the dreaded research paper

[byquist]

at what point does the system recognize that some students will not get it and deserve not to be in college? "acclimatizing" is just a euphemism for coddling lazy students who simply have little interest in putting in the requisite hours of study time, period.

Half true; I would not deny laziness is widely evident in Comm. Colleges. But even Ivys too -- admit it, there is skating, grade inflation, and boozing the hours away going on there too.

Yet, many are trying their hardest, plus working 20-40+ hrs. a week at some God-awful job, raising a kid or two; they know they goofed-off in high school and didn't get a foundation, and are having an even tougher time in Basic Math. I do see them pushing up against their limits -- there's some heroism in that -- and that's when things get interesting. They know 1 essential point: education is the prime route upward (unless they are good at selling or their dad owns a pizza shop).

While it might take some of them 10 yrs. what takes 4 for others, the obsessional thirst for knowledge might kick in at any moment. It's a process and they just aren't ready yet for those German philosophers you have said you like better than the Greeks.

[Petrarch's Love]

shouldn't students know the ABC's of research and writing by the time they reach college? i think it's terrific sinclair is taking the time and effort to guide students along the process, but at what point does the system recognize that some students will not get it and deserve not to be in college? "acclimatizing" is just a euphemism for coddling lazy students who simply have little interest in putting in the requisite hours of study time, period.

Like Byquist I only agree with this part way, in that I'll agree that there are certainly lazy students, but I don't think that's the whole problem with Sinclair's students who struggle with research papers. Byquist has already eloquently defended why some students require extra patience, but I'd like to add that I don't think it's true for most students to come to college prepared to write a research paper. That's usually a big part of the step from high school to college writing. They may have gotten a little taste of research in highschool, but freshmen in college (be it community college or a prestigious university) usually need a lot of teaching and guidance as to how and when to quote sources, cite sources or even go about finding the appropriate secondary material in the library. Even very bright and hardworking students need some help with their first college research papers. I would expect a beginning college student to have an idea about how to go about writing a basic essay (they certainly stress the 5 paragraph format in highschools), but not neccessarily how to produce a research paper.

[jon1jt]

my question for sinclair and the other college teachers here is, how much time do each of you spend "teaching" research and writing in your courses? research and writing is usually covered in the two sections of English Composition required at most colleges. if the course is american history or women and gender, etc., then teachers ought to invest their time in that and put the onus on the student to purchase the writing books and seek out the primary college resources. the students described above, who have come to realize the importance of a good education, need to do their part then and step it up.

i learned that research and writing is not something that can be taught, but something that must be done again and again. with all due respect, the idea that one can teach this subject beyond the basics is foolish as the idea that one can teach poetry.

[Petrarch's Love]

Jon--First off, I was under the impression that Sinclair was teaching Comp. or some similar introductory course. I thought we were talking about students who hadn't encountered writing research papers at the college level before, and those students would need a lot of guidance. I objected to your statement because you said that students should know how to do this kind of research "by the time they reach college," which implies that they would have learned this in highschool, and in most cases they don't. If, as you say, we're talking about a student who's been through a year of college level Composition courses and/or basic level English courses that deal with how to write a research paper, then I'll agree that I would have higher expectations of them. No, I would not dedicate large portions of class time in an upper division Shakespeare class to instructing students on how to write a research paper, since I would assume that they had the basics covered in their Comp. class, but I probably would try to give some guidance in the form of a clearly formatted assignment, possibly a suggested reading list to get them started, and help with questions in office hours. By the way, I agree with you about practice making perfect in terms of writing. There's only so much even the most dedicated Comp. teacher can do.

[Panflute]

Maybe I could give some advice from a student's point of view. Over the years I've had many teachers, who had me read books in many different languages. It's needless to say that their styles of teaching literature were very different.

When it came down to research papers, they approached it in various ways.

First, you had the "I don't really care about this, but the school council wants me to do it"-approach. This usually consisted of the teacher just pinning down a date for the paper to be turned in, after which you wouldn't hear the slightest thing about it. Needless to say, this made the temptation of just looking up a summary of a random book on the internet so astronomically big, that it was hard to resist.
After all, if you DID read the book, it wouldn't be in the slightest bit rewarding, because its eventual effect would be exactly the same as if you just looked up some random summary on the internet: you turn in the paper, and that's it (of course, reading has its personal benefits, but I'm mainly talking about its school relevance here). This method is crap. If any, it demotivates students to read anything.

Next is the slightly more effective, but equally demotivating "I'm just gonna force you to either read the book, or study the summary very carefully" method. Basically it means that the teacher tests the knowledge of the student about the book in question in a very direct way, such as a conversation, by asking the most complicated, precise, insignificant questions he or she can think of; usually minor details or whatever, to test if the student has actually read the book. This method is bound to cause an increase in the percentage of students which actually reads the book, but it will probably also cause a dense hate for literature which can last for many years.

