Purdy and Walker's "Liminal Spaces and Research Identity"

It's always exciting to start reading one of these assignments and find that it's specifically about first year writing (FYW) in college. I'm probably the only one who gets psyched about this, but it's so relevant to my day-to-day, that I can't help but think this is awesome. This article talks about teaching research to first year students, which is exactly what I'm doing this semester, with a brand new syllabus.

I agree that students come into the course not as empty shells, but as people who already have varying degrees of research skills and expertise. We as FYW instructors have to meet them where they are and teach them to build upon the skills they already possess. We have to show them, also, that they do indeed have research skills. In my experience, most of them don't consider what they do online "research."

The article touches on the use of textbooks to guide undertrained grad students or adjuncts. I hear this type of jargon all the time. Yet, at both schools where I have taught English, it is a handful of tenured folks who do a poor job semester after semester but cannot be disposed of. Grad students and adjuncts must prove their worth every semester. Those who don't, don't get invited back. The distrust of grad students and adjuncts is misplaced. It is the tenured folks who make their own rules, attend no meetings or workshops, don't update their skills, and use the same outdated syllabus year in and year out that ruin the first year writing program. /end rant

I don't use a textbook in my class. If I did, I would use The Bedford Book of Genres published by Bedford/St. Martins. I have that book and sometimes refer to it to make my lesson plans. I don't have the students buy it.

Note to self: Check out these venues for undergraduates to publish:
-Young Scholars in Writing
-The Journal of Undergraduate Multimedia Projects (JUMP)

I agree that to tell students all research must start in the library is silly. First, it's not true, and second, it denies that they have research capabilities that they already use. Also, the stage, or linear model, is not accurate either. But how, then, do you teach a process? I had each student discuss their challenges and process in front of the class. For some students, the research process was almost linear. For others, it was recursive ad nauseum. We talked about the differences in the process for different students, and how each person ultimately got it "right" regardless of the "shape" of the process.

On pages 16 and 17 the authors make assumptions that I don't agree with. For example, when the Internet Detective writes that some web sources may be unreliable and that students should "wise up" to the web, I think that means to develop information literacy, while the authors think it means "students cannot be "wise" to the ways of the World Wide Web without replacing thieir existing practices." I think their interpretation is a stretch to support their own agenda. Further, the authors respond to Tenson by saying that she expects "students to leave behind rather than build on what they already know about navigating digital research spaces." In the text they referenced by Tenson, I did not get the impression that that was the message.

Positioning the library as the required starting place for academic work is both impractical and inaccurate

Exactly. The authors also point out that checklists, linear paths, and one-size-fits-all approaches to research don't work. Agreed.

Students are not considered as equals by the academy, and their reseach skills are not valued if they aren't those of the academy. They need to be valued as "knowledge-makers" instead of just learners. This would constitute a new identity. The discussion of "polluted and polluting" is interesting. "Narrow practices" don't allow students to think of themselves as researchers and squelch rather than encourage creativity.

The authors advocate studying students current research practices so we can create better teaching materials. Understanding student's existing skills will allow us to adapt our pedagogies to better serve students. We don't want them to abandon their skills, but rather to build upon them.