5.7 Final presentation

Your final exam is due in the course email today.  No exceptions.

Your proposals//IRB papers were also due today.  In class, we talked through your research proposals and you may have until tomorrow at 4:30 to revise in light of class discussion this evening.

Research proposals and IRB forms should be turned in to the course email by May 8, at 4:30.

4.23 Review for final, IRB + research proposals

Final Exam:  The prompt for the final is posted to the right.  It requires you to write your philosophy of composition - and to relate your ideas in terms of the readings for the term.  We did some group brainstorming to map out a big messy vocabulary of perspectives that might turn up in a composition philosophy designed to cover what composing/writing is, how to teach it, and what kind of composition research is important.  We then spent the next hour or so connecting selected points from our brainstorm map to each of the readings from the course.  This both prepared you for writing your exams (hopefully) and created an overview of the thinking we have done for the course.

Research proposals:  Next you signed up for conferences on your research proposals.


Thursday, April 26:  3:30 Musheerah, 4:10 Laurelle
Monday, April 30:    3:30 Simone, 3:50 Marie  4:10 Jonathan, 4:30 Jennifer,  4:50 Joe, 5:15  Wayne

We can arrange more/different times if necessary.

We spent some time reviewing the format proposed by Mertens - and emphasized that your particular proposal format (what is included and what is not) will reflect the focus of your project.  I have started reading proposals + providing some comments to those of you who turned in a draft.  For those of you who are still working - I will read your work and we will talk.

IRB forms:  We spent the rest of class going over requirements for IRB approval.  You do not have to submit your IRB request - only fill out a "draft" for feedback. This is not going to be about getting a grade so much as about getting and idea of the issues you will face when you actually submit your form.  Most of you will be exempted, some of you will be expedited.  Neither process is unreasonably difficult or demanding in terms of time.

Next week: conferences.

List of readings for course

1/30  Composition as a discipline + literature review
Berlin (1982), 235;
Berlin, pdf on blog
Bizzell (1984), 299;
Kirsch & Ritchie (1995), 485

2/6  Writing, discourse and identity + comparative analysis
Brodkey  (1989) p 621 Musheerah Gill
Sommers  (1980), 43 Simone Turner

2/13  Writing, discourse, and identity + survey
Anderson et al (2006), pdf on Course Blog Julio Parra
Bartholomae (1985), 523 Jennifer Robbin
Royster (1996), 555  Wayne Hargrove
Elbow (1999), 641 - Jacqueline Evans-Turner

2/27 Writers' identities & institutional contexts + grounded theory, participatory research, focus groups
Perl (1976), 17 laurelle Wallach
Castillo & Chandler (in press), pdf on course blog Jonathan Daneshpour
Kean University Writing Center Focus group reports, pdf on course blog (Turner, Longman + Sanpietro)

3/5 Writers' identities, cultural literacies + ethnographic research and case study
Perl (1976), 17 (again) Laurelle Wallach
Heath (1983) pdf -Marie Acot, Julio Parra
Young, pdf- Neiha Bhandari


3/12 Writing process, emotions and cognition + experimental & quasi-experimental
Brand & Leckie, pdf; jennifer robbin
Flower & Hayes, 253 - Timothy Longman

3/26 Literacy narratives + oral history & narrative study of lives
Hawisher & Selfe (2004), pdf  Joseph Sanpietro
Brandt, pdf-Marie Acot, Jacqueline Evans-Turner
Ruecker (in press) pdf-Neiha Bhandari

4/3 Emergence of English/composition departments &post-process pedagogy
Matsuda (1999), 673 Musheerah Gill
Breuch, (2002), 97 Wayne Hargrove


4/10  Composition and new communication technologies
Selfe & Selfe, (1994), 739 Joseph Sanpietro
Wysoki, (1999), 717 Laurelle Wallach
Yancey, (2004), 791Jonathan Daneshpour

4.16 Digital literacies & workshop for proposals

We talked over Wysocki & Johnson-Eilola, Selfe & Selfe, and Yancey = all of whom were speaking from particular points in the history of composition and electronic literacies.  I appreciated the passionate discussion!

The second part of class was spent working on your proposals.

For next week:
I will distribute the exam questions, and we will review the readings covered by the exam.  I will then give a presentation on completing IRB applications, along with sample applications, informed consent forms + debriefing forms.

