Making the Writing and Research Connection with the I-Search Process: A How-to-Do-It Manual
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.066 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".