Has there been a recent change in APA or are my students getting collectively dumber??
My work at multiple universities has recent yielded sentences like this:
Famous Basket-Weaver Kris Scholtz argued that hamster fur would be an appropriate material for more flexible baskets. University of Washington (2011). Scholtz wrote extensively about the Russian influence on basket-weaving. Princeton University Press (1998).
And on and on. Not one university/pretend colleges, but three!! And this was brought to my attention by a friend who does tutoring and has started to see similar variations on APA.
So, CM, what gives? Changes to the system? Or stupider and stupider consumers?
APA did make some changes about two years ago, but for undergrads, those changes had little impact. I think it's just laziness.
ReplyDeleteMine prefer to just make shit up, and then get defensive when I call them on it. I've started asking them what website or style guide gave them those examples, so that I can steer others away from that resource. I never get a response.....
I also think it's the impact of reading so much online stuff that either does not cite its sources, or that does not use MLA/APA to cite its sources. I was just reading another blog that cited the image it used (yea!) but simply gave the URL for the original image (which is fine for a blog, but not a good example for a student wanting to learn MLA, APA, etc).
This error (?) has always been so.
ReplyDeleteLaziness endures, but this particular pattern has just reached you.
I wonder: Bad high school teacher(s), perhaps?
Mine could never grasp that you can use the basket-weaver's name in the sentence and then just shunt all those numbers into the parentheses. It CONFOUNDED them, I tell you! ("No! Everything MUST go into the parentheses!!!!")
I am glad I no longer teach writing.
Why does citation format matter so much? It seems like profs get as pissed off about this as they do grammer of actual sentences. Sure, having a citation is important but if they give the page number, author, volume, etc at the end of the paper, what's the big dillio, my profillio?
ReplyDeleteBB, to me the citation format cited in this post is an intrusion into the flow of the narrative. Frankly I'd prefer if they all just used endnotes, and not so damned many quotation marks.
ReplyDeleteLordy, lordy, I've had students put quotation marks around laundry lists. Literally:
"The best types of hamster fur for basket weaving are 'merino, alpaca, Mexican short-hair and coarse.' (source)"
What's up with that?
Otherwise, though, I'm with you: my chem students are expected to use a citation format from the ACS Style Guide, but I tell my gen-ed students they can use any style as long as it's consistent.
That throws 'em, too. "But do you want Chicago or ALA style?" What did I just say, dude?
I am getting the equivalent rubbish in papers I am reading now that use MLA citation. But it's always been so. I can do a better job now with offering lots of online samples and links to guidelines, so my students are more proficient, but they still bumble. That's one reason we have drafts.
ReplyDelete@BB and labs ...
ReplyDeleteYou both seem to be ignoring the fact that purpose OF style forms is to have a unified form to present clear and concise writing.
The example AcadMonk gave is precisely the sort of heavyhanded gobbldygook that following the BASICS of a style eliminates.
Frankly, what I find perplexing is the amount of energy put into defending the "evolution" of language by including "LOL" or "U2" as words while efforts to preserve some form clarity in academic writing is derided as a waste of time.
Exactly, Aware and Scared. I teach my students not just MLA and APA formatting but also framing and context so that the citation gives a clean, clear crediting of the material that makes sense and doesn't interrupt the sentence flow. Part of good writing is audience as well, so an academic paper written for an academic purpose should fit that audience's expectations.
ReplyDelete@BB: I'm guessing that in certain disciplines, original work and analysis matters more than in other disciplines. In my field, we expect students to be able to engage in a sort of 'conversation' with the published literature to show not only their one understanding of the literature, but to also contribute their opinion and analysis to it. In order to differentiate whose ideas are whose, correct citation is needed for students to avoid plagiarizing (sometimes they forget what to put in quotes or what to attribute to someone else if they wait until the end to simply list their sources). Then they also sometimes don't realize that 3/4 of their paper is quoted from sources and that they haven't really contributed anything to their own paper. When we want students to analyze more and summarize/synthesize less, it becomes important to get them to cite correctly in the text (by cite correctly, I simply want them to attribute it to the correct source; I tell students to pick a format and stick with it rather than forcing them to use only MLA or only APA).
ReplyDeleteThe example provided here is a perfect example of what happens when they DON'T cite correctly (it interrupts the flow of the text & makes no sense). Moreover, students tend to make up stuff just to pretend they've done research. If it's at the back of the paper, I have little way of knowing what they've randomly made up and what they've actually researched and found for real. Maybe you don't care if they make up stuff to include in their papers, but I do. I also want to know that they really ARE looking up relevant, credible, up-to-date information so that they are familiar with what is being said about their papers by those who are publishing on that topic, so I want them to be letting me know what that info is.
When it comes to the actual citation, like I said, I'm less picky about which format they pick (APA, MLA, Chicago), as long as they're consistent with it. If being consistent means using footnotes, then so be it.