Last, but certainly not least, is the relaxed method. It can come in many forms. You could ask the students to write a review, or you could engage in a conversation with them on the book's purpose, the likes and dislikes, etc. However, all questions must eventually be traced back to these basic questions:
- What was the book about?
- How did you like it?
You see, if you give a student the opportunity to form an opinion on the book's style, message, or the author itself, it's much more rewarding to read the book than to just use a random summary. It's very wise to avoid questions such as "what did the author mean when he said...", because, if we're honest, noone really knows that, most of the time, and it's silly to ask for that, because the message is either so clear that it could've hardly escaped even the most distracted reader, or the author's meaning was to write a good book. Exceptions are, of course, given, but with all the introductions and footnotes included in most classic books, the main point is eventually hard to miss.

I guess it comes down to motivating the students by telling them about a certain writer (preferably a writer you like, so that it won't sound like you give the presentation with a gun pointed at your head), and somehow try to transfer your enthousiasm to them. It might sound a bit vague, but the former 2 methods actually made me stop reading, while the latter method made me pick up reading again. Quite frankly, if I had another, more boring teacher in the past 2 years, I probably wouldn't be registered here. It's all about enthousiasm; make it look natural. Students will appreciate that more than when you try and shove the complete works of William Shakespeare down their throats, complete with the horrors of explanation and clarification.

Students, or so my experience is, like to voice their opinions, rather than sit through boring, dusty sessions which consist of endless elaborations. If that is how they first get in touch with the literature at hand, it will most probably kill it for them. I know how I hated English class last year when we struggling through MacBeth. I'm actually gonna try some works of Shakespeare again, thanks to the much more laid-back approach to literature of the teacher I currently have.

Well, I hope that helps, and I certainly hope that you see it as help rather than a tirade against the literary education system (mind, I'm located in The Netherlands, although that shouldn't make that much of a difference). I don't know how big your options are when it comes to choosing which literature to teach in your class, but remember that motivation and enthousiasm is the key, take a student's word for that.

[jon1jt]

First, you had the "I don't really care about this, but the school council wants me to do it"-approach. This usually consisted of the teacher just pinning down a date for the paper to be turned in, after which you wouldn't hear the slightest thing about it. Needless to say, this made the temptation of just looking up a summary of a random book on the internet so astronomically big, that it was hard to resist.
After all, if you DID read the book, it wouldn't be in the slightest bit rewarding, because its eventual effect would be exactly the same as if you just looked up some random summary on the internet: you turn in the paper, and that's it (of course, reading has its personal benefits, but I'm mainly talking about its school relevance here). This method is crap. If any, it demotivates students to read anything.

students don't hear the slightest thing about the paper once it's assigned because the professor is not there to coddle you. when you arrive at college you are considered to be a big boy or girl and required to come equipped with a work ethic. the source of the demotivation you speak about is more often a function of the student's laziness compounded by poor critical thinking and writing skills.

Next is the slightly more effective, but equally demotivating "I'm just gonna force you to either read the book, or study the summary very carefully" method. Basically it means that the teacher tests the knowledge of the student about the book in question in a very direct way, such as a conversation, by asking the most complicated, precise, insignificant questions he or she can think of; usually minor details or whatever, to test if the student has actually read the book. This method is bound to cause an increase in the percentage of students which actually reads the book, but it will probably also cause a dense hate for literature which can last for many years.

c'mon, spare me. professors don't force assignments on students, students ask to be there. college is not a prison term. most professors have a genuine motive for the assignments they craft with the hope that they contribute to the student's intellectual growth and development.

You see, if you give a student the opportunity to form an opinion on the book's style, message, or the author itself, it's much more rewarding to read the book than to just use a random summary. It's very wise to avoid questions such as "what did the author mean when he said...", because, if we're honest, noone really knows that, most of the time, and it's silly to ask for that, because the message is either so clear that it could've hardly escaped even the most distracted reader, or the author's meaning was to write a good book. Exceptions are, of course, given, but with all the introductions and footnotes included in most classic books, the main point is eventually hard to miss.

opinions are fine and there is plenty of opportunity for students to voice them in the course of a semester. the question, "what did the author mean..." is one way to get you to consider the material more critically, to get you to think for yourself and not what the preface or the footnotes or even the professor says is the case. you miss the point completely. UGH.

I guess it comes down to motivating the students by telling them about a certain writer (preferably a writer you like, so that it won't sound like you give the presentation with a gun pointed at your head), and somehow try to transfer your enthousiasm to them. It might sound a bit vague, but the former 2 methods actually made me stop reading, while the latter method made me pick up reading again. Quite frankly, if I had another, more boring teacher in the past 2 years, I probably wouldn't be registered here. It's all about enthousiasm; make it look natural. Students will appreciate that more than when you try and shove the complete works of William Shakespeare down their throats, complete with the horrors of explanation and clarification.

while it's true that teachers are required to invite students into the learning experience, they are not required to be motivated for them. your assumption is wrong, again. professors don't shove assignments down the student's throats--- the student chooses to be there.