I will also circulate the sign up sheet for conferences on proposals.

Have a good week and see you next class.

4.9 Brandt, Breuch, Matsuda + research proposal workshop

Good discussions on the theorists.  See Marie, Jacqueline, Wayne + Musheerah's papers to the right.

You spent the second half of class working in groups on your research proposals.  (see last chapter in Mertens). My homework regarding these discussions is to send references to:

• Laurelle on narrative research, life course development + memory
• Simone on commenting on texts
• Jen on assessment/design of poetry courses
• Wayne on high stakes testing = the validity, purpose + how/whether low scores correlate with low grades & other measures of success
• Jackie on mixed method studies to do research on assessing effect of teaching methods/new courses

I will also bring a sign up sheet for the conferences Monday April 30.

For next week come to class prepared to workshop some of  your writing for the first section of the proposal + some ideas writing for the methodology section.  We will work on designing your research intstruments.

Read: Mertens, Ch 14  Research instruments;  Selfe & Selfe, 739;  Wysoki, 717 , Yancey, 791

Great class (as always) and see you next week.

Revised calendar

April 9
Discussion Brandt, Breuch + Matsuda

Discussion theoretical set up for research proposal

Read: Mertens, Ch 14  Research instruments;  Selfe & Selfe, 739;  Wysoki, 717 , Yancey, 791

April 16 
Returned: Midterm Exam

Discussion data collection instruments

In-class practice research instrument design

Write: Draft research proposals

April  23  Schedule conferences on research proposals Due: Draft research proposals + Final Exam distributed
Review readings + connect to research essays for Exam 2Presentation on IRB application  processIn-class work on IRB applications + conferences on research proposals
Write: Feedback on classmate’s proposals

April 30

Conferences

May 7
Due: Final Proposals + IRB application + Final Exam
Presentations on research proposals

4.2 Data Analysis

We started class with questions about the midterm - and it sounds like you are all on the right track.  I emphasized that you should pay attention to the underlined sections of the prompt, and that while it was important to provide enough background(summary) of the study so that I can follow your line of discussion - the focus of your discussion should be on replying to the questions asked by the prompt.

Data analysis practice. Dr. Sutton provided an overview of data analysis methods.  We did some combined applications of the methods we have been reading about.  He presented basic quantitative concepts for assessing data distributions (mean, median & mode + distribution) and talked about when you would resort to which measure and why.  We than looked at coding/classification for his RNF project - and spent some time coding the answers to the writing major survey.  We noted that in each case circumstances that surrounded the study (the shift in classifcation categories for teh RNF study, the calls for papers associated with particular years at Cs, and so on) shaped data interpretation.

In generating categores for the writing major data, we noted approaches to name & classify big, umbrella categories, versus smaller, more particular categories.  E.g. = big = creative writing, particualar = dystopian writing.  Big categories and particular categories serve different purposes in naming and describing relationships within data.

The second half of class dealt with the readings from the oral history/live story/narrative analysis methods from last week.

Papers for the Hawisher et al essay, and the Ruecker essay are posted to the right.

For next week-
We will start with Marie and Jacqueline's presentations on Brandt.
Then we will do reaction papers to Matsuda (1999) 673;  Breuch, 97
There is no assignment for Mertens (except to ask questions about data analysis if you have them)

The second half of class will be spent workshopping your research proposals.  You should have some texts (at least 5 references) for your literature review.  If you do not have a clue what you should be reading - schedule a conference.
In class - you will give a brief presentation on where your proposal is so far + what you need to do = and you will get input from classmates to support you.

3.26 History, oral history & narrative studies

Midterm:  The midterm is posted to the right.  We decided that you would take a shot at writing it - come to class with questions/comments next week, and that it would be due April 9.  You may choose essays to write about up to but not including Brand & Leckie. I did not set a length but suggested you not make this your life's work.  I will not be grading for style (unless it interferes with clarity).  Longer is not always better - I will grade on whether and how you hit the required points stated in the prompt.  (Jen if you have questions please email).

Mertens: as has been the practice of the last several weeks - I did not go over Mertens' chapter point by point but rather asked for questions.  There were no questions - and I am not sure whether this means this chapter was short & to the point & you understood everything - or that we were just tired.  Judging by talk with you life histories may be of some interest to a few of you, and I am assuming if you have questions I will hear from you as you work on you proposals.

