Norgaard, Rolf. “Writing Information Literacy in the Classroom: Pedagogical Enactments and Implications.” Reference Services Review 43.3 (2003): 220–226.
Review 43.2 (2003): 124–130.
Misconceptions haunt IL by linking it merely to “skills” to master. From a pedagogical lens, Norgaard wrote that IL has fallen squarely within the current-traditional rhetoric, with its major assignment being the research paper. While the writing environment has changed, with theorists such as Burke, Perelman, Booth and Berlin leading the way to new rhetorics, IL is also easily “high jacked by and misunderstood in terms of this traditional paradigm.” There is a need to focus on new approaches that look at writing “not as a formalistic tool…but as a vehicle for inquiry…a process of making and mediating meaning.” Information literacy could also benefit by drawing from revisionist studies in rhetoric and composition that examine “cultural, historical, social, and political systems” that inform literacy, recognizing an “ecological” approach–with context as what binds the forms of literacy together (127).
Nelson, Jennie. “The Research Paper: A ‘Rhetoric of Doing’ or a ‘Rhetoric of the Finished Word?’” Composition Studies /Freshman English News 22.2 (1994): 65-75. Web. 3 Sept. 2013.
The research paper is one of the “most institutionalized forms” of writing in college classrooms, purportedly used as a means of developing “better thinkers and communicators.” Nelson argues that there is a disparity between the theory and practice of the research paper, citing it as an assignment that is “problematic at best” (65). She determines that the research paper in classroom practice is more, a “rhetoric of the finished word” (Roaman and Bartholomae), rather than a “rhetoric of doing.” A “rhetoric of doing” encourages discovery and a sense of inquiry, while a “rhetoric of the finished word” is a tool-based approach, without critical thinking “goals and values” (66). According to Bizzell and Herzborg, the rhetorical situations in which the research paper is assigned needs to changed. Brent adds that students focus on the tools and skills of product, rather than a deeper “purpose” of research” (72).
Nelson surveyed students, pointing out that they viewed the research process as an information gathering exercise, not a means of discovery. Their responses were categorized into four areas based on questions as to how they developed their writing process and the sequence of steps they followed. Most students did not utilize any recursive approach, but used a linear – compile approach– for gathering information. Students viewed research as “collection and transcription;” writing known information for a professor, rather than using it as a means of discovery for furthering “independent thinking or critical analysis.” Bartholomae’s frame of “passive spectators” was used to describe how students’ writing often resides outside of the discourse community (66). Lack of an outside audience inhibits students’ engagement in the research conversation. For the research paper to be a successful, “rhetoric of doing,” students need to be inside the discourse community, where they can participate in the conversation. Brent advocated for efforts to be made to “help students get research back into the rhetorical act” (72).
Cooper, Donovan and Carr are referenced as they offer opportunities for students to research issues that matter to them in “real” situations that provide a purpose to their research paper. Nelson further asserts that if students become experts on a topic, exploring areas even outside the professor’s area of expertise, they will be encouraged to engage in genuine inquiry, resulting in a richer learning experience for everyone.
While dated, this is a worthwhile article for those interested in how to assign a purposeful research paper. By grounding her research in rhetorical theory, citing authors such as Bizzell, Bartholomae, Brent and Herzborg, Nelson connects the research assignment to the rhetorical canon, while recognizing that changes in rhetorical approach are necessary. I agree that the research paper can be a challenging and problematic assignment. It is often misused in the writing classroom, as students are not provided opportunities to engage in real inquiry. Rather, the research paper becomes an exercise in compiling facts and quotes, without offering any educational benefit.
Bartholomae, David. “Inventing the University.” When a Writer Can’t Write: Research on Writer’s Block and other Writing Problems. Ed. Mike Rose. New York: Guilford, 1986. 134-166.
Bean, John C. Engaging Ideas: The Professor’s Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and Active Learning in the Classroom. 2nded. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass, 2011.
Bizzell, Patricia and Bruce Herzberg. “Research as a Social Act.” The Clearing House60 (1987): 303-06.
Bizup, Joseph. “BEAM: A Rhetorical Vocabulary for Teaching Research-Based Writing.” Rhetorical Review 27.1 (2008): 72-86. doi: 10.1080/07350190701738858
Brent, Doug. “The Research Paper: What is it and Why We Should Still Care.” Presented to the Canadian Association for the Study of Discourse and Writing (draft under review), 2012.
—. “Reinventing WAC (Again): The First-Year Seminar and Academic Literacy.” College Composition and Communication 57.2 (2005): 253–276.
Citation Project. Accessed: October 10, 2013. <http://site.citationproject.net/>
Dirk, Kerry. “‘The “Research Paper” Prompt: A Dialogic Opportunity for Transfer.’” Composition Forum25 (2012).
Downs, Douglas, and Elizabeth Wardle. “Teaching about Writing, Righting Mis conceptions: (Re)Envisioning ‘First-Year Composition’ as ‘Introduction to Writing Studies.’” College Composition and Communication58.4 (2007): 552–584.
