It’s Friday afternoon, right after lunch in our 101 classroom. It’s hot and stuffy in our tiny room and there’s an awkward silence between these freshman students as I fumble through my books and papers, preparing the day’s lesson. Roll call ends, signaling the official beginning of class. I begin with a question. “What’s the difference between academic research and popular web-based research?” Blank stares. More awkward silence.
So begins the interesting query Purdy, Brent and Matalene address; the layered and often convoluted relationship between our students, their stories and their research. Of course, this relationship is played out in their writing through varied assignments that ultimately end up on our grading desk. While it may be fair to certainly admit these students are now refined, confident and capable students of university studies, they are still very much novice and worried freshman teenagers when it comes to the research process.
It seems our job, particularly in this first assignment, is to move beyond quick results and effortless answers from places like Wikipedia, to the daunting world of research within the academy. To begin and encourage such a transition we must begin with saluting and acknowledging the cultural and academic capital Wikipedia contains – and if used correctly, it can be a worthy and positive learning tool. In Wikipedia Is Good for You!?, Purdy acknowledges the lessons Wikipedia can offer, specifically in that it emulates much of the writing process in the roles of conversation between sources, contribution and revision. Purdy claims using Wikipedia as model to inform students on the basic steps of research can also be a means for them to approach research. “My intention here is not to prepare you to contribute a Wikipedia article itself, but rather to use Wikipedia to prepare you to do the reviewing that is part of successful research-based writing” (215). If we include and utilize Wikipedia as a beginning block of research from which to build, then our students will perhaps be more inclined to understand research as what it ultimately emulates, a process. Purdy concludes, “In other words, looking at Wikipedia as a starting place (for ideas, sources, search terms, etc.) shows the importance of engaging with rather than ventriloquizing sources – of viewing sources as means to spur and develop your thinking rather than as means to get someone else to do your thinking for you” (222). If we can use Wikipedia in our favor by showcasing it as a model of the research process, rather than demonizing any and all things web outside of the library, then perhaps our students will be more inclined to participate in that process. And as we all well know, the more you’re willing to participate in anything process-related while on campus, the more successful you’ll be as a student.
Something else, I think, that may yield to more success as a student is the acceptance and validity of our own personal narratives and experiences. This first assignment is call for those individual stories and it may very well be the first time our students are asked for such through their writing. Matalene enters this conversation in The Writing Teacher’s Sourcebook, as she maintains the use of personal narrative within academic composition is positive and healthy, rather than taboo and wrong, as seen in many courses that “seem to ask the teacher as well as the students to think more about appearing academic than sounding real” (87). Matalene further argues that exercise and inclusion of personal experience in student composition may be an aspect of their academic lives that will later transpire to discussions of social justice and the division of private and public voices. “Bifureation, separation of the private and public, that it seems to me is what the argument is all about, at least, that is, when students are told what issues to argue and which authorities to depend on” (189). Matalene seems to propose that we, as teachers, in order to move toward open discussions of truth and honesty in the public sphere, must incorporate the rhetorical practice and inclusion of a personal narrative and connection, both in the classroom and in our students’ writing.
To my fellow classmates: How are you using, experimenting and observing ideas and conventions from Purdy, Matalene and Brent in your own classrooms?
Jenny, as you mention, Matalene says that it is often the case that courses are designed to teach books rather than students and "to think more about appearing academic than sounding real" (187). At the same time she questions the very notion of academic discourse. For her, and I agree, it is not the case that academic discourse should consist of abstractions but rather of things that are real, things that are grounded in our existence and personal experiences. This is the very means by which students become aware of their position in the ongoing discussion that Brent makes mention of. The point here is that students can only be empowered by allowing them to tap into their personal experience and view it as valuable in an academic setting (and in all other settings as well).
ReplyDeleteWikipedia, as you mention, is a good starting point for research. However, as suggested by Purdy, it is also a physical representation of the ongoing process of writing. It too can serve as a great example of the ongoing public dialogue that Brent discusses. So all and all, I believe I may use Wikipedia in my classroom as a means to discussing the ongoing public discussion of which all of us are a part.
