Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
Understanding Research as Conversation
Transcript of Understanding Research as Conversation
Each researcher perceives the same exigence- that student writers are having trouble writing original research arguments. Kantz (1990): "We need a theory-based explanation, one grounded in findings of the published research on the nature of reasons for our students' problems with writing persuasive research papers"(Par. 1). Kantz audience is composition instructors and teachers of research to help solve the problems students have with writing research papers. Kantz believes the way students read and perceive the research task is inhibiting their ability to conduct research that is original. Greene (2001): To help solve the same issue (helping students write researched arguments) Greene addressed the student as the primary audience insitsing that "learning how to write a researched argment is a process of learning how to enter conversations that are already going on in written form." What's important Greene contends, is "... [understanding the dialogue] not only between author and reader but between the text and everything that has been said or written beforehand..." (Par. 5). Kleine (1987): An incident at the night library prompts Kleine to ask a question that he hopes will help address the same issue Kantz and Greene are witnessing: "How do they [professional academic researchers] participate in a rich process of discovery and communication, a process that might have private and public value?" His line of thinking is that if we can see how professional academics conduct research, maybe we can steer students towards more genuine forms of inquiry. Kleine writes for an audience of writing instructors. Kantz offers a heuristic in the form of helping students see the rhetorical nature of texts contending, "the rhetorical reading technique requires students to discover content worth writing about and a rhetorical purpose for writing" (Par. 39). Her rhetorical reading heuristic involves having students ask rhetorical questions based on Kinneavy's traingle. Through the anecdote of Shirly, Kantz asserts that students often do not distinguish between claims, facts, and opinions. Implminting scaffolded sequence of drafts ensures "students [will] demonstrate increasingly sophisticated kinds of analytic and rhetorical proficiency" (Par. 45). Greene uses Kenneth Burke's parlor metaphor to underscore the image of academic writing as conversation. Like kantz, this is a rhetorical approach to understanding researched arguments. Greene contends that framing is an essential skill that effective researchers do- by recognizing a fundamental tension that you identify within a conversation, a good question might grow (Par. 12). Greene asserts that you must "demonstrate to readers that you understand the conversations (Par. 23). Greene continues and argues "... the Latin contexere, denotes a process of weaving together. Thus your attempt to understand context is an active process of making connections among the different views people present within a conversation" (Par. 23). This contention matches Kantz in her overview of Shirly who failed to understand context. Kleine uses a metaphor "strategic" and "heuristic"; "hunters" and "gatherers"; "epistemic" and "rhetorical"- he uses this to identify and code how his subjects manage the different complex tasks of doing research. Coroborating Greene's findings, Kliene discovered that of the eight researchers he interviewed all "the subjects ... found starting points among the discourse of such a community" (Par. 16). Like Kantz, Kleine cites Kinneavy's discourse triangulation to identify the rhetorical situation. In the conclusion Kleine outlines five pedagogical implications for helping writing instructors to teach students better ways to conduct research. Kantz, Margaret. "Helping Students Use Textual Sources Persuasively." College English 52.1
(1990): 74-91. Print. Greene, Stuart. "Argument as Conversation: The Role of Inquiry in Writing a Researched
Argument." The Subject is Research. Ed. Wendy Bishop and Pavel Zemliansky. Portsmouth,
NH: Boynton/Cook, 2001. 145-64. Print. Kleine, Michael. "What Is It We Do When We Write Articles Like This One - and How Can We
Get Students to Join Us?" The Writing Instructor 6 (1987): 151-61. Print. In looking at these sources, I can examine the works cited pages of each author to see what types of conversations led to the author's creation of this text. One thing that stands out to me is that both Kleine and Kantz recognized an author by the name of Kinneavy, whose rhetorical triangle is used as a heuristic for both authors. In order to better understand these conversations, I should find out who Kinneavy is and what he did to inform the conversation. After some quick google searches, it seems that Kinneavy is an often cited rhetorician who taught at the University of Texas for more than thirty years. He is widly cited, and particularly noted for his rhetorical traingle. It may also help to find the actual source that Kleine and Kantz cite.
Kinneavy, James. A Theory of Discourse. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1971. Print. Kantz's sources: Kantz had taken courses with Linda Flower (one source on her bib.) and she was classmates with Christina Haas during their Phd. programs at Carnegie Mellon What could be done in the classroom setting to implement some of these solutions to help students write better researched arguments? Davidson, Jeanne R. & Carole Ann Crateau. "INTERSECTIONS: Teaching Research
Through a Rhetorical Lens." Research Stratigies, Vol. 15 No. 4 pages 245-57. Nutefall, Jennifer & Phyllis Mentzell. "Teaching Research Rhetorically." Academic
Exchange Fall 2005. I found these two articles that also emphasize showing students rhetorical implications. Both articles focus on the idea that research is epestimic and recursive. Offer a three pronged approach to teaching research: 1st students evesdrop on an academic conversation, then they enter into it, and finally they engage with an ongoing conversation. (evesdropping, entering, and engaging) Argues for an approach that partners librarians and instructors to engage in and promote collaboration and conversation. Emphasizes the recursive nature of conducting research. Each author sees the same exigence, but they offer different solutions for the problems that student writers have. What accounts for the different solutions that each author decides will solve the problem? Are there new technologies that might help illuminate and engage students in the research process? I went to JStore and found an article that looks at technology as a support for writing instruction. Title: Cognitive Technologies for Writing
Author(s): Roy D. Pea; D. Midian Kurland
Source: Review of Research in Education, Vol. 14, (1987), pp. 277-326
Publisher(s): American Educational Research Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1167314 I found Kennith Burke's excerpt that looks at the Parlor metaphor. I'll have to see what this adds to the conversation. I found three articles by Kenneth Burke, one of which covers his metaphor of the parlor. Burke is a dense read and I want to dive in more fully to understand this idea of the conversation metaphor that Greene underscores. What technologies are mentioned in this article and how do those technologies shape pedagogy? http://books.google.com/books?id=9zuXtQtNbowC&printsec=frontcover&dq=kenneth+burke+the+philosophy+of+literary+form&source=bl&ots=F1npWifrjg&sig=5w52bSqGat3m3lGiJ0U1v1niGlA&hl=en&ei=vQVTTbBrgoLyBuXmubUK&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&sqi=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false Text goes here New idea To what extent can Prezi help students to read rhetorically, delve deeper into academic conversations, and writer better research papers? It seems that the rhetorical triangle makes communication seem quite linear. Is this a two dimensional model? Could there be other models that are more effective at underscoring research as conversation? What other ways can students imagine a conception of research as conversation. Could teaching intertextuality help students to understand academic research? Bazerman, Charles. "Intertextuality: Volsinov, Bakhtin, Literary Theory and Literacy Studies"
Fister, Barbara. "Teaching the Rhetorical Dimensions of Research." Research Strategies 11.4 (1993):211-219.
Fister, Barbara. "The Research Process of Undergraduate Students. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 18.3
What else do I need to explore? http://www.professionalenglishservices.com/Intertextualityannotatedbib.html