Syllabus, Calendar, Books and First Class

Welcome!

ENG 5002 is a course on research methods and methodologies - and it takes on the big ideas in writing research.  I am currently  (re)reading materials for our course and I am eager to talk to you about them. We will tackle issues ranging from the nature of knowledge - to the ethics of using human beings as objects of study.  These are important thoughts not only for writers - but for all of us in this modern age. The work load  reflects the scope of the material we need to cover (implication => you will need to schedule your time) - but it will be quite manageable. Upon completing this course you will be well prepared to begin thesis work.  In particular, the Thesis proposal assignment should identify a focus for your thesis research and familiarize you with IRB requirements and other adminstrative paperwork.

Syllabus & Calendar.

The course syllabus and a DRAFT calendar are posted at links to the right under Course Documents. The Syllabus includes course objectives, required materials, policies, a detailed account of writing assignments and an indication of how work will be graded. The Calendar is still drafty (certainly some typos & contradictions in there) but it gives a solid frame for the general sequence and quantity of material we will be covering during the term.

Books & assignment for first class.

As indicated in an email (sent January 14), you are assigned to read Chapter 1: An introduction to research, in Mertens, for the first class.

Books are available in the bookstore - or you can buy the required texts online. If the textbooks are not yet in, you can complete this assignment by reading my copy of Mertens. It will be in my mailbox next to the English Department (CAS -301)  M-F over the intersession. You may copy the assigned chapter - but please do not take the text home or too far from the Department office as other students may stop by to use it.

If you have questions - do not hesitate to contact me.

March 16 - Accidents are so unexpected

I was in a car accident Wednesday night after class and am just beginning to think about my teaching responsibilities.  I am OK but uncomfortable and we will need to reschedule the concept paper conferences, and I will not be in class on Wednesday night.  I'm sorry to  miss our class - but I think you should be well able to make constructive use of the time even if I am not there.  This is the plan.

Discussion of articles:  The first half of class will focus on the two assignments about process pedagogy & WAC.  The new format for reaction papers is posted here and at the link to the left.

Useful references for placing the articles within a historical context include:

• From Cave Paintings to the Internet
• The Ohio State University has an excellent interactive timeline on composition and rhetoric - but I can't get the link to work at this time.  Hopefully it will be up an running when you need it.

Qualitative methods:
During the second half of class you should discuss the second half of Mertens - on approaches for qualitative data analysis.

I am hoping to post some guide for discussion before class - so check back here on Wednesday night.

Read through the Homework assignment together before leaving class
Homework:  Read Sample Transcripts + write the Data Analysis Assignment 1 for April 6.  The Sample Transcripts present several revisions/re-representations of the sample  "Friends" transcript you looked at earlier for practice coding.  The homework asks you to walk through some of the analytic methods presented in the sample.

There is no reading assignment.

March 9: History and Narrative studies

We started class with some writing/discussion of the research methods you would use for your thesis work (see prompt posted in the last blog).  It sounds like you are all thinking more specifically and concisely about what you will write about for your thesis - and that you are well prepared to develop the concept paper over the break (see posted "directions") to the right.  It was pointed out to me that I failed to mail some of you the reference lists I put together for each of your proposed research projects.  If you send me an email with a statement of your focus - I will either re-send what I put together before, or edit in light of your changing ideas.

We spend the remainder of class breezing through the chapter on history + narrative studies.  I did a show and tell on some historical//narrative studies for the field of composition:

James Berlin's Rhetoric and Reality
Susan Miller's Textual Carnivals
Sharon Crowley's Composition in the University

examples of/ references to historical studies of writing:
Jacqueline Jones Royster Traces in a Stream
Charles Bazermen  Handbook on Research on Writing

personal (life narrative) studies of writing:
Morris Young  Minor Re/Visions
JoAnn Robinson Education is my Agenda

and I introduced some texts that suggest methods for analyzing historical documents, transcripts, and other texts/conversations/materials made available in historical/narrative approaches.

We did not really discuss Selfe + Hawisher's essay, though I dragged it into the discussion several times = a quick + not-pefect reaction papers is posted.

