Improving the research paper in theatre history.

Abstract

This paper describes a seven-step process designed by Davida Bloom for the research paper assignment in her History of Theatre classes. The carefully structured assignment is helpful for teachers of non-composition classes whose students have not yet acquired the skills needed to write high quality research papers. The steps highlight topic selection, gathering resources, developing a thesis statement, organizing evidence, and peer review. This process enhances the research and writing skills of students and helps combat plagiarism.

Introduction

In a recent edition of Academic Exchange Quarterly Maryann Byrne notes that the students in her history classes often ask "Why do I have to know this stuff?" Byrne realized "it was easy to make history lessons entertaining, but if they held no relevance for students' lives, they would not retain the crucial concepts" (75). Like Byrne, I manage to make my history lessons entertaining, breaking up the lectures with video clips and amusing stories borrowed from former professors and my own readings. However, the ten-page research paper assignment is one that my students have traditionally viewed as sheer drudgery.

Ray Scrubber's article "Dramatic History or Historical Drama?" provided me with a way to challenge my students to embrace the research paper assignment and their role as historians. Scubber echoes Byrne noting, "virtually all historians have encountered undergraduate students who consider the study of history both boring and irrelevant to their lives" (134). He finds this somewhat ironic, given the wealth of historical drama available and widely enjoyed both in a live theatre setting and in motion pictures. "Films about everything from medieval Scotland to early twentieth century Atlantic travel attract vast audiences and win numerous awards" (134). Scrubber warns, "this process is one that historians cannot afford to leave entirely in the hands of dramatists who do not share their sense of values" (137). He urges historians to try their hand at the dramatic arts by "writing historical dramas as a way to educate students and, hopefully, the wider public about historical figures" (135). Borrowing from Scrubber (and My Fair Lady's Henry Higgins) instead of asking "Why can't an historian be more like a dramatist?" I ask "Why can't a dramatist be more like an historian?" I remind my students that many of the great roles they hope to perform on stage are based on historical characters, adding that their ability to effectively and efficiently do research on their character will be vastly improved through their efforts on their research papers. Those who strive to be directors, designers, or technicians will likewise be required to research the historical periods in which the plays they work on take place. Future playwrights are often inspired at the prospect of unearthing, through their research, an undiscovered historical character worthy of portrayal on the stage.

Sadly, despite the initial enthusiasm, my students' final papers have been, for the most part, dismal failures. This may be because, as Arthur Sterngold notes, "Some professors believe students should already know how to write term papers and research reports and don't believe it is their responsibility to develop these skills" (par. 20). Admittedly, this was my initial reaction when I first read my students' research papers; but I knew if I did not take the time to teach them how to write papers, no one would. I realized that more than an inspirational speech was needed. That is when I began to restructure the assignment into manageable steps. These steps have become a method for focusing student work in a subject domain, in my case theatre history, and at the same time teaching sound composition techniques. It is clear these steps vastly improve the quality of my students' final papers, enhance students' research skills, and help prevent plagiarism.

I have been both relieved and dismayed to learn that my dissatisfaction with students' research papers is shared by many other teachers. Karen Peterson Welch suggests, that many students are at a "stage of cognitive development in which they state a position quite strongly, but when asked to support it with reasons or evidence or examples, they seem able to only restate the position, not defend it" (104). Joel Sipress is a bit less forgiving when he writes, "Among my greatest frustrations as a teacher of history ... is the failure of many students, even bright and motivated students, to provide concrete evidence to support their assertions about the past" (351). Arthur Sterngold concurs: "Many students," he states, "cannot write in a clear and logical manner, support their ideas with evidence and arguments, or edit their own prose" (par. 11). Similarly, Caroline L. Russom and Regina Clemens Fox found that students "were neither engaged with the material, nor developing carefully thought out ideas" (195).

The Trial Metaphor

I began on the quest for a metaphor to describe a research paper blueprint. Neila Seshachair uses the puzzle metaphor with her students. She explains that "using sources creatively in a research paper is partly like solving a jigsaw puzzle where the pieces of the puzzle come ... from different boxes," adding that ultimately the students themselves are responsible for the picture they will construct from the puzzle pieces. Adam Jortner references the same metaphor: "Research papers require you to reach beyond yourself and find facts and evidence to build an argument or explain an idea. The writer is a kind of detective, gathering pieces of the puzzle and presenting a conclusion" (par. 2).