Students, or so my experience is, like to voice their opinions, rather than sit through boring, dusty sessions which consist of endless elaborations. If that is how they first get in touch with the literature at hand, it will most probably kill it for them. I know how I hated English class last year when we struggling through MacBeth. I'm actually gonna try some works of Shakespeare again, thanks to the much more laid-back approach to literature of the teacher I currently have.

those endless elaborations are often the product of years of intensive, engaging research on the part of the professor. but you wouldn't know anything about that now, would you? My advice: spend less time criticizing and more time asking yourself what you can bring to the process. and stop deluding yourself; be honest, even self-critical. ask yourself why you decided to go to college in the first place.

[Aunty-lion]

those endless elaborations are often the product of years of intensive, engaging research on the part of the professor. but you wouldn't know anything about that now, would you? My advice: spend less time criticizing and more time asking yourself what you can bring to the process. and stop deluding yourself; be honest, even self-critical. ask yourself why you decided to go to college in the first place.

I know what you're saying Jon, and I totally agree that it isn't up to the lecturers to mollycoddle their students at University level.

However, my mother is a researcher of and writer about teaching methods, and according to her, it has been found that University level teachers are generally the worst at following the basic principles of good teaching (I am not implying that you are one of these teachers though).

Apparently the main problem is when lecturers take their title a wee bit too seriously and act as if that is all they are there to do, lecture.

While lecturing is one of the key principles of good teaching, it is not the only one, and, stand-alone, it will never compete with a more diverse range of teaching methods.

If all teachers are needed for is to hand out information, then I don't see why they don't simply email their lecture notes to their students. Reading the information is just as good as hearing it, surely.

I wish I could remember all the different techniques that the 'ideal teacher' should use but it's late and I'm tired. However, I do remember that modeling (or giving examples) is one, questioning is another, explaining, telling (which is different from explaining. More like "You'll find it on page 10 of your book" etc), directing ("do this" etc) and giving feedback.

Some good teachers do this naturally (hopefully you are one), however, for the rest I believe it would be useful if University lecturers had to undergo some kind of training in these techniques. In my country, University lecturers are not required to undergo any teacher training.

Weird.

[Aunty-lion]

Whoops, I just realized I was totally assuming you are a teacher Jon, and maybe you are not??
Anyway, I suppose that doesn't change my point, but it might have sounded a bit unclear. Sorry!

[Panflute]

students don't hear the slightest thing about the paper once it's assigned because the professor is not there to coddle you. when you arrive at college you are considered to be a big boy or girl and required to come equipped with a work ethic.

Actually, as I forgot to mention, I was giving my views as experienced in the last classes of highschool, which is bound to be a difference, because, as is obvious from your statement, the university teacher has a lot more students to teach than the high school teacher. (note: it's quite confusing to tell from the posts to tell which educational level we're talking about here, because the Dutch school system is quite different from the English/American, as well as some of the terms, naturally.)

However, I understood from the post of the topic started, he/she had trouble making the students do research papers without making it look as a boring collection of questions. I, in return, told some things that might help to get those students to look at those papers from a different perspective, and I've found the things stated in my previous post to help a lot to not look at literature class as some dusty school subject.

the source of the demotivation you speak about is more often a function of the student's laziness compounded by poor critical thinking and writing skills.

It's certainly a part, but many people I've spoken to (mind, not only people of my own generation), who are now avid readers, all share the complaint that school can ruin the joy of reading.

c'mon, spare me. professors don't force assignments on students, students ask to be there. college is not a prison term. most professors have a genuine motive for the assignments they craft with the hope that they contribute to the student's intellectual growth and development.

I agree, and I should've told you I was talking about highschool literature class, which is, much like almost every subject in highschool, of a dramatically low level.

opinions are fine and there is plenty of opportunity for students to voice them in the course of a semester. the question, "what did the author mean..." is one way to get you to consider the material more critically, to get you to think for yourself and not what the preface or the footnotes or even the professor says is the case. you miss the point completely. UGH.

those endless elaborations are often the product of years of intensive, engaging research on the part of the professor.

Well, my main point with that, is that it's often very inaccurate. I've read tons of accounts of authors who are still alive, who hear the most astonishing motivations behind their work from school teachers (ie. that it is said that the author meant something with a certain passage or contrast or whatever, while he really didn't mean anything at all). Simon Carmiggelt would be a good example of that, but not that you would know the slightest thing about him. (Oh, look how smart and educated I am!)

