From Hot Air to the Ethernet: Reimag[in]ing the Research Paper

Our desire to transform the undergraduate research paper began with the observation that for most of our students it had become a passive exercise in cutting and pasting from casually documented sources, or, even worse, wholesale plagiarism, a procedure made even easier with extensive data bases, electronic information sources, and a host of easily accessible "cheat sites." Rarely did our students engage in real critical thinking at any time in the process of researching and writing such papers. They often confused argument with opinion, a common problem for first year students; (see Teaching Argument: Faculty Resources) they had difficulty separating objective, factual information from inferences and assumptions; they were often unable to evaluate the strength of an argument or to distinguish between one position on an issue and another except in the broadest and most simplistic terms. As a result, their "conclusions" were often safe generalizations, so much "hot air." Typically student papers ended with such phrases as "there are two sides to every question" or "this is a really important problem," neither of which reflects any real critical thought. The frequency of such "truisms" in the concluding sentences of our students’ papers clearly suggested that the standard research paper had become little more than a time-consuming, futile exercise for both students and teachers. It was time for a change.

Dissatisfied with both the product and the process of the standard freshman English research paper, we began to examine critically both the method and goals of the traditional research paper itself. We concluded that it is often more concerned with gathering and documenting "information" with little direction to the students of how to assess this information or the means of categorizing whether it represented factual material, assumptions, or personal opinions or was based on solid evidence, sound logic and careful analysis. Moreover, since our students at best had only a little background knowledge on the subject of their paper, all information appeared equally valuable or valueless to them. Taking one side or another appeared to be an arbitrary choice often dictated by opinions the student held prior to "researching" the topic rather than resulting from the persuasiveness of evidence, logic and sound argument. It was not surprising therefore that our students could rarely find their own voices or perspectives and thus, when pushed to take a position on a subject, to advance and support a "thesis," they simply employed the voice of one of their sources, in effect plagiarizing the cognition as well as the language of this authority. Although sometimes this authority was carefully and correctly documented, more often it was not. What was missing in this process was the students’ own sense of discovery and analysis. What was needed we thought was to divide the research process into discrete sections, each of which would direct students toward a step in the critical thinking process: (A) fact or information gathering, (B) identification and analysis of assumptions, (C) critical analysis of argument. We also believed this would lead students toward more authentic writing that showed greater honesty of thought and expression.

The clue to how to redesign the research process lay in the electronic sources themselves. Web sites are often divided into discrete sections with hyperlinks to relevant supporting material or more extensive discussions of subtopics. Most content-based web sites begin with a list of Frequently Asked Questions or FAQ’s (geek types being more prone to acronyms than English professors). FAQ’s are themselves organized into a logical sequence beginning with the simplest definition of terms and least controversial factual data and moving progressively to more complex questions involving the interpretation, meaning or relevance of the data or information. When researching current issues in critical thinking for this paper, for example, we noted that the discussion of Elements of Critical Thinking on a web site maintained by the Composition Center of Dartmouth College was subdivided into separate, progressive categories "for the sake of simplicity and utility," and that each bolded and bulleted category: Observations, Facts, Inferences, Assumptions, Opinions, Arguments, and Critical Analysis was first defined in the simplest possible terms and then related to the larger, theoretical and pedagogical questions of critical thinking. Readers, in this case college and university English teachers, are presented with information in a format that allows each element to be understood as a discrete category within the larger concept of critical thinking. The breakdown of information on the electronic page both facilitates and replicates comprehension of the material in the way that it relates the part to the whole. It also separates- or attempts to- what is objectively verifiable from what is subject to debate and interpretation. Moreover, the arrangement of the material from the simplest issues to the more complex on most electronic web sites actually encourages critical questioning because readers can follow the process of abstraction and analysis central to critical thinking. Here are the facts. How do I know that they are true? What objective measures are provided? What do the facts mean or imply? What inferences or conclusions can I draw from them? What assumptions must I make to arrive at these conclusions?