Flower & Hayes:  Tim presented on the authors' cognitive approach to writing process - and identified how cognitive theory unpacks earlier representations of writing process as linear and taking place in 3 stages.   We used discussion of Flower and Hayes to talk through a partial answer to the midterm question.  We identified the methodology (post-positivist) in terms of its ethics (producing reproducible research in a clear, efficient manner), its epistemology ( internal experiences could be reported  in language, named, classified and generalized => knowledge is not knower or perspective dependent and can be discovered objectively); ontology ( writing was "real" - as opposed to a social construction associated with emotions, identities, and particular writer's perspectives and experiences -  and "out there" to observe), and its methods => which were primarily patterned on "scientific" data collection.  This allowed Flower and Hayes to gather a particular kind of data - and held them to a particular set of standards for validity.  If a study with similar objectives (to develop a more fine-grained representation of writing process) were designed through a social constructivist - or transformative lens it would have had different assumptions about knowledge, ethics and the way the world is that would have led to different methods.. . .   For example Flower and Hayes do not account for the problem that much of writing process is unconscious in the way that our resort to language as we speak is unconscious.  Patterns for invoking authority, presentation of evidence, and story/information organization are influenced by socialization from Home Disscourses - and remain largely unconscious - so do not enter into the composing process.  This means that some of what they name "translation" is not conscious.  Again, social constructivist theories intimate that our choices are both limited and structured prior to and outside of (and again = unconsciously) writing process.   And so on.

Plan for the rest of the term:  We decided to do this week's assigned readings (Ruecker, Brandt & Hawisher et al) NEXT week, and to postpone next weeks readings to the following week.

This means  that for the rest of the term, we will do a set of readings loosely connected to theory presented the previous (rather than the same) week.

Work on research proposal:  I spoke to interested individuals about plans for their research proposals - and those I spoke to have an idea - and will continue to develop the literature review and methods as they work on their proposals.  Anyone else looking for a little support in getting started should schedule a conference.

Read: Mertens, Chapter 13, Data Analysis; 
Reaction papers: Brandt, Hawisher & Selfe (2004), Reucker (in press).


Although we did not review the calendar in class - I suggest that you take a look to get a feel on how to schedule your work on the research proposal.  


Good class - and see you next week..

3.12 Quantitative methods

NOTE:  I sent the Deborah Brandt AND the Selfe & Hawisher essays to you at your Kean emails.  I retrieved it through the Kean database, but the terms of agreement do not allow me to post it on the internet.



Overview:  Tonight's class was one more example of too much material for too little time -but we got through most everything on the schedule.

Reaction papers:  you may revise for a higher grade - and you will receive your highest (not an average) grade.

Review for Midterm (see previous post)


Chapter 12: Research Methods => I asked if there were any questions.  This chapter is a "point of need" reference - and you will be referring to it as you work on your research proposal.

Brand & Leckie:  Jen gave us a solid overview of the essay and some things to think about in terms why researchers might choose qualitative methods.

Flower & Hayes => we will hear from Tim next week (and they will not be on the midterm).

Research design:  The cheat sheet for the overview of the methods chapter is posted under class notes to the right.

Thinking about data and research design in practice:  You then looked at the data sets for ENG 1030 (freshman composition) and we discussed what this data could (and could not) reliably tell us about writer's progress.

You then worked in groups to plan a research project to determine how and whether the composition program's electronic portfolios fir freshman composition contribute to student learning.   You had access to existing composition program data (as discussed in class).  Good job on these!  It is a messy problem.

Research proposal brainstorming:  We spent the last 15 minutes of class talking about the research proposal assignment (page 451 in your text).  We read through the sections in a research proposal, defining terms.  You will be working on your proposal for the remainder of the term = starting with some brainstorming for next class.

For next class

Read:  Mertens, Ch 9 History and Narrative Study of Lives;  Mertens, Review Ch 12 Data Collection; Hawisher & Selfe (2004), pdf; Brandt, pdf.

Write: brainstorming for research proposal
Do some messy writing for each section.  The point of this writing is so that you know what you are clear on - and you know what you need help with so we can work on it during in-class conferences.