While I agree with the jigsaw puzzle metaphor and use it with my students, I have found the trial lawyer scenario to be even more effective. I tell my students that their research paper should mirror the actions of a defense attorney trying to convince the jury of their client's innocence. In opening statements (i.e. the paper's introduction), the attorney firmly asserts the client's innocence (a thesis statement) and gives a brief overview of the evidence to come. Over the course of the trial (the main body of the paper) the attorney presents evidence to support this assertion. The evidence may start with background information about the client, but it will primarily consist of numerous facts pointing to the client's innocence. Quotations from scholars in the field are like expert witnesses who are put on the stand. Finally, the defense attorney makes closing arguments (the conclusion), in which the body of evidence is summarized and the client's innocence is shown to be irrefutable. Granted this is a simplistic metaphor, but it has gone a long way to prevent papers in which the student is merely presenting, as George Blakey describes, a "mindless paraphrasing from reference works" (3) or papers in which, as David Rothenberg notes, "gone are the pathways of logic and passion, the sense of the progress of an argument" (par. 14).

A Seven-Step Process

I use a 1,000 point scale in my classes, and the seven steps associated with the research paper are worth a total of 250 points. The process I have developed not only improves the final product but follows many of the guidelines presented by Arthur Sterngold in his article "Confronting Plagiarism."

Step One: Chapter Selection

On the first day of class I ask students to write their name on a 3x5 card. I post a list from our textbook of the Chapter Headings we will be covering in the semester. I shuffle the pile of 3x5 cards and then call out names of students as I turn over the cards. When their name is called, students must select a chapter from the list. Their research topic must come from their chosen chapter.

Step Two: Topic Selection

Within one week, students must have read the chapter. Students then turn in a chapter summary and a list of five potential research topics or questions from the chapter.

Step Three. Narrowing the Field

By the third week of the semester students must turn in a single topic or research question they will address in their paper. In order for students to move from five possible topics to one topic, they need to begin their research. Guiding students through the research process is important, and I allocate two class sessions to meet in the library, familiarizing students with the various resources available to them. Joseph Straw suggests that faculty "encourage deliberation on the formation of good topics. This area is often an overlooked part of the research process" (23). Barbara Valentine has found "students did seem to understand that professors wanted 'good sources,' but they were not always sure what that meant or how best to go about getting 'them'" (56). Ann McNeal and Michelle Murrain stress the importance of checking to "see whether the topic is feasible (are resources available, has work been done in this area?)" (15). However, for many students, checking for available resources prior to finalizing the topic means a direct line to Google.

The World Wide Web is a two-sided coin in terms of research. Finding full text scholarly journal articles via available search engines such as Academic Search Premier or InfoTrac has been a blessing to scholars, but without proper training students have no concept of how to effectively use these search engines. Additionally, they have no sense of how to verify the legitimacy of the information they find on the web, and, sadly, they often fall prey to the temptation to cut and paste. "Digital plagiarism is on the rise" writes Arthur Sterngold. He describes a study that found "41 percent of students said they engaged in 'cut-and-paste' plagiarism from online sources. This compares to just 10 percent ... three years earlier" (par. 2). When reviewing the definition of plagiarism with students I have found the Princeton University web site on Academic Integrity, http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pub/integrity/pages/plagiarism.html, very helpful. Sterngold recommends that students submit printouts of source materials. As you will see when we get to step six, I ask my students to turn in copies of the articles they have consulted in their research, with the quoted material highlighted. Since adding this requirement I have noticed a definite reduction in incidents of students paraphrasing their sources without attributing the information to the original author. While incidents of plagiarism have declined, the problem of students' ability to judge the validity of on-line sources has persisted. Currently, I limit students to web sources that consist of legitimate scholarly journal articles, unless they meet with me first to have an on-line source approved.

Step Four: Tentative Thesis Statement and Annotated Bibliography 

Approximately six weeks into the semester students are asked to turn in a tentative thesis statement and an annotated bibliography of all the resources they have consulted, including at least two scholarly journal articles. I set up short individual appointments with students to discuss their progress on the assignment. As Joseph Straw notes, "Too often papers are assigned, and nothing more is heard until the paper is turned in for a final grade" (23). Straw recommends that faculty meet with students to check their progress. This meeting will keep students aware of the instructor's interest in the assignment, and additionally, Straw notes, "the periodic review of sources keeps research on the level and lets students know what's acceptable for the final product" (23).

Step Five: Introduction and Topic Sentences

By week nine of the semester I ask students to turn in a completed introduction to their paper, including a clearly articulated thesis statement and a topic sentence for each of the remaining paragraphs. This becomes the final blueprint for the paper. I remind them of the trial lawyer metaphor and let them know that each piece of evidence they are going to present in support of their thesis should be spelled out in a topic sentence.

Step Six: A Complete Draft of the Paper

By week eleven students are asked to bring in two hard copies of a draft of their ten-page paper and one electronic version (generally e-mailed as an attachment). In addition, they are required to bring in one copy of each journal article from which they have quoted, with the quotations highlighted.