I think there are three reasons students don't use correct citation:
1. They don't know how and it seems like it's too much trouble to learn or to conform to something they don't understand the purpose of... kind of in the same way that they don't understand why they should dress up for certain formal situations. Along with this is the fact that some have been taught incorrect citation in the past, or that they've been given conflicting information, so they get confused from class to class and teacher to professor;
2. They don't give a shit & only one proffie in their lives ever forces them to do it, and they avoid that person from them on.
3. The citations keep changing based on new technology. That's frustrating to keep up with from year to year.
Is this relevant for people who aren't going to write anything after they leave college. Perhaps not. But at least they will know how to format SOMETHING by following a set format. I find that an important lesson in teaching how to follow instructions (really, how many of us struggle with getting students to follow simple instructions?).
I give my students a mock essay segment filled with plagiarism and then give them the sources they need to fix it. We then work on doing so in small groups in class using a citation style guide which is a mandatory text. It can take up to four hours but it puts the fear of God into them and they generally then pay attention to citation methods (if they're not plagiarizing). Part of their final grade is based on their citation in their final essay. However, what they can never ever seem to grasp is that one can plagiarize ideas as well as direct quotations. This drives me mental.
ReplyDeleteBB, in the Humanities, a bibliography at the end of an essay is not enough. See CC's comments to understand why.
P.S. I also assign the style guide as mandatory reading.
ReplyDelete@issyvoo: somewhere, my students have learned that you ONLY have to cite direct quotes. I don't know WHERE they've "learned" this, but no matter what I say (or how much I emphasize, scream, take off points, require rewrites, and give F's), they still use this as an excuse for not citing. They claim, 'Oh, I thought we only cite when it's word-for-word." Even after doing assignments such as those you've described, they STILL disregard the same things in their own essays (as if their essay is exempt but not the one they've worked on in class).
ReplyDeleteWhy is this WRONG thing the one that sticks from high school (or wherever)???
Wow. Ben, much of this issue is keeping the gen ed kids from plagiarizing through forcing them to find sources and cite correctly.
ReplyDeleteIn one particular course, I have given them a long list of online reading/videos/modules about which they must write response papers (and do presentations, but that's another story).
On their own accord, they have started using this publisher-based and sentence-interrupting APA alternative. And it tells me NOTHING about what sources they are actually using. (esp when they are sources like Wikipedia)
I'm not fond of APA (yay footnotes or endnotes, keep it out of the paragraph), but this system is doing nothing for me and it looks like my students are just being collective idiots.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBased on some comments, I wasn't clear. When I read student reports, I require citations within the text to show what information they looked up and prevent plagiarism. They need to do more than just parrot what the source said, they need to use the information as evidence to support their analysis.
ReplyDeleteMy question focused on simply the format of the citation itself. It appears to me that formatting issues seem VERY important to some humanities profs and I don't get it. Sure, I see how bad formatting within the text can interrupt the flow of the writing but is it that big of a deal?
If they identify the portion of their text that is based on a source then correctly and unambiguously identify that source, I'd say that's good enough (or at least not making my list of students' biggest mistakes).
And another thin that bothers me: Why can't there be just one style/format for citing each type of source?
@Beaker: Think of it as showing your work. Presumably a student could simply write the result on her lab report. Or she could write, "I took this step and that step," without really showing the work, and then write the result. And presumably you would not reply "oh she said she took those steps, so same diff." You'd mark her down. So think of proper format as showing your work in the right way, rather than sort of showing your work.
ReplyDeleteOr to put it slightly differently, proper citation format is supposed to allow the reader to track down your sources as quickly and efficiently as possible. By using sloppy citation format, the student is adding to her reader's workload--ergo, not properly showing her work--and thus takes a minor markdown.
As for why there are different formats, it is because different disciplines yse very different kinds of sources. APA works great for journal articles and most printed matter. But it doesn't do what historians, for example, need a citation format to do. Let's say you are looking at manuscript sources from the seventeenth century, maybe something written by Galileo, but never published as a printed source. You can't just say "(Galileo, 1632), even with a more precise archival reference in the end matter, because you'd literally need a separate and complete reference for every manuscript folio you consulted--potentially hundreds, if not thousands of separate, unnumbered pieces of paper, depending ont he project. For that kinds of work, only Chicago Manual will do, because it allows you to organize your citations by archival series rather than by date. Using APA for that would be like trying to cut down a tree with a hammer.
And that's the dealio, professilio.
Or think of it as writing the wrong terms on one side of an equation, but then coming up with the right answer in the next step. Clearly the student knew what the right terms were, but you wouldn't let it slide without a minor markdown. I don't think anyone is talking about dropping entire letter grades here. In language, as in numbers, precision matters. Lack of precision speaks to poor habits of mind.
