Four Kinds of Representation of the Research

Thank you!

How did you know I used it in my work?!.. Incredible!

Well, I tried to do it, this is my personal approach.

Usually, I try to give students texts to prepare (most of the time to write + to discuss), and in a minor way – to discuss a current theme. And earlier they kept asking me how I wanted to see their text were done. Why did they ask? - Lecturing Philosophy in a technological institution (most of the students are physicians, chemists, mathematicians, etc) has its dark pins or flaws, because being more technological, than humanitarian students don't get along mostly with creative work, so that's mostly why they're interesting in it.

I didn't put any serious ground to it, but I decided to a) try to make their path as plain (=transparent) as possible, and b) to try to divide all those methods, categories, objects, etc to "fourths". (I don't think I can explain why I chose fourths, not thirds; I guess it's easier for me to memorize something dividing it into four categories – as bricks.)

And the analysis of a text (mostly, the texts are articles), which I explained to the students, looks like this:

a) to find the main theme/problem/question that the author places it into the text; (e.g. in the article "Grammar and Existence" by W. Sellars raises some common questions responding to his colleagues that... [such categories as properties, classes and language moduses are not necessary in logic...] because..., and also mentioning...)

b) formulate the problem/question in a philosophical manner, or put it into some established or commonly accepted categories (e.g. in those text: the author defines nominalistic principles by using... and concerns ontological status of... which put into not ..., but...)
seen

c) to present the algorithm/the plot/the argumentation of the author. Define the steps shortly and in a most logical way (e.g. Sellars inferences such existential sentences as with ..., then using the examples..., he presents.., and this means...)

d) and finally, describe about the article, and the argumentation of the author you personal view (here is no required standard to a student; I don't limit this part of the work).

These a)–d) ways are common and rough scheme (each has deeper degrees; ay least I tried developing more precise algorithms), but it must show that in (a) the more common views are needed, like knowledge of current things in the world, or general erudition; in (b) is to understand how good a student know common philosophical building, its branches, its structure, and how can he orient in it; (c) requires analytical and logical skills, or, depending of the type of the text, it can be more accented on historical, and again – logical strategies; the last one (d) allows to reveal (as much as it possible) all those what a student cannot be allowed to do in his little research.

Such "fourths" (not only these, but some others conceptualisations) I try to use elsewhere. Must say I do like it. (There are some flaws in them also – because some details must be reduced or dropped.)

Eugene, at University I learnt (and over years of teaching) not only my chosen subject but by self -assessments, refection etc how to teach and used different methodologies etc as a norm. Thus, your first and second posts are like a second language to me. You were surprised but my explanation should now have revealed I could understand what you were writing and your end purpose.

It is obvious in your second post that the students needed guidance to understand what you were asking them to do. Thus you devised your own learning strategy of notes a b c d to provide clarity for them…..aims and objectives easily explained.

Not only that, but you have also on reflection established that some details need to be reduced or dropped because each class/student is different and will have different needs to be met. Thus your 4 categories can easily be changed to meet both yours and their needs.

Teaching is life-long learning and we have to adapt/learn to meet these changes.

Do not be little yourself so easily, you are a good person by the fact you reflect and ask/answer questions and will make a good tutor.
I do not understand what you mean by students are not common-users, are you saying that these definitions you have written about are not recognized or used as a norm where you are?