Making the Writing and Research Connection with the I-Search Process: A How-to-Do-It Manual
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Tallman, Julie I. and Marilyn Z. Joyce. Making the Writing and Research Connection with the I-Search Process: A How-To-Do-It Manual. 2nd edition. New York, NY: Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc., 2006. (How-To-Do-It Manuals for Librarians, number 143). Book with CD-ROM. 167 p. $55.00 USD. ISBN 1-55570-534-0. Tallman and Joyce's Making the Writing and Research Connection with the I-Search Process, second edition, is a useful book designed to guide teachers, librarians and others through the process of fostering research and writing skills. With a name that sounds like it was developed for the iPod generation, I-Search has a much longer history - it was developed in the1980's by American college professor Ken Macrorie as a new, student-centered way to connect writing and research. Macrorie's central purpose was to actively engage in asking and pursuing research questions in which they had a personal interest. In 1997 Tallman and Joyce adapted Macrorie's model for use in K-12, providing a solid, practical framework for implementing his strategies. This second edition builds upon the first, drawing new insights and ideas from a decade of application. In so doing, Tallman and Joyce demonstrate that I-Search is as useful and relevant today as it was two decades ago. As a volume from Neal-Schuman's How-To-Do-It series, it is probably not surprising that this book adopts a practical focus, concentrating on application and process and offering a variety of suggestions, tips, and problem-solving strategies to help readers implement the framework. The accompanying CD-ROM includes electronic copies of many of the samples, handouts and planning documents discussed in the text, which can be adapted for use by readers. However, it is notable that the book begins with a concise but informative overview of the principles and ideas that form the basis of I-Search; readers unfamiliar with this model will quickly gain an understanding of the nature of the I-Search process. Tallman and Joyce build their framework around key learning principles such as reflection, inquiry, and higher-order questioning. These form the basis of the I-Search process and together help develop meaningful, self-directed research strategies. The framework begins by introducing methods - e.g. thought webbing, pre-notetaking, background reading -to help tackle one of the first and hardest stages of the research process: discovering a relevant, higher-order question. Subsequent strategies, such as double-entry note taking and learning logs, help reflect on and interact critically with information while building their final paper. Throughout the book, Tallman and Joyce stress the need for scaffolding, recommending strategies to direct and support while allowing them to retain control of the learning process. There are several features of Tallman and Joyce's framework that are particularly noteworthy. One is its flexibility. Although it offers a cohesive model that can be wholly implemented as-is, individual strategies could easily be used to meet specific learning goals, making it particularly useful for librarians with limited class time. Also, although the book focuses primarily on K-12 instruction, it can be adapted for post-secondary use as well. As Tallman and Joyce point out, [o]ne pleasure of the I-Search is its adaptability for use at multiple levels?for first graders up to graduate students (88). In particular, the book will be of interest to those involved in first year research and writing instruction. Finally, although the original framework was designed to help develop questions from their day-to-day experience, it can be adapted for use with subject-area content. This is essential in order for the model to function in a variety of contexts, particularly at the post-secondary level. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,028 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,066 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».