Writing in the Disciplines Knowledge Base

Instructor provides part of the research

For the second approach, students are provided some portion of the paper so they can focus on the writing. Or they are provided with a controlled research process, so that question/method are already taken care of. There are lots of options with this approach, and this kind of research writing can be added to any course.

Option 1: Provide the data set

In this option, the teacher provides a data set with its accompanying method and research question. Students then write the rest of the research paper, but do not have to perform the research.This eliminates virtually all the challenges associated with conducting original research, though it also reduces the student’s experience in thinking like a disciplinary practitioner.

• provide students a set of readings with the information they’ll need to use for the introduction and discussion sections. This may be all the reading they use or they can be required to do some additional literature searching. This decision will depend on why you’re doing this assignment — the more information students are provided, the more it becomes ONLY about writing, which might be advantageous.
• To increase the disciplinary-thinking, provide raw data (or data after the basic set of stats have been run). Students will then have to figure out what the data patterns are in addition to figuring out what they mean for the research question. They’ll also have to create figures which is an excellent way of demonstrating how your field divvies up the world.
  • This will entail time and training, so allocate at least one class period for how data is analyzed and another for either doing the work in-class or sharing data analysis performed as homework.

The biggest disadvantage to this approach is coming up with a data set that has not been published or figuring out a way to prevent students from finding data that has been published. If you have access to unpublished data, this would be a great source of authentic outcomes for students to use and to prevent cheating. Another alternative is to make up a data set based on a selection of real studies. Colleagues who come out of the humanities tend to have less problem with this approach than colleagues in the sciences for whom “making up data” is a loathsome breach of ethics. I tend to agree with the science-minded on this one, but also see that using a fabricated data set purely as a training tool is a possible solution. Another option is to use the data from a NON-open-access article in a more obscure journal, preferably one that your institution’s library doesn’t have a subscription to. The data is broken down into its raw form if possible or in lists, and this strategy seems to make finding the original more difficult. (Note: I’ve been amazed at how much energy certain students will put into finding an original article for the purpose of cheating…if only that effort were diverted into doing the work!)

Option 2: Do a “follow up” study

Yet another strategy is to use a published article, then pre-plan the data-gathering method — the assignment is pitched as a follow-up to some aspect of the original article. Students read the original article, collect new data (but do not have to come up with a method), then have to write up a brief report using the new data while referencing the original (you can also include a few more sources so they have to practice synthesizing new info). Some ideas for selecting articles:

• The original article is easily extended by demographics — age, gender, ethnicity, or geography. For example, a research article on some behavior in a different country, region, or state — find out some aspect in a US context or apply to a college-aged population.
• The original is easily extended by adding a quantitative or qualitative component. For example, any research where something is done or provided to people (from a health intervention to push notifications on an app) can be extended by investigating how people feel about the activity. Virtually any piece of qualitative research can be investigated through a survey on some component.

Option 3: Same start, different finish

In this option, students are provided the Introductory material, then asked to finish with something original of their own. This option is good for encouraging disciplinary thinking while constraining the literacy experiences a good deal because students don’t invest a lot of time in library research. It’s a good choice for design-oriented fields such as landscape architecture, urban planning, engineering, and computer sciences.

• The most controlled variation involves finding or writing the Introductory material — it doesn’t have to be long, but it should clearly set up what the student is supposed to do. Some examples:
  • In LA — intro reading introduces urban park, students do a case study on nearby example and/or design one of their own
    • Can be done with many built environments, e.g. CSAs, interior green spaces, meditation/healing spaces, open/public spaces, etc
  • In ENG  — intro reading on LEED buildings, campus parking designs, bikeshare programs, lab designs, gray water collection, solar energy,  etc — students investigate local instantiation, report data, assess, and suggest design improvements or variations.

Page 2: Students conduct their own research
Page 3: Instructor provides part of the research
Page 4: Scheduling and Scaffolding