For next class:
Read:  Mertens Chapter 13, with a focus on Quantitative data analysis; Miller, "Where English Departments Come From" p 3.  "Current Traditional Rhetorics" (posted to the right), and "Winds of Change" 439.

Write: Concept paper.

March 2: Experimental designs and data collection

Exam 1.  The Exam question is posted to the right, and we decided that it would be a take-home exam.  I did not set a time limit, or a page limit, and you are expected to use your books as references while you write.  The completed exam is due before class on March 9.  Because you will be writing your exam at home, you will be free to leave during the portion of class originally reserved for the examination.   That is, class on March 9 will be from 7:30-8:45 pm. Although this plan was not necessarily any individual's first choice, it was an effort to set forward an approximation of consensus.  Good luck and I am looking forward to reading your essays.

We spent the next section of class discussing issues affecting internal and external validity, and considering some of the ethical, epistemological, and "world-view" assumptions and issues associated with experimental studies.

Ethics: In terms of ethics we considered what justifies writing research in general - and experimental research on writing in particular.  Our answer seemed to be that it was a trade off: then balance between the exploitation of or imposition on research subjects - and the benefit to the subjects themselves, to the discipline, or to the "world" at large.  For education research - the eploitation factor is immediate and personal - and the benefits (even if they are significant) are generally long-term and abstract.  I think we agreed that teachers (and writers) need to collect and share information about what works, what it's like to teach in different context - but that studies had to be "well designed" and "not a waste of subjects' time" to be justified. The line between justified + unnecessary in this discussion was both hazy - and critical.  I suggest that for better or worse - where it is drawn will connect to individual researchers' values.

Epistemologies.  We also talked about the four paradigms' perspectives on theories about what counts as knowledge - and how knowledge is created.  In the Brand study - (and in the list of factors that could affect validity) there seemed to be an assumption that "truth" and knowledge were connected to clearly defined categories, objectivity, and appropriate statistical sampling + analysis.  As our discussion pointed out - this list left off "human" features that affect research validity (or at least how it should be interpreted) - features such as  rich, complex (even conflicting) descriptions of research contexts, differences in group dynamics, personal (as opposed to historical) circumstances, and increased awareness of the "myth of homogeneity" that underlies acceptance for assigning "numbers" to complex behaviors, attitudes, and feelings.

Ontology (assumptions about the way the world is) connected to both ethical assumptions (axiology) and assumptions about how we can know things (epistemological assumptions).  Postpositivists assume there is "one" underlying pattern or principle that can be approximated through studies => that there is a "statistical mean" that the study of a given subject will "regress" to or approach.  Social constructivists and transformative researchers see this idea as one perspective on how the world "is" among many other perspectives = perspectives where there are "local" or individual patterns - but not necessarily "universal" patterns; as well as perspectives that assume that the patterns we see are socially conditions so that we "learn" to see what is there (rather than actually seeing what is there).  And so on.  Assuming that there is NOT one universal truth casts the value of experimental research in a light; from constructivist, transformative, and pragmatic perspectives - the fact that there may be multiple "realities" and theories of reality suggests that findings from experiments will be local - and generalization is always going to be viewed with skepticism.

The discussion of Brand's study of emotions provided discussion of many of these issues in terms of a particular research project (similar to what you will write for your exam).

We breezed through the data collection chapter.  I drew your attention to the overview page on 352 and we supplemented the list of methods to include some of the approaches/combination actually used in the studies you have read so far.    I also pointed out that in addition to the secondary data sources Mertens lists (359 ff), there are also databases relevant to writing and education on p. 176.

Appling Mertens to your own work: Finally, we talked about how you might work through your understanding of study design and data collection in terms of your own project.  One place to start might be to write to the following questions. .

What concepts do you want to gather information about?

How have others gathered information on the concepts/practices/attitudes you want to study?

What is the purpose of your data collection process/instrument?

What variables will you need to measure?

What kind of "evidence" will you need to interpret/understand these variables?

For Wednesday, March 9

Read: Chapter 9 - History and Narrative Study of Lives; Miller, Literacies and the Complexities of the Global Digital Divide p 1499

Write: Exam 1.

In class next week we will begin with some work on setting up your concept paper.  We will then discuss oral history and literacy narratives. 