Maybe I'm not artistic or intellectual enough to search a meaning behind everything, or maybe it's the stereotypical sober thinking the Dutch are famed for, you decide, but I don't really care. Don't think, though, that I don't see deeper meanings in some books, be they personal, be they solely based on the writer's background, the book's effect, or whatnot. I don't have a problem with the question "what does ... mean with..." as long as it asks for my opinion, thought, whatever you'd like to call it, instead of turning it into a right/wrong question, with the teacher claiming to know everything, as if he had the phonenumber in heaven of the author himself (for these types are certainly present on every level in the wonderful world we call school).

but you wouldn't know anything about that now, would you?

Oh! Yes! I was waiting for this. Aren't we the intellectual little fellow? I'm sure I've stepped on your educated figure-of-speech toes by not agreeing with some methods of education (even though it turned out that we're talking about quite different things), as you demonstrated by the highly irritated nature in which you typed your reply, but I'm equally sure that you can cherish yourself with the idea that you're better than me, with which I sincerely congratulate you.

I will most certainly admit that I am not very much into answering questions which consist of uncovering the writer's aim (which surprisingly often is just 'writing a nice book', but that aside), but I do know that many an author fought against upperclass nitwits like yourself (which would mean that you yourself are the meaning; the essence of self-critical thinking I'd say; a more philosophical answer is not possible), so my advice: keep up the good work, Sparky.

[jon1jt]

Actually, as I forgot to mention, I was giving my views as experienced in the last classes of highschool, which is bound to be a difference, because, as is obvious from your statement, the university teacher has a lot more students to teach than the high school teacher. (note: it's quite confusing to tell from the posts to tell which educational level we're talking about here, because the Dutch school system is quite different from the English/American, as well as some of the terms, naturally.

I agree, and I should've told you I was talking about highschool literature class, which is, much like almost every subject in highschool, of a dramatically low level.

very true. speaking about education on here i'm learning is a tricky matter given those differences.

Maybe I'm not artistic or intellectual enough to search a meaning behind everything, or maybe it's the stereotypical sober thinking the Dutch are famed for, you decide, but I don't really care. Don't think, though, that I don't see deeper meanings in some books, be they personal, be they solely based on the writer's background, the book's effect, or whatnot. I don't have a problem with the question "what does ... mean with..." as long as it asks for my opinion, thought, whatever you'd like to call it, instead of turning it into a right/wrong question, with the teacher claiming to know everything, as if he had the phonenumber in heaven of the author himself (for these types are certainly present on every level in the wonderful world we call school).

well then we agree. if you have teachers like those you speak of, then shame on them.

Oh! Yes! I was waiting for this. Aren't we the intellectual little fellow? I'm sure I've stepped on your educated figure-of-speech toes by not agreeing with some methods of education (even though it turned out that we're talking about quite different things), as you demonstrated by the highly irritated nature in which you typed your reply, but I'm equally sure that you can cherish yourself with the idea that you're better than me, with which I sincerely congratulate you.

like i said in my last post to you, be self-critical. for lack of information we embarked on a discussion about quite different things. my "demonstrated irritated nature" is no less visible than some of your misguided thinking about teaching and literature that i initially replied to.

I will most certainly admit that I am not very much into answering questions which consist of uncovering the writer's aim (which surprisingly often is just 'writing a nice book', but that aside), but I do know that many an author fought against upperclass nitwits like yourself...

i didn't know that my love of books and the idea that books have something to teach and we ought to remain open to that possibility makes me an upperclass nitwit. but i'll take being an upperclass nit any day over being a moron.

[Panflute]

I know what I am but what are you? (now that we're speaking about high school level anyway)

Anyway, it seems like we've been in some kind of misunderstanding. No hard feelings?

[barbara0207]

Now that you two seem to have finished quarreling - may I butt in?
I'm a teacher of English and German language and literature, and I think that the question "What did the author mean?" is completely out of date. In classroom discussions I am often surprised what my students (aged 16 - 19, advanced level; German school system different again) come up with. Reading is - just like writing - a very individual matter. There are certainly things about a book most readers can agree on, but the actual question is not "What did the author mean" but "What effect does the book have on you as a reader?" or "How does it affect you?" If the teacher allows the students to talk about the way they experienced the book many of them will be much more willing to go into depth.

[jon1jt]

I know what I am but what are you? (now that we're speaking about high school level anyway)

Anyway, it seems like we've been in some kind of misunderstanding. No hard feelings?

me? i'm tortured by sidewalks and cruel lips. otherwise, i think i'm a pretty happy guy. no hard feelings at all, ol' pan. be well.

[Panflute]

me? i'm tortured by sidewalks and cruel lips. otherwise, i think i'm a pretty happy guy. no hard feelings at all, ol' pan. be well.

Heh, same to you, buddy. Those internet quarrels are getting a bit tiring anyway.

[thuycam]

can you show me some strategies to transform a lesson, a literature lesson more effectively