Having discovered that electronic information sites provided a methodology for the initial stages of critical thinking, and that students found the sequential question and answer format familiar and non-threatening, our next step was to help students evaluate the information they found as well as the authority of the source, which included learning not only who had published the on-line material but also questioning what stated or implied assumptions it reflected. Students quickly grasped that a dot.com site was often trying to sell a product and therefore was rarely objective and that a dot.org site usually reflected the values and position of the organization responsible for maintaining the site. Looking at sites about graffiti found through a link to urban crime, students found very different ideas and assumptions than when they accessed "graffiti" through the sub-heading of international urban art forms. They learned that the answers they got and the assumptions they reflected depended on who one asked and where one went for "information." This is, of course, one of the major pedagogical goals of the research paper. It just became clearer and easier to accomplish electronically than through more traditional text-based library research. Encouraging students first to widen their search through different data bases and then to compare and contrast the differing assumptions and conclusions they found, we attempted to get our students to think less dualistically in "black and white" "right or wrong" terms, to begin to understand the differences between reliable and unreliable sources and statements, and to contextualize ideas, recognizing that this conclusion was reached because x believes y to be true or inevitable but z does not.

The second part of the research paper required a summary and exposition of the issues. Students were not only required to quote from their sources but also to explain the relevance or significance of the information they had chosen. This required a more complex and abstract level of thinking and writing. Students now had to deal not just with facts but also with theories or conclusions and to explain the connection between them. Students began to ask questions about what they read and what it implied or inferred about the larger Issue. Seeing inconsistencies between the conclusions drawn by different sources encouraged students to examine and challenge their own thinking. Usually at this stage, the students felt a degree of confusion and frustration with the "authorities" they had trusted and their own ability to make sense of differences. The teacher’s role at this stage in the research process, generally around the time the first draft is submitted, is to provide generous praise and active encouragement, not answers. Critical thinking requires individual freedom of thought, even though the grading process works in opposition to it, since it seems to suggest not only that there is a "right way" to do something but also that there is a "right answer" to every problem and every issue.

One of the ways of overcoming students’ frustration and discouragement is to make the research process a collaborative effort of a two or three person student research team. While generally all of the members contribute to the "information gathering, " the analysis and assessment of issues in Part II of our research projects is best accomplished through students’ dialogues with one another, which we encourage through e-mail correspondence between members of collaborative teams. In this way, students have the opportunity to try out ideas on one another and to clarify and redefine their understanding. They are also putting their questions, ideas and comments in writing in a form and context with which they feel less threatened than the final printed product they turn in to us for a grade. The frequency with which emotocoms J , exclamation points, and question marks appear in this e-mail correspondence also suggests that the students are no longer passively copying and pasting information: they are grappling with its implications and struggling to understand and express what it is that they think about it.

This leads to the third and final section of the research project, the conclusions, which must be supported by critical analysis and sound argument. In a three-person collaboration, students are not required to agree but may each take a different concluding position or elaborate on the implications of arriving at the conclusion they may have reached. This section refers back to the previous sub-sections of the paper, but is the only part of the paper where students are required and permitted to express informed opinions. This section of the project most resembles the traditional research paper in form; however, it reverses the process. Articles in print begin with a thesis that is supported by reasons and evidence and rests on supposedly reliable assumptions or premises. Critical thinking begins with questions, just as electronic information sites most frequently do. One then looks for answers to the questions, sorts out what is relevant and what is not, tests assumptions, raises questions about reliability and bias, about whether the "evidence" has been manipulated to produce a desired conclusion, whether the evidence is sufficient, and what implications the information has.

Our success with this redesigned and re-formatted research project in Freshman Composition courses with a relatively unsophisticated student population as well as in more advanced courses in Technical Communication and Technical Writing (with more curricula specific projects) has led us to become full converts to a belief that the electronic media, in particular web page design and electronic information formats, far from having an evil influence on our students’ thinking and writing, holds the potential for their "salvation," or at least of justifying research papers at the undergraduate level. By re-imaging the research project, utilizing the common formats of electronic communication, we also believe that the critical thinking skills of students can be developed and encouraged. For the research paper to have a valid function for students and teachers, we suggest re-imagining it by asking what one expects to achieve through it and how to redesign it so that it meets these objectives. One might begin this process as our students do by "surfing the web" for inspiration.

