的方法截然不同。课堂作业与学者研究方法之间的差异表明,在设计研究论文作业时,教师和学生对研究的看法的差异往往没有得到解决。教授研究论文的教师应确保作业的目的、结构和风格反映了教师对学生的期望。 Schwegler 和 Shamoon 认为,由于研究论文的基本约定通常适用于跨学科,关于这些约定的指导可以整合到作文课程和较低级别的本科课程中。这种方法可以帮助学生更好地理解和接近研究写作,就像给定学科的学者一样。

著录项

  • 作者

    Andrea Baer;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2014
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号