More Than Facts: Effective Researching and Reporting

by Mary McMackin, School of Education, Lesley University, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
and Barbara Siegel, Literacy Technology Consultant

Imagine you are an eighth grader. Your history teacher just assigned a research paper. You feel overwhelmed and anxious. You don't know where to begin, how to proceed, or where you're expected to end up. Fortunately, your teacher recognizes this and is ready to guide you and your classmates through a process of selecting a topic, exploring resources, formulating a thesis statement or research question, collecting relevant information, and then crafting a report that shows strong writing skills and a passion for your topic. Imagine also that your teacher acknowledges that feelings of confusion and ambiguity are commonly associated with this process. Wouldn't you feel better, knowing that your teacher was well prepared to lead you through this assignment?

It's easy to appreciate why both students and teachers often feel daunted by the prospect of researching and report writing. It's a complex process. Kuhlthau's information search process (ISP) (1988, 1993, 1994) can help us make sense of what students do when asked to research a topic. Kuhlthau's work, primarily with high school and middle school students, has identified six distinct cognitive stages through which students commonly progress while researching: task initiation, topic selection, pre-focus exploration, focus formation, information collection, and search closure and presentation.

In addition to studying the cognitive stages in the ISP, Kuhlthau (1991, 1993) also explored affective stages. She found that students often experience a variety of emotions along the way. They typically begin by feeling uncertain and apprehensive when assigned the task, but they may become somewhat optimistic once the topic has been selected and they are ready to begin the research. During the third stage, pre-focus exploration, students might again feel confused and anxious about the topic and the researching process. They might feel overwhelmed by the plethora of available materials (or the lack of materials) and beleaguered by the mechanics of the search process. In addition, they might be finding contradictory information or information that runs counter to previously held understandings. However, during the fourth stage, focus formation, their confidence usually returns. They have a clear focus for the research now and are familiar with the search process. This confidence generally continues to increase during the collection stage. Throughout this stage they are locating relevant information for their focused inquiry. Finally, in stage 6, search closure and presentation, students may feel either relief or concern about the quality of their research. We observed many of these same feelings in Barbara's upper elementary students when Barbara, a veteran fifth grade teacher, and Mary, a professor from a local university, teamed up to learn more about using an inquiry-based approach to researching. In this article, we'll share how we incorporated Kuhlthau's conceptual framework into our researching with fifth graders. In addition, we'll acknowledge some of the pitfalls we encountered along the way, and we'll include specific writing strategies we created to help with leads, transitions, and conclusions.

Inside Barbara's Classroom

Let's return to Kuhlthau's (1988) six cognitive stages and see how we moved through this process.

Stages 1 and 2: Task initiation and topic selection. The first time through this inquiry-based process, we limited the assignment to animal investigations. We deliberately did this for several reasons: Barbara's fifth grade classes had researched animals for several years; therefore, she had amassed a wide collection of developmentally appropriate resources for them to use. Also, since this inquiry-based researching was new to us, we felt more comfortable trying a new process with content and resources that we knew well. Since we believed it was essential for us to participate in this process along with the students, each of us chose an animal to research. It's important to note that topic selection was very open at this time and subject to change. Still many of us felt anxious, as Kuhlthau described.

Stage 3: Pre-focus exploration. This is an extremely important step in the process―one that we did not attend to in great enough detail the first time around. We, like many other teachers, rushed through this step so we could begin "researching." As we found out, however, without sufficient knowledge of a topic, it is extremely difficult to generate a substantive research question. During this stage, students build background knowledge, determine whether their topic is too broad or too narrow, verify the availability of relevant resources that they can comprehend, and evaluate whether to abandon the original topic and start again or continue to pursue it. This takes time. We suggest a minimum of a couple of weeks.

Stage 4: Focus formation. Kuhlthau (1993) acknowledges that this is the most important part of the process. If students don't have a clear focus before they begin to collect data, they struggle throughout the remainder of the process. It's difficult for many students, regardless of grade level, to formulate a worthwhile research question. Many of the fifth graders wanted to focus on "little," literal questions (e.g., Where does the Tasmanian devil live? What does it eat?), rather than on "big," open-ended questions (e.g., Why does the Tasmanian devil only live in an island off the coast of Australia?). In order to help them determine if their questions were too broad or too narrow, we asked them to anticipate what they might write to answer the question. If they could answer the question in a number, word, or phrase, the question was probably too narrow. If the answer required a substantial explanation (but not volumes), it was probably a "big" question (McMackin & Siegel, 2002, p. 24). We were asking them to formulate big, "issue-driven" (Nelson & Hayes, 1988) questions for their research.

Stage 5: Information collection. By now, everyone, including the two of us, had a big research question. We shared our questions with the students and taught a variety of note-taking skills. Next, we introduced a data retrieval chart (Clemmons & Lasse, 1995); this is a graphic organizer, or spreadsheet of sorts, on which we recorded our research notes. A data chart consists of columns and rows. The research question or thesis statement appears at the top of the chart, and subquestions that relate to the research question are posted at the heads of the columns―one subquestion per column. The number of columns varies, depending on the number of subquestions needed to adequately answer the research question. Generally there are three to five columns.