February 23: Quantitative Research Part 2

Tonight you spent the first part of class workshopping your ideas for your concept papers (the workshop prompts are posted to the right). The concept paper is a short, exploratory document that can serve as your basis for talking to your (possible) research advisor.  The purpose of the workshop was for you to use talk with classmates as a way to focus ideas and to some more or less coherent brainstormy possibilities that you and your advisor can use to develop your proposal.  Your concept paper should include any questions you need to resolve.

The remainder of class focused on the three readings as discussed by the Nic, Kena, and Angela.  The plan to spend some time taking ethnographic fieldnotes was not realized - we simply did not have time. Although I had ambitions plans for providing you with experiences in the different approaches to data collection and analysis, I am realizing that the broad "overview" demanded by this course will not leave time for this.  I am hoping that as you decide on methods for your study, you will come back to the references suggested by the book and in our discussions.

For next week:
Read: Mertens, Chapte 4 - Experimental and Quasiexperimental design: read this material with a focus on how issues surrounding validity, generalizability, and establising causality affect ALL research.  The discussion here is on work where researchers manipulate variables - but I want our discussion to consider how the issues Mertens raise bear upon YOUR research projects - which may or may not be "experimental".  The section on experimental design is probably less relevant to your work than the discussion at the beginning of the chapter,.

Also read:  Chapter 12 through page 379.  We will discuss standards for reliability in class - you can skim this but I think we can cover it in discussion.

Also read:  Emotions of Professional Writers (posted to the right)

In class we will discuss (quasi)experimental research and data collection, and examine an instance of how experimental research plays out in writing studies.  I will also post a copy of the exam question and we can talk through the process for the March 9 in-class exam on research methods up through readings assigned up to Chapter 4& 12.

Qualitative analysis: grounded theory + participatory research

We had a general discussion of qualitative methods with a focus on what kinds of questions they are best suited to answering, what kind of information they can produce, and how the different qualitative methods frame different kinds of knowledge.  I managed to unintentionally delete the study guide I wrote for Chapter 8, but hope to post it before next class.

Eric's discussion of "Community Literacy" highlighted to inherent problems of the transformative paradigm:  speaking for the other, conflicts between researcher-research subjects' worldviews (discursive realities); and the dangers of endorsing a standpoint immersed in values and identities that are both politically important and highly contested.  Peck et al's work clearly has transformative elements, but as I pointed out (just so nothing stays too simple) it also had a pragmatic basis - both in its setting at a (former) settlement house, in its references to Dewey and James, and in the focus of the collaborative writing projects that were highlighted as the project's central accomplishments.  Each of the projects focused on a real-world problem and the writing could be interpreted as solving (working to solve) that problem.  At the same time, the essay presents itself as effecting broader social change (presenting a new model for education).  So maybe being in one paradigm or another is not really important?  From my perspective, understanding the consequences of particular actions/theoretical orientations as they are articulated in terms of the research paradigms is what can help researchers think about the importance, consequences, and flaws of their research designs.

While I chose this study as an example of ethnographic, participatory research - Eric's critique rightly characterized it as a new kind of coercion, where participants didn't really have full choice either in terms of taking part in the work of the project - or in terms of the conclusions they reached.  While it is unclear what value the outcomes of the projects had for student-participants, inequalities in power (subjects rights to self determination) were not fully addressed.  I think that given the deeply entrenched privileges, blindnesses, and vexed patterns for communication in our education system = truly transformative research is very difficult to design.  As Eric pointed out - those with power have to "give up" their power - and we (researchers and teachers) are often more inclined to use it for the "good" of the disempowered - than to work on re-structuring   the power dynamics set up by the status quo. I am going to stop here though there is much more to say.

Nic's discussion served as our introduction to grounded theory.  Nic also pointed out the difficulties of placing a study within one paradigm and one method.  He suggested the approach as constructivist based on the study's recognition of the different meanings for/interpretations of how writing engenders knowledge within different kinds of writing.  I complicated this discussion by suggesting that it might also be considered pragmatic - since it focused on the use of writing within a particular profession.  My claim was a little on the lame side since pragmatic research is focused on solving a particular problem - and this was "basic research" in that it explored relationships among invention processes, writing, and knowledge making.  Nic drew our attention to the methods used both by the researcher (her choice of subjects, data collection, and analysis) and suggested that this might be case study and grounded theory - and I would agree.  It announces itself as grounded theory - which referrs primarily to how the author collected, analyzed and theorized data, but as Nic points out - it also qualifies as a case study in that it follows a single, clearly defined case.