Elmborg, James. “Critical Information Literacy: Implications for Instructional Practice.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 32.2 (2006): 192-199.
Farris, Christine. “Where Rhetoric Meets the Road: First-Year Composition.” Enculturation 5.1 (2003). “First-Year Seminars.” University of Richmond. Accessed: October 10, 2013. <http://fys.richmond.edu/faculty-resources/guidelines.html>
Fister, Barbara. “Teaching the Rhetorical Dimensions of Research.” Research Strategies 11.4 (Fall 1993): 211-219.
—. “The Library’s Role in Learning: Information Literacy Revisited.” Library Issues33.4 (2013).
Harris, Joseph. Rewriting: How to Do Things with Texts. Logan, UT: Utah State UP, 2006.
Hood, Carra Leah. “Ways of Research: The Status of the Traditional Research Paper Assignment in First-Year Writing/Composition Courses.” Composition Forum 22 (Summer 2010).
“Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education.” 2000. Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL). Accessed: October 9, 2013. <http://www.acrl.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/standards/standards.pdf>
Jacobs, Heidi. “Information Literacy and Reflective Pedagogical Praxis.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship34.3 (2008), 256-262.
Kaiser Lee, Karen A. From Telling to Transforming: Rhetorical Invention and the Genre of the Research Paper. PhD Dissertation, Purdue University, 2011.
Kinneavy, James L., and Catherine R. Eskin. “Kairos in Aristotle’s Rhetoric.” Written Communication 11.1 (1994): 131-42.
Lampert, Lynn. “Integrating Discipline-Based Anti-Plagiarism Instruction into the Information Literacy Curriculum.” Reference Services Review 32.4 (2004): 347-355.
Larson, Richard L. “The ‘Research Paper’ in the Writing Course: A Non-Form of Writing.” College English 44.8 (1982): 811-816.
Leckie, Gloria J. Desperately seeking citations: uncovering faculty assumptions about the undergraduate research process. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 22.3 (1996): 201-08.
Manning, Ambrose. “The Present Status of the Research Paper in Freshman English: A National Survey.” College Composition and Communication 12.2 (1961): 73-78.
McClure, Randall. “WritingResearchWriting: The Semantic Web and the Future of the Research Project.” Computers and Composition28.4 (2011): 315–326.
Nelson, Jennie. “The Research Paper: A ‘Rhetoric of Doing’ or a ‘Rhetoric of the Finished Word’?” Composition Studies/Freshman English News 22.2 (1994): 65–75.
Norgaard, Rolf. “Writing Information Literacy: Contributions to a Concept.” Reference Services Review43.2 (2003): 124–130.
—. “Writing Information Literacy in the Classroom: Pedagogical Enactments and Implications.” Reference Services Review43.3 (2004): 220–226.
Nutefall, Jennifer E, and Phyllis Mentzell Ryder. “The Timing of the Research Question: First-Year Writing Faculty and Instruction Librarians’ Differing Perspectives.” portal: Libraries and the Academy 10.4 (2010): 437–449.
Purdy, James P., and Joyce R. Walker. “Liminal Spaces and Research Identity: The Construction of Introductory Composition Students as Researchers.” Pedagogy 13.1 (2013): 9–41.
“Rethinking ACRL’s Information Literacy Standards: The Process Begins.” ACRLinsider. Accessed: October 10, 2013. <http://www.acrl.ala.org/acrlinsider/archives/7329>
Schneider, Barbara. “Ethical Research and Pedagogical Gaps.” College Composition and Communication 58.1 (2006): 70–88.
Schwegler, Robert A., and Kinda K. Shamoon. “The Aims and Process of the Research Paper.” College English 44.8 (1982): 817–824.
Steel, Eric M. “The Freshman Research Paper: Hope at Last?” College English 18.7 (April 1957): 365-366.
Swanson, Troy. “A Radical Step: Implementing a Critical Information Literacy Model.” portal: Libraries and the Academy 4.2 (2004), 259-273.
Thaiss, Christo, and Therese Zawacki. Engaged Writers Dynamic Disciplines: Research on the Academic Writing Life. New York: Heinemann, 2006.
Veach, Grace L. “At the Intersection: Librarianship, Writing Studies, and Sources as Topoi.” Journal of Literacy and Technology 13.1 (2012): 102-129.
Walker, Joyce R. “Constructing a BIG Text: Developing a Multimodal Master Plan for Composition Instruction.” Kairos 11:3 (2007). Accessed: October 9, 2013. <http://www.technorhetoric.net/11.3/binder.html?topoi/prior-et-al/about/abstract_walker.html>
Wardle, Elizabeth, and Doug Downs. “Reflecting Back and Looking Forward: Revisiting Teaching about Writing, Righting Misconceptions Five Years On.” Composition Forum 27 (Spring 2013).
Zwagerman, Sean. “The Scarlet P: Plagiarism, Panopticism, and the Rhetoric of Academic Integrity.” College Composition and Communication 59.4 (2008): 676–710.