At the start of class, students turn in all materials except one of the hard copies of their draft paper. I then divide the class into pairs and they spend the entire class session reading their papers out loud to one another. This approach has been recommended by Roger Craik in his article "Its and It's and other Errors in Student Writing: A Confrontational Approach" (121). When students are listening to papers I ask them to stop the reader anytime they cannot follow the argument, the writing seems awkward, they feel that there is no transition from one thought to the next, or they find their minds wandering. The students are asked to identify on their copy the name of their "listening buddy" and are told to write the buddy's comments on their paper. This process has always been a tremendous benefit to the students. Numerous writing mistakes are discovered in the process of reading a paper aloud. Students are then given until the next class session to turn in a revised draft and electronic version, along with the copy of their original draft on which the listening buddy's comments are written.

In the event that I suspect plagiarism, having an electronic version simplifies the detection process by allowing me to copy from the student's work into a search engine. I try to return these drafts and the copies of the articles to students within one week.

Step Seven: The Final Paper

I ask students to submit their final paper before finals week. The grade on their final paper is related to the revisions they make based on my comments on their draft. Students must make significant revisions before submitting the final paper, they are told that if they simply resubmit the draft, they will receive a grade of zero for the final paper.

Point Breakdown

The research paper is worth 250 points, or 25% of a student's grade. Steps 1, 2, and 3 are worth zero points. Step 4 is worth 20 points, Step 5 is worth 30 points, Step 6 is worth 75 points, and Step 7 is worth 125 points. I ensure compliance by my policy that the grade on the final paper will be lowered by 10 percent for students who do not turn in a step within one week of the stated due date. These penalties compound: thus, if a student does not turn in both steps 3 and 5 within the allotted time period, the grade on their final paper will be reduced by 20 percent.

Concluding Thoughts

I have found this seven-step process extremely useful in terms of developing students' research skills, preventing plagiarism, and perhaps most importantly allowing my students to value and even embrace the role of the theatre historian. My shift from merely stating that a ten-page research paper is due the week before final exams to using this detailed seven-step process has, as James Foley advocates, inspired "students to produce better writing, to conduct more thorough research, and to complete the course having discovered that there is indeed such a thing as intellectual fun" (par. 3).

References

Blakey, George. "Breathing New Life into Research Papers." College Teaching 45.1 (1997): 3-6.

Byrne, Maryann. "Student Co-Researchers." Academic Exchange Quarterly 8.3 (2004): 75-79.

Craik, Roger. "Its and It's and Other Errors in Student Writing: A Confrontational Approach." Academic Exchange Quarterly 4.3 (2000): 117-123.

Foley, James. "The Freshman Research Paper." College Teaching 49.3 (2001): 83-6. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. SUNY Brockport Lib., Brockport, NY 27 Dec. 2004 <http://www.epnet.com>.

Jortner, Adam. "The Research Paper." Literary Cavalcade 55.8 (2003): 26-27. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. SUNY Brockport Lib., Brockport, NY 27 Dec. 2004 <http://www.epnet.com>.

McNeal, Ann and Michelle Murrain. "Tips on Writing a Library Research Paper." College Teaching 43.1 (1995): 15-16.

Rothenberg, David. "How The Web Destroys Student Research Papers." Education Digest 63.6 (1998): 59-61. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. SUNY Brockport Lib., Brockport, NY 27 Dec. 20 2004 <http://www.epnet.com>.

Russom, Caroline L. and Regina Clemens Fox. "First Year Research and Writing Convergences. Academic Exchange Quarterly 7.3 (2003): 194-198.

Scrubber, Ray. "Dramatic History or Historical Drama?" Academic Exchange Quarterly 5.2 (2001): 133-137.

Seshachair, Neila. "The Research Paper Jigsaw Puzzle." College Teaching 38.3 (1990): 101.

Sipress, Joel. "Why Students Don't Get Evidence and What We Can Do About It." The History Teacher 37.3 (2004): 351-363.

Sterngold, Arthur. "Preventing Plagiarism in Research Papers." Change in Higher Education 36.3 (2004): 18-21. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. SUNY Brockport Lib., Brockport, NY 27 Dec. 2004 <http://www.epnet.com>.

Straw, Joseph. "Keep Your Eyes Off the Screen: Online Cheating and What Can We Do About It." Academic Exchange Quarterly 4.3 (2000): 21-25.

Valentine, Barbara. "The Legitimate Effort in Research Papers: Student Commitment Versus Faculty Expectations." Journal of Academic Librarianship 27.2 (2001): 107-115. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. SUNY Brockport Lib., Brockport, NY 27 Dec. 2004 <http://www.epnet.com>.

Welch, Karen Peterson. "Social Issues in First-Year College Writing." Academic Exchange Quarterly 8.1 (2004): 100-104.

Davida Bloom, SUNY Brockport

Davida Bloom, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Theatre at State University of New York College at Brockport