We spent the remainder of the class discussing and practicing grounded theory methods. Many, many writing studies researchers use grounded theory methods (or some relative or distant cousin) to work with their data. It provides a set-by-step conceptual system for approaching what can otherwise feel like an overwhelming, disorganized body of unrelated information (that is how many qualitative data sets present themselves).  Strauss and Corbin's text is probably the most practical introduction, and if you are stuck, it provides many analytic tools for seeing your data in new ways.

Administrative notes:
Grading practice for reaction papers:  Because this class is about learning to be a researcher - not about know how to be one before you came to the course - grades will weight work produced later in the course more strongly than first attempts.  For the reaction papers, you may choose to receive your grade for your final essay multipled by 3 - as your grade for all three papers.  If for some reason, you did not do your best on the last paper - you may also choose to have a flat average.

Exam I:  Your first exam will be during the second half of class March 9.  It will be an in-class exam and will cover all work up through Mertens, Chapter 4 and the associated readings.  I will give you the question(s) on March 2, and you will write your exam during the second half of class.  You may use your text books, but writing should be generated in class (no pre-written text).

Thanks for the good discussion in class - and hope you enjoy the warm weather over the weekend!


Read:  Review - ethnographic, case study + phenomenological approaches in Mertens, Ch 8 Qualitative Methods; Remediation as Social Construct,(1991), 783;  Uncommon  Ground: Narcissistic Reading and Material Racism (2005) 919;  A Family Affair: Competing Sponsors of Literacy in Appalachian Students’ Lives (2007) 1600.

Reaction papers: Remediation as Social Construct,(1991), 783; Kena; Uncommon  Ground: Narcissistic Reading and Material Racism (2005) 919;  Angela; A Family Affair: Competing Sponsors of Literacy in Appalachian Students’ Lives (2007) 1600;  Nic

Surveys

You began class by doing some more writing about the focus for your project.   You should be spending some time thinking about the kinds of questions that interest you & the kinds of problems you hope to solve, and reading broadly to identify ideas that you might be interested in studying.  Within the next two weeks you should have a clear enough idea of your focus to begin focused reading on your topic.

You signed up for conferences where we will put together a draft list of important researchers and studies related to your topic.

Conference times: Wednesday, February 16
4:00 Eric
5:40  Kena
6:00 Nic (but I am hoping to reschedule)
6:20 Josh
6:40  Fran

If you send me an email with a short description of your general focus - I will have some time to think about useful texts for your work ahead of the conference.

Surveys:
We began our discussion by thinking about what kinds of data surveys can provide -and the purpose they are therefore best suited for.  The study guide is meant to highlight important questions/terms and direct you to the sections where Mertens covers those ideas.

Fran started our discussion of Integrating Multimodality into College Composition. She defined the purpose of the survey as "to learn more about what composition teachers were doing with multimodal composing, what technologies they used in support of composing multimodal texts, and how faculty and administrators perceived efforts to introduce multimodal composition into departmental curricula and professional development;" and she pointed out that the authors had not clearly defined the term.  She also connected to an issue raised by Merten - that surveys can open up assumptions that researchers bring to their work - by discussing how Anderson, et al's essay had asked what was displaced by multimodal teaching - and subjects had responded by recasting what happened not as displacement but as altering, shifting or remediating the work of writing classes.

We used discussion of this text to consider problems associated with sample selection (participants were self selected and were primarily from Research I univeristies); how data interpretation from such samples can still produce powerful and important results (multimodal teaching had little support, was primarily sponsored by individual instructors - implications?), and how the paradigm drives the statement of findings implications (this seemed a pragmatic rather than a transformative study).