Jenny
ReplyDeleteI agree that we must encourage students to approach, as you so eloquently stated, "the cultural and academic capital that Wikipedia contains." Under such an approach, students can work hands on with Ballenger's notion of "making the familiar strange." Such a tactic allows students to critically approach the array of possibilities one can utilize in researching, while also forcing them to view Wikipedia in an entirely different academic context. The lens under which they choose to view a notion such as Purdy's that "Wikipedia can be good for you" would be interesting to observe, especially given the idea that the majority of first year undergrads know the negative connotations Wikipedia carries with it in the academic realm of higher education, and therefore will either harbor ambivalence or curiosity at the notion of using Wikipedia as a process for research rather than a tool.
In response to your question, I try and bring in texts (poems, short stories, etc...) that emulate a multifarious approach towards having a "world view" of identity and culture that will in turn shape the rhetoric of our discussions to meet "the ultimate goal of updating a belief system or worldview, a theory about the way the world operates and about the way in which the believer can and should operate within it" (Brent).
Jenny wrote, “If we include and utilize Wikipedia as a beginning block of research from which to build, then our students will perhaps be more inclined to understand research as what it ultimately emulates, a process.” I think there is great insight in this idea and similar concepts put forth by Purdy because interacting with such a popular source not only honestly confronts the reality that many students are familiar with it as a resource and that at its core, Wikipedia reveals biases that may be less apparent in other sources students will stumble across further on down the path that they should be aware of. Simultaneously, it is a model for how students should be interacting with their own research and writing process: “reviewing, conversing, revising, and sharing” (Purdy 206). Because I incorporated using Wikipedia to look up the term “sustainability” early on in the class, as I think many of us did, this same issue came up naturally in the class and has been great foundation for ongoing discussion ever since.
ReplyDeleteAnd on a similar note of honesty, I find that Matalene’s perspective on incorporating personal connections into the practice of rhetoric is integral in developing confidence in our students as researchers and writers. “It is a question of how to best prepare students to be decent and honest in their writing whether they are talking about their grandparents or euthanasia. Talking about euthanasia IS talking about one’s grandparents” (Matalene 189). Regardless of the genre of an assignment, developing an understanding that as writers, our students have backgrounds that will shade their writing is more empowering than it is troubling, as long as they know when and how to use the correct rhetorical tools. And that is where one challenge of teaching comes in, imparting abstract concepts to be used hand in hand with practical strategies.
Hi Jenny,
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said about the difficulties in getting our students to understand the connection and process involved in “the layered and often convoluted relationship between our students, their stories and their research.” I know that Wikipedia can help get students started on their research, but I never thought of the entries themselves as a metaphor on the research process. I loved the examples given by James Purdy on how the steps involved in writing a Wikipedia entry mirrors that of the writing process. This is a perfect way to explain the writing process in a manner that is easily accessible to all of my students and I am always looking for new ways to explain different ideas. I’m not thrilled about getting the blank stare response, but I am slowly learning how to use it as a to figure out what kind of ideas help my students and what falls short.
To answer your question I use the ideas presented in by Purdy, Matalene, and Brent in a variety of ways, whether I use them in lectures or as assignments, I feel like they help me develop my own ideas and teaching style. One benefit from using their suggestions I have noticed is that their ideas help me generate class discussions. The first week it was hard for me to get my students to converse with one another, but I am really starting to understand how important these conversations are for their own writing as well as each others. A sentence in Purdy’s essay that really resonated is the one that states “[If] they do not get feedback, their writing cannot impact on others’ understanding of a topic, and they cannot gain status among the Wikipedia community.” (Purdy 220) I think it’s important for my students to see how they can benefit from each others ideas and constructive criticisms, so I appreciated the fact that Purdy emphasized the importance of feedback in his essay. Purdy also does a nice job of expressing his defense of the use of Wikipedia in way that can educate the educators.
Jenny,
ReplyDeleteThis week's readings have applied directly to my class.
In chapter 5 I read, "We tell students the nuts and bolts of research...but we forget to tell them why they are doing it." In my class, I have not only emphasized the how of research, but also the why. I have stressed what I term the "I filter." The I filter means that students must research and then filter all the information through their own thinking. Why? Because this filter results in a PERSONAL academic argument. We researched topics together in class and I asked the students to tell me WHY we are doing the research, and also HOW the information does or does not apply to the researchable question.
Regarding the question of Wikipedia...On a couple of occasions, we started our research with Wikipedia. The students had to tell me whether or not the info was a credible source. This discussion led to some helpful insights about the validity of sources.
One more subject...
Chapter 3 discussed the interesting idea of readers assigning personalities to authors. In my class, I've emphasized the importance of each student's opinion, personality, and style. By reading their class assignments and homework, I've shown them that each student already has a personality and style.