Once the data charts were prepared, our task was to revisit the sources we identified in the pre-focus exploration stage and to direct our attention now to information that was specifically relevant to our research question or thesis statement. As we collected relevant information, we recorded it in the rows under the appropriate heading on the data chart. (Note: Barbara had students record information on data retrieval charts for some research projects and had them use note cards for others. To see examples of data charts, see Figure 1 below and Mackin & Siegel, 2001.)

Stage 6: Search closure. We've all had students who ask, "How long does the paper need to be?" or "How will I know if I've written enough?" If students have been successful in the pre-focus exploration and focus formation stages, the answer is easy: You will know you're done when you have thoroughly answered the research question or adequately supported the thesis statement. Once students begin to find the same information in multiple sources, they'll know it's time to bring closure to their researching. A problem can arise at this point in the process, however, if the question/thesis is either too narrow (nothing to write) or too broad (will never finish). That's why it is extremely important to allocate time to "wander and wonder" (Short et al., 1996) before they commit to a research question.

Reporting Out

Our first attempt at using an inquiry model for researching produced reports that were very informative and well researched. Unfortunately, however, they sounded more like encyclopedias than papers that demonstrated a transformation of ideas and a passion for topics. The papers, for the most part, contained formulaic leads, limited transitions, and weak conclusions. We knew it was time to let go of the information search process and focus on writing.

We soon realized that if we were asking students to move beyond the safe, predictable leads they were accustomed to using, we would need to teach them concrete strategies. This held true for transitions and conclusions, as well. We needed effective examples or models to share. More importantly, we needed to analyze these models in order to find out exactly what authors did. We needed to be able to explain in detail what made each one effective. With clear explanations and model texts to refer to, students were able to replicate these strategies in their own writing. In order to have a common language for conferencing and written feedback, we gave each strategy a name. Below we take a closer look at a few of these strategies (taken from McMackin & Siegel, 2002). We began this article with a lead strategy we call "Imagine." When working with students, we explain that authors hook the reader with this strategy by "drawing him directly into a scene in which another time, place, or situation is evoked. The word 'imagine' is often used in this lead" (p. 81). Students like this universal strategy because they can express themselves creatively and it works well for a wide variety of reports.

A transition strategy that works well in all types of writing is "Repeat a Word" (p. 61). When we use this strategy, we explain that the author uses a word (or words) in the last sentence of one paragraph and repeats the word (or words) in the first sentence of the next paragraph. Perhaps you noticed this strategy being used in various places in this article (e.g., going from the second to the third paragraph, we repeated cognitive stages). We transitioned from the previous paragraph into this one by repeating strategy.

Transitions are often difficult to write; conclusions are equally challenging. As we near the end of this article, we're beginning to think about bringing it to a logical conclusion. We could end it by using "Dreaming of the Future" (p. 99). If we chose to use this strategy, we would conclude by wondering about future possibilities for researching and reporting. We also considered using "Connecting Beginning and End." With this strategy, we would connect information from the first or second paragraph to information in the final paragraph. Often when we use this strategy, we repeat some of the same words in both parts (p. 109). Rather than use one strategy, however, we chose to blend the latter with "No Doubt About It!" We'll circle back to the beginning of the article and then bring closure by drawing one indisputable conclusion about the topic. Words such as "one thing seems certain," "without a doubt," or "there is no question" may signal the use of "No Doubt About It!" (p. 103). Here goes...

It probably comes as no surprise to anyone that researching and reporting are complex processes. However, familiarity with the cognitive and affective stages involved can inform our instructional decisions along the way. Go slowly. Take time to value fully the learning that takes place during each stage. It requires time and effort, but one thing seems certain: By carefully leading students through this inquiry-based model, we can ignite in them a passion for asking important questions, seeking comprehensive answers, and sharing information that is engaging and effective.

Mary McMackin is a professor in the School of Education at Lesley University, where she teaches graduate literacy courses. Mary's work with teachers and students informs her research and instruction.

Barbara Siegel taught in the public schools system in Arlington, Massachusetts, for over 30 years, where she integrated technology into all areas of her curriculum. Currently, she is a literacy/technology consultant to teachers and schools.

Return to top

Bibliography

Clemmons, J., & Laase, L. (1995). Language arts mini lessons: Step-by-step skill-builders for your classroom. New York: Scholastic.

Kuhlthau, C. C. (1988). Developing a model of the library search process: Cognitive and affective aspects. Research Quarterly, 28(2), 232-243.

Kuhlthau, C. C. (1991). Inside the search process: Information seeking from the user's perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(5), 361-371.

Kuhlthau, C. C. (1993). A principle of uncertainty for information seeking. Journal of Documentation, 49(4), 339-355.

Kuhlthau, C. C. (1994). Teaching the library research process (2nd ed.). Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.

McMackin, M., & Siegel, B. (2001, February). Integrating research projects with focused writing instruction. Reading Online, 4(7). Retrieved October 28, 2004, from http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=/articles/mcmackin/index.html.

McMackin, M. C., & Siegel, B. S. (2002). Knowing how: Researching and writing nonfiction 3-8. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Nelson, J., & Hayes, J. R. (1988). How the writing context shapes college students' strategies for writing from sources. Technical Report No. 16, Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of Writing. ERIC Document Reproduction Services NO. ED 297 374.

Short, K. G., Schroeder, J., Laird, J., Kauffman, G., Ferguson, M. J., & Crawford, K. M. (1996). Learning together through inquiry: From Columbus to integrated curriculum. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.