Doing Good and Doing Well: Teaching Research-Paper Writing by Unpacking the Paper

Abstract

Learning how to write a research paper is an important skill for political science majors, and faculty can also benefit when their students develop their research-paper-writing talents. Few departments, however, teach these skills explicitly, and many curricula seem to be based on the assumption that students will arrive at college with adequate basic writing skills. Several programs also suppose that a major will develop the ability to write a research paper through her experience with political science and other courses. These expectations are faulty, as most students are not “proficient” writers when they move to campus (McGrath 2004; NCWASC 2003, 16–7; Persky, Daane, and Jin 2003, 20–1), and writing a research paper in political science is a specific skill set that must be developed (Scholes 1998, 95; Russell 2002, 9–10). The approach I advocate here is to demystify the paper and the process for students by identifying and explaining the different parts of a typical paper—introduction, literature review, model and hypothesis, research design, analysis and assessment, and conclusion—and showing how the paper-writing process is broken into manageable tasks. While faculty know the components of research papers, most students have no idea what these sections should contain or what their titles mean. In addition, because revision and editing are essential general writing skills linked with the overall substantive learning process (NCWASC 2003, 1, 9; Maimon 2002, x), I suggest that students submit their papers in pieces, benefiting from feedback from faculty, peers, and themselves. In this essay, I unpack the parts of the paper and the writing process, providing suggestions for teaching about these segments and integrating research-paper-writing skills into the curriculum.

Using Computer-Based Writing Software to Facilitate Writing Assignments in Large Political Science Classes

“…Political scientists, as well, have argued that writing not only helps students understand political science theory and principles but also promotes important generalized intellectual capacities among undergraduates, including critical reading and thinking, research skills, analysis, persuasion, synthesis, and evaluation (Baglione 2008;Gentry 2010;Londow 1993;Pennock 2011;Steinfeldt 2010). However, there has been a general lack of empirical analysis regarding the effects of writing on student learning in political science, and, where such studies have been conducted, these have been done in classes that have 40 students or fewer (Steinfeldt 2010).…”

A Pragmatic and Flexible Approach to Information Literacy: Findings from a Three-Year Study of Faculty-Librarian Collaboration

“…Such assessments suggest that many undergraduates are completing their degrees without having learned how to select and evaluate materials, including scholarly sources, when conducting research projects (Centellas, 2011). If faculty are providing opportunities for students to practice cultivating ILrelated skills, and if the achievement of these skills is an accepted pedagogical goal, what is preventing students from mastering them (Baglione, 2008;Cavdar & Doe, 2012;Stevens & Campbell, 2008;Williams & Evans, 2008)? As members of a democratic polity and "knowledge economy," moreover, young adults need to develop critical thinking and information assessment skills while in college so as to meet the expectations associated with citizenship and the workplace after college (Dolowitz, 2007;Fitzgerald & Baird, 2011;Thornton, 2010 …”

Writing Better Writing Assignments

“…To respond to this challenge, Baglione (2008) highlights the need to break down specifi c steps of a research project rather than assuming that students understand how to work within the research format. Souva contends that students' inability to engage in theory building could be addressed by instructors placing "greater emphasis on learning at least a basic system of logic" to help students better understand the "construction of theoretical arguments" (Souva 2007, 557).…”