Josh discussed Web Literacies of the Already Accessed and Technically Inclined.  The quoted the main focus of the study as  “…a study of electronic literacy as practiced by middle-school students belonging to a highly successful economic group may strike some as suspect…[y]et if we consider that literacy ethnographers target for scholarly inquiry those sites where changes in literary practice are afoot, then the American Institute of Monterrey is a choice site, for literary education at AIM is both undergoing and causing significant change.”   At this point I emphasized the fact that this study was authored  by three individuals with three very different perspectives, and drew attention to pointed the theoretical lenses the authors used to look at "change." Josh indicated disatisfaction with the clarity of focus + findings for this study - and our discussion considered how the authors' analysis was in some sense directed toward making sense of a set of answers that would make no sense (as Josh pointed out) if presented in terms of statistics.   I chose this reading because of its conflicted paradigm, the narrative interpretation of findings, and the way the authors both did and did not draw attention to the social justice issues that accompany the adoption of new literacies as a social, 
economic and educational standard of proficiency.


We then used what we had learned about developing effective surveys as a basis for assessing the dispositions survey created to assess incoming college composition students.  We first identified what we wanted to find out - and then reviewed the questions.  We looked at clarity of language (whether the statements would generate unambiguous responses), coverage (did we find out about what students knew about writing, how they used it, and how they felt about it?).  We didn't cover issues related to how the data would be assessed (statistically as in Multimodality) or in terms of a narrative (as in Web Literacies).


Good class and good discussions.  Thanks!


For next class:
Read: Mertens, Ch 8- Qualitative Methods with attention to grounded theory, participatory research, and focus groups.  Miller:  Invention and Writing in Technical Work: Representing the Oject (1994) 843 (Nic);  Community Literacy (1995) 1097 (Eric)

Literature reviews, causal comparison & correlational studies - and surveys

On February 2 we covered two weeks of work in a course where we already have too much to do during each class - so it was a lot of material presented without much time to take it in. But we are - more or less caught up.

Administrative detials:

• Everyone is signed up for reaction papers:  presenters for this week (on surveys) will be Josh and Fran.
• NIH training is complete.  Keep the link for your certificate where you can find it.  You will need to turn it in with your IRB application for your research project.
• I have invited you to share 2 google.docs => the reaction paper sign-up sheet, and a collaborative list of sites for sources for literature reviews in composition studies.  Let me know if you have trouble accessing these documents.

Methods chapters

With respect to the methods, what you need to know is in your text book.  As discussed in class, I will be creating study guides for the remaining methods chapters, and I will post them on the site. When I get a break in my workload - I will create study guides for the chapters we've already completed.

What we will do in class Wednesday
I will check in on how you are doing in terms of finding a research topic - and pass around a sign-up sheet for conferences. If you give me a broad topic - I can help direct you to sources and particular references so you can see what has been done - and decide whether you are actually interested.

As part of your assignment for last week, you were asked to look through the appendix on writing a research proposal.  The first step in the process is to write a concept paper - a document you share with your prospective advisor to see if you are on the right track. We will spend some time talking over how to write a concept paper - and do some "practice" in terms of setting one up.

Surveys: we cover the methods chapter - very briefly (be sure to bring questions) -but I am hoping that most of our work on this approach will be in terms of critical analysis of the readings, and some in-class work on designing surveys.

Read:  Mertens, Ch 6 Survey methods; Web-Literacies of the Already Accessed and Technically Inclined: Schooling in Monterrey, Mexico (2000)  1474;  Integrating Multimodality into Composition Curricula, pdf on Course Blog.

Missed Class

The University was closed this evening, so we missed class. We will catch up next week by going through things very quickly.  You can read the sample reaction papers - and we will discuss the "flaws" in the sample to give you an even better idea of what is expected.  Meanwhile, read the assignments as listed on the calendar - and we will see what we can do.

I posted a google.doc where you can sign up for reaction papers.  The invitation (for you to edit/write on the document) will be sent to the email addresses you put on the signup sheet last week.  Click the link, and you should be able to "edit" (write your name beside the essays you want to be responsible for).  If you have problems - let me know.

Remember that the NIH training certificates are due by next class.

For February 2:
Read: Mertens-Ch 5 Causal Comarative and Correlational Research; Mertens- Appendix: Research Proposals; Millerm On the Subjects of Class &Gender (1989) p. 631; Miller, Revision Strategies (1980) 323.