ReplyDeleteAll this reminds me of my other favorite error: an entire paper with no in-text documentation whatsoever followed by either a works cited or references page (depending on format). Despite the fact we go over in-text documentation and discuss that it's very important for the reader to know which ideas are the author's and which come from outside sources, I still get an average of one student per term who does this, even in courses where Comp I and II are prerequisites. I had a student earlier this term nearly fight me to the death over this. He insisted he just "forgot" to put some sources on his works cited page, and when I told him that didn't matter because none of the seven sources were cited in the text either, he became angry. I think once the dean finally smacked him down, he gave up.
ReplyDeleteFormat requirements enforce attention to detail and the ability to follow instructions. Details are important to science and scholarship--unless you think getting the "acid into water" rule backwards is unimportant...or forgetting to put the lid back on the cobra habitat...or not letting the 1st and 2nd families' airplane get too close to another. Undergrads have never had to mind a detail because the standard has always been "close enough". The 'flakes need practice because sometimes there is no such thing as "close enough".
ReplyDeleteI get all kinds of variations on APA, but haven't seen this one. The most frequent mistake I see is to put the date where the page # belongs, and omit the page # (which is optional for paraphrases, but I require it unless the paraphrase summarizes a whole article in a sentence or two; maybe my MLA roots are showing, but it seems rude to me to make a reader search through an entire article for a particular fact or figure. My guess is that APA doesn't require page #s for paraphrases precisely because the quick summary paraphrase is more common; as Archie says, different styles have conventions appropriate to the most common ways of using sources in those disciplines).
ReplyDeleteFrom undergraduates, all I really want to see is some kind of consistent style that makes it absolutely clear which words and which ideas came from a source, and which belong to the author of the paper, preferably without including or repeating a lot of extraneous information (that's what works cited/references entries are for). At my own institution, and in textbooks, I'm seeing an increasing insistence that all words or information from a source be "sandwiched" between a signal phrase ("As Jones argues. . .") and a parenthetical citation of some kind, with, of course, quotation marks where appropriate. Having both a signal phrase and a parenthetical citation for every reference to a source can get cluttered at times, but for beginners it's a good habit to get into, I think. Later on, they can learn the subtleties of signaling a shift from source to source or source to author even if the signal phrase and/or parenthetical reference isn't really needed in that particular instance.
I, too, am intrigued to see Ben questioning the need for precise following of citation styles, since I always thought scientists tended to hold a tougher line in that area, for precisely the reasons ovreductd mentions. But my view may be influenced by the fact that my 8th-grade teacher, a scientist by training, had us create herbaria, and required us to generate (hand-printed in pencil) labels for each mounted specimen that conformed perfectly to a format he prescribed. He checked each one, and all of us *had* to get to the point where each of our labels had his penciled-in initials in one corner. Obviously, the point was not that 8th graders must know botany, or how to print neatly, but instead for us to learn what Archie calls good "habits of mind," as well as to learn something about classification systems in general. I am eternally grateful to that teacher (since deceased), and many of the lessons of my admittedly quirky 8th-grade experience have stuck with me.
Wow, CC, you just reminded me of my unbelievably excellent 5th grade teacher who required us to take notes a particular way, boil those notes down into an outline, turn the outline into a summary, and turn it all in. It was all very formulaic and time-consuming, but it taught me habits of mind (and note-taking) that lasted for decades. Not to mention that the content -- in the case I remember best, Egyptian mummification techniques -- really stuck.
ReplyDeleteAs I get older and more curmudgeonly, I begin to think that forcing certain kinds of formulas is a good thing, because it requires the student to occupy a set of gestures or steps or whatever carefully, sometimes repeatedly, until they become automated enough that real thinking is possible. I bet my students hate me for it, but I get less and less open to "creative" or improvisatory work precisely because the results are so banal, whereas if I give them a tight framework within which to work -- not a standardized question, but a formulaic set of steps that must be done before any analysis can begin -- I get so much better work.
Is that maybe more like how science is taught than about the touchy-feeliness possible in the humanities? I'm not sure. I don't even know if I am on the right track. I just know I am happier when I get more precise, more rigorous, and eventually deeper work.
@F&T: 5th grade was a good year for me, too -- the year we did our first long writing project (which, of course, I did mostly in the last two weeks, but at least it wasn't the night before. I suspect it also exhibited a good deal of what I'd now call patchwork plagiarism; I'm not sure exactly when I learned not to borrow language without putting it in quotation marks, but, by high school, I had).
ReplyDeleteI, too, am finding myself drawn to frameworks and steps, especially the Intro/Review of the Literature/Sample & Methods/Results & Discussion framework typical of writing in the sciences & social sciences (with which I end up spending a good deal of time, since I teach mostly Writing in the Disciplines courses). It wouldn't hurt humanities students to think more precisely about what scholarly conversations they're entering and how, what primary texts/evidence they've chosen and why, etc., etc., even if actual humanities essays don't lay out those steps as explicitly as the social science/science ones do. At the very least, the author of a humanities essay should be able to explain all of the above if asked (or at least the "how evidence was chosen" part; the earlier studies part may be skippable if the student is genuinely working from scratch), and, if (s)he can't, it somehow shows in the finished product.