The first part of class will focus on life history methods (and catch up with Flower & Hayes).  The second part of class (which would have been an in-class final) is now open for you to go home, work on your proposal, or schedule a conference with me.  I will also provide a sign-up sheet for conferences at other times.


Good class tonight, and have a great spring break!!

Review for the midterm.  
The list below presents the focus and some of the points.  As you review - pay attention to how (and whether)  the methods and the methodological lens contributed to the study's value.  How important was the study?  How well designed was it?  What was the role of design in terms of the study's importance? 

Literature reviews = paradigmatic approaches to teaching + research
Berlin, history of writing pedagogies235

New rhetoric best – because ?

How you teach writing connects to assumptions about reality
4 different approaches to teaching writing :  neoclassist ;  expressivist;  Current traditional, new rhetoric

Bizzell, developmental approaches 299

William Perry = schema for moral development

Kirsch & Ritchie, paradigms for researchers  485

Politics of location – individual identities

C ausal Comparative + Correlational research + case study ; discourse , identity and writing + observational strategies to understand their relationships 

Brodkey, teachers + adult student writers,  621

Power dynamics in classroom discourse – those in power tend to protect (keep the same) their position
discourse related to classasessed power dynamics between students and teachers

Sommers, beginning + experienced writers, 43experienced / inexperienced writers

Surveys + discourse

Anderson et all pdf adoption of new media pdfnew media in writing classes

Bartholomae, identity & discourse & teaching, 523about students figuring out the discourse for the university (how to represent authority, information, etc  - in the conventions of the university

Royster, 555 

voice / authority

right to respresent own experience/self; right to theorize self/experience; right to be many, complex, interrelated selves

Elbow, 641  approach for teaching mainstream English that connects to home discoure

Grounded theory, participatory research & focus groups

Chandler & Castillo, pdf 

Ways new technologies have changed teen identity development (specific examples)

Participatory

Kean University Writing Group focus group findings, pdf 

Particular application of focus group research

Strengths + weaknesses

Ethnography and case study

Perl,  17

Development of objective method for studying writing process of unskilled writers => common language for talking about

Heath pdf 

Refuting assumptions of earlier language researchers: 1) that oral and written language are entirely separate and different; 2) literacy = progress

Young, autoethnography, pdf 

Phenomenological  complication of identity

3 moments in which he examined how identity was defined + who owned it

Experimental + quasi-experimental

Brand & Leckie

Quantitative approach => showed that  more positive feelings  associated with writing than negative

3.5 More on qualitative methods

Perl:  Laurelle led our discussion of Sondra Perl and raised some of the important questions that followed up on Perl's characterization of unskilled writers processs.  Although I tried to use this talk as a segue to you analysis of the Sample transcript, I'm not really sure how successful that was, since we seemed more interested in the findings than the method.  


Theoretical stories + analysis of conversations:  You presented theoretical theories for the sections of transcript in Sample 2 - and they were awesome.  You looked for important topics of converation, patterns in what was said, digressions, how speakers represented themselves in terms of language choices, agency (how much control they had), and ideology (value judgments, assumptions, beliefs).  Some of the language choices you looked at included hesitations and repetitions, repeated phrases, what was said first/last.  This was a short/not inclusive introduction to coding + categorizing + building theoretical stories.  For more background on analyzing conversations + transcripts, narrative and building theoretical stories you might look at the following.

Andrews, Molly, Squire, Corrine, and Tamboukou, Maria. (2008). Doing narrative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage


Bamberg, Michael. (2004). Talk, small stories, and adolescent identities. Human Development 47, 331-353.

Bamberg, Michael, & Georgakopoulou, Alexandra. (2008). Small stories as a new perspective in narrative and identity analysis.  Stories & Talk, 28 (3), 377-396.


Clandinin, D. Jean (Ed.). (2007). Handbook of Narrative Inquiry: Mapping a Methodology.  Thousand Oaks: Sage.

 McAdams, Dan P. (2003). Identity and the life story.  In Robyn Fivush, & Catherine A. Haden (Eds.), Autobibographical memory and the construction of the autobiographical self (pp.187-209). Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum. 

McAdams, Dan P. (1993). The stories we live by: Personal myths and the making of the self. New York; William Morrow.