Stay warm!

Sample Reaction Papers

I have posted the Reaction Paper for "From Research in Written Composition" and "Writing Insight" (see new heading).  We will work on creating the third reaction paper together in class.

I am keeping an eye on the weather but will not cancel class unless the University cancels class. I understand that some of you have long drives - and will respect your individual decisions about the importance of getting to class versus the risk of driving during hazardous conditions.

Four paradigms for research: exploring thesis possibilities

Class was devoted to laying the groundwork for the rest of the course.  We reviewed the syllabus and took a look at the calendar - to get an idea of the grand scheme for the course.  As noted on the syllabus - the calendar is a work in progress - and will be revised in response to what we actually do in class.

Important notice: class will be held in CAS 305.  We may move to one of the conference rooms when we aren't using the computers - but for next week we will begin in CAS 305.

Four paradigms: You began to think about topics you might want to explore for your thesis work.  Hang onto the writing prompts; you might want to do some more exploratory writing.  It is important to choose a topic you feel some passion for - because you will be with it for a while.  This is an area where emotional connection might count more than "reasons" - since in terms of pursuing research, emotions seem to be more durable.
 After you generated some ideas - you picked a "topic" and formulated a question and did some impromptu planning for a project.  This is both to help you begin to reckon the kind of planning you will need to do, and to start you thinking about topics match your resources (as well as your inclinations).  We talked about the Erics and Kena's proposals as way to explore the research paradigms identified in Mertens Chapter 1.

The chart we worked from (on the board) is in Chapter 1 in a more complete form - and I strongly recommend that you pay attention to the different assumptions, learn the language to talk about the paradigms, and start thinking about where you fit as a research - and what kind of research your assumptions /paradigm will set you up to do.  Thinking about what kind of knowledge the different paradigms produce - and who benefits from and/or controls that knowledge - is one of the major themes of exploration in this course.

Reaction papers:
At the end of class - I briefly introduced the reaction paper assignments.  The reaction papers will lay the basis for our seminar discussions.  For next week, I will present 3 sample reaction papers (one for each of the assigned readings).  We will discuss/critique them - and you can then use those papers (in light of the critique) as models for your papers/presentations.  I will post the revised sign-up list by the beginning of next week (hint -they will be the readings on the calendar).

Great class tonight - though I did get a little tired listening to myself talk.  As we move into the course - I am looking forward to watching you take off in terms of your research agendas!

For next class:
Read:  Mertens, Ch 3; Literature Review;  and three selections from Miller: Research in Composition (1963) p 193;  Composing Proc ess of 12th graders (1971) p 228; "Writing Insight": Deafness and Autobiography (2005), p 1243.

Write: NIH training (see directions posted to the right under assignments)

Syllabus and Calendar and books

Welcome!

I have read through the materials for our course and I am eager to talk to you about them. Our discussions will tackle issues ranging from the nature of knowledge - to the ethics of using human beings as objects of study. Important ideas not only for writers - but for all thinking individuals in this modern age. The work load  reflects the scope of the material we need to cover - but I am hoping it will be quite manageable. Upon completing this course you should be well prepared to begin thesis work, and by completing the Thesis proposal assignment - you might even have some of your thesis research started.

Syllabus & calendar.

The course syllabus and a DRAFT for the course calendar are posted at links to the right under Course Documents. The Syllabus includes a description of the course, required materials, and a detailed account of writing assignments and an indication of how they will be graded. The Calendar is still drafty (certainly some typos & contradictions in there) but it gives a solid frame for the general sequence and quantity of material we will be covering during the term.

Books & assignment for first class.

As indicated in an email sent at the end of last term, you are assigned to read the Chapter 1: An introduction to research, in Mertens, for the first class. You need to buy the required texts online and if you have have not yet ordered texts, you can complete this assignment by reading the copy of Mertens in the Writing Center. It will be available M-F Jan 10 - 15 during the Center's hours of operations. Ask at the front desk. You may copy the assigned chapter - but please do not take the text out of the Center for any other purpose as other students may stop by to use it.

If you have questions - do not hesitate to contact me.