Some examples of student assignments for the classes in which we use this approach follow. It must be noted that in English Composition, there is no group grade, although collaboration within a small group is required. In the Technical Communications and Technical Writing classes the group grade is a minimal part of the final grade and constitutes a reward for compiling a final report by combining the best parts of each individual’s work to produce a final report.

English Composition (EGL 101) Sample Research Assignments:

Research projects. You will complete three separate (short) research projects during the semester, due at the end of weeks 5, 10, 15. Credit for these projects is 60% of the final grade. Students will work in three-person teams to complete the projects, but each person will be graded individually (no team grade). Each research project has three parts (FAQ's, Analysis and Assessment of the Issues, Argument). Each member of the team must be responsible for one part; responsibility rotates with each of the three projects; that is, you must try a different part for each of the three research projects and cannot, for example, do only the FAQ's. All members of the team are responsible for identifying web sites for research (each should find 10 sites) and evaluate for integrity, utility and validity of each site. This will be done during lab class time.

Part 1: FAQ's (Frequently Asked Questions)- the team member responsible for this part must compose a series of 10 increasingly complex questions and answers about the subject.

Part 2: Analysis and Assessment of Issues: the team member responsible for this part must write a 2-3 page objective report on the issues involved and identify who speaks for these issues.

Part 3: Argument: the team member responsible for this part is required to write a 2-3 page essay offering a position pro or con on one or more of the issues and address the ethical questions identified through your research.

In addition, one team member is responsible for giving a short (2-3 min.) oral report on the group's project. This report might highlight problems in research, explain issues, argue a position or discuss differences of opinion within the group. Responsibility for the oral report should rotate among team members. This can also be done as a joint effort, with one person speaking at a time.

Technical Communications (EGL 209) Sample Research Assignment:

Team Project: The class will be divided into three-person teams. Each team will produce a report on handicapped facilities on campus. The report will consist of three parts:

A research section that includes an overview of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and how the act applies to this campus

A first-hand observation report of the facilities assigned to the team;

Evaluations and recommendations based on the parts one and two.

Each team member will write a draft of each section which will be graded. Rewrites of drafts are permitted. The team will combine their efforts to produce a final draft. (50% of the final grade divided as follows: 40% individual grades, 10% team grade)

Technical Writing (EGL 310) Sample Research Assignment:

Semester Research Project Description:

Part I: Presenting objective information: After researching available products, services, or treatments, the individual writes an objective description of the products, services, or treatment for the target audience. Due October 5.

For example, if the target audience is women seeking treatment for breast cancer, the individual researches the types of treatment available and describes them for the target audience.

Part II: Comparison: After researching the benefits, performance, cost, and outcome of available products, services, or treatments, the individual writes a comparison of the products, services, or treatment for the target audience. Due November 9.

For example, if the target audience is a family of four shopping for a mid-priced mini-van, the individual researches the available cars and compares them (like Consumer Reports) in terms of cost, performance, safety, handling, etc.

Part III: Recommendation: Uses an analysis of the information from Parts I and II to make a recommendation to the target audience. Due November 30.

For example, if the target audience is a boss who must decide on purchasing an e-mail program for the company, the individual would write a recommendation based on an analysis of the cost and performance of the program and the needs of the company.

We have found that structuring research assignments into three parts with due dates at five week intervals causes less stress to both students and instructors. Structuring research assignments in a format familiar to the students makes those assignments less threatening and causes students to perceive them as "doable." Requiring students to collaborate on evaluating sources and sharing information forces them to compare their own viewpoints which results in critical thinking as they defend and often amend their outlook. We have received much better, more original papers at all levels using this format.