McAdams, Dan P., Josselson, Ruthellen, & Lieblich, Amia. (2006) Identity and story: Creating self in narrative. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.


Riessman, Catherine Kohler. (2008). Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences.  Thousand Oaks: Sage.


For "classic: books on grounded theory, see link. 


Heath: Julio and Marie discussed Heath's ethnographic methods - and after reviwing her findings - raised questions about researchers' investment in the theory they bring to their work, and whether and how this "theoretical lens" might shape their work in ways they don't necessarily anticipate.

In her introduction to her book, Heath had this to say about how she chose the communities she would study.


My entry into these specific communities came through a naturally occurring chain of events. in each case, I knew an old-time resident in the community, and my relationship what that individual opened the community to me.  I had grown up in a rural Piedmont area in a neighboring state, so the customs of both communities were very familiar to me.though many years had passed since I had been a daily part of such cultural ways.

A personal connection, and an invitation seem to be the "reason" for selecting the two communities she studied - one white (Roadville) and one African American (Trackton).  At the same time, this line of reasoning does not really answer the questions you raised about relationships between theory, and preconceptions.


Young;  Neiha gave a clear presentation on the complexities and political implications of identity.  I am afraid I didn't help by adding out of order information, and I am hoping we might take up the questions she raised about the research method at the beginning of next class. 


For next class:
In addition to covering the reading listed below - we will review for the midterm - which will focus on the research essays you have read so far in light of the methods we have discussed (up through quasi-experimental, which we will cover next week).  We will use your questions as a basis for the review.  We decided that exam would be either take-home - or in-class = but as I am re-thinking this I think we will need to discuss it further. It doesn't seem fair to grade exams written in a limited time to exams that can be written at home with opportunities to revise & rethink ideas over a period of days.  So either I need to present 2 different exams, I need to grade by two different standards - or ??  We can talk about it.

Have a good week!

Read:  Mertens, Ch 4 Experimental & quasi-experimental ;  Mertens, Ch 12 Data Collection; Brand & Leckie, pdf; Flower & Hayes, 253;  also read  pages 404-412 with special attention to box 13.2.

2.27 Qualitative methods

We covered creating transcripts, participatory action research, and focus groups this evening.  It was primarily an interactive class where you looked at primary data in light of the different practices we discussed.

For next week

Read:  Review - ethnographic, case study + phenomenological approaches in Mertens, Ch 8 Qualitative Methods; Perl (1976), 17;   Heath (1983) pdf;  Young, pdf

Write: code the sample transcript 2 (to the left).  Name features of the context, the actor(s), actions, interactions, conditions and outcomes - and then see what you can come up with in terms of patterns and relationships that you might spin out into theory.  

An Allegory for Writing Studies Majors

The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore

2.13 Surveys + voice, discourse and authority

Introduction to surveys
You did a great job applying Merten's survey discussion to a particular problem: how to gather information about who comes to the writing center and who does not.

As illustrated by your three different approaches to this task = the kind of survey you design (and how it will work) depends on how you define your purpose, and the objectives you set for yourself  Each group defined a purpose relevant to discovering who came to the writing center and who didn't:  group one set forward to characterize who came and who didn't;  group two sought to differentiate among and compare participants reasons for attending/not attending; and group three sought to categorize reasons for attending/not attending.  Each of these studies would provide information relevant to the general task (gathering information), and each survey would produce different information relevant to the goals of figuring out who and how to reach out to in terms of  writing center support.

Studies that characterize populations can often serve as the basis for the design of larger surveys or other kinds of research.  For example, group one planned to use a small, open-ended survey to develop questions for a more multiple-choice based survey. Also - conducting a pilot with the purpose for the second study - could help create the "final' version for a larger survey.  Comparative survey would draw from design principles from causal comparison/correlation studies, and it might take several "tests" to ensure the information meets both criteria. This survey might - in some ways - work as a "test" for the classification study.

Anderson et al.
As you talked about the purpose & objectives, and thought about how to make decisions about sampling and delivery method - you encountered versions of the problems described in Anderson et al.  As this essay made clear, it is important to have a strong theoriteical & practical ground for your study.  This means establishing a clear purpose and objectives - and conducting a cycle of proposing and testing sampling and delivery methods that meet that purpose and objectives.  Should you decide to use a survey as a primary method, the form of Anderson et al could work as a useful model for your essay.  It includes sections for theoretical review of literature relevant to the study's design, a clear statement of the purpose and objectives, discussion of shortcomings in design and execution,  presentation of findings; discussion of findings, and conclusions.

I  felt more extensive use of tables to represent data would have made this essay a little less difficult to read.  The narrative presentation of numbers (both percentages & numbers) required readers to create + hold correlations in their heads - rather than "seeing" them in a table.  I think use of tables would also have strengthened the essays discussion of correlations across categores - which is weak or mostly missing except in the case of differences in demographics (teaching rank) and practices.

Uses for surveys even when it is not your primary method
While most of you indicated that you survey research was not at the top of your list as a method - you might find a short, exploratory survey as a usful tool for locating participants, getting participant input on how to design your study;  receiving feedback from participants on your proposed plan for your study; receiving feedback from participants on their experience of your study; and so on.  

Discussion of Bartholomae, Royster, and Elbow
This talk presented three different perspectives on issues associated with voice, discourse and authority in writing.

Bartholomae's essay emphasizes the larger discursive features of written work - their basis for authority (in personal experience versus positioning the author as "arguing against" a "weaker" - though established - idea); their level of abstraction + generalization (successful academic essays are idea based); what "counts" as evidence (while personal experience is not excluded, connections to the network of scholars and ideas of the discipline is valued more highly), and how evidence is presented (through fully supported, logical movement between particular (authoritative) examples  and appropriate generalization).  He points out that freshman writers are expected to write in this form BEFORE they have sufficient experience (with disciplinary knowledge, with the "forms" and with voice) to do so.  He points out that this results in essays that are approximations of the appropriate 'voice' and form, and that surface features (grammar, syntax, spelling) are not necessarily signals of student writer's movement toward mastery of academic discourse.

Royster's contempation of subjectivity took on additional issues confronted by nonmainstream writers as they step into academic discourse.  Her point was that nonmainstream subjects are "theorized" or interpreted in terms of a set of assumptions that limit mainstream readers interpretation of nonmainstream subjectivities.  Her three scenes show mainstream "readers" with assumptions that empower them (mainstream readers) to: 1) speak on behalf of nonmainstream writers/readers; 2) theorize nonmainstream writers/speakers/thinkers in ways that erases and overwrites historical evidence conflicting with histories that place mainstream culture at history's center; 3) essentialize nonmainstream writers as having a single, usually "outsider" voice, rather than allowing that nonmainstream writers connect to multiple nonmainstream and mainstream identities.

Elbow's discussion takes up the task of teaching "the language of power" in classrooms.  In contrast to Bartholomae, his focus was on the different surface issues that shape SWE and home discourse, and on teaching "copyediting"  so that students can move from home language to SWE.  His intent was to provide a respectful and "safe" place for students to think in home language, without ignoring the fact that unless students can step into the forms of SWE, they will be denied access to many opportunities where SWE is required.

Taken together, these three essays present questions about authority, discourse and power that the discipline has not yet fully answered - and which we didn't have enough time to take up.  We will certainly come back to these ideas.

As noted on the calendar, there is no class next week.
For February 27 

Read:  Ch 8 Qualitative Methods with attention to grounded theory, participatory research, focus groups;  Castillo & Chandler (in press), pdf;  Kean University Writing Center Focus group reports.

The pdfs for focus group reports and the Castillo & Chandler article  will be posted by February 18.

See you in a couple weeks>

 .

2.6 Causal Comparative and Correlational studies

Causal comparison and correlation studies. As discussed in Mertens, causal comparative studies are necessary when there is a need to characteristics which it is either not possible, or unethical to manipulate.  Her examples in the book focused on studies of learning and behavioral differences associated with gender, disability and ethnicity.  In writing studies - or in studies where we want to learn about teaching and learning, it may be necessary to use causal comparative or correlational methods to study groups of writers or certain practices or experiences associated with writing or teaching of writing.

I drew attention to the list of reasons for misperceptions of differences among groups ( p. 154) - but re-cast it as a list of caveats for the design and implementation of comparative studies in general.  

We then walked through design of a causal comparative study to look for correlations between feedback = independent variable (in terms of grades or conferencing/comments) and revision = dependent variable.  We ran into lots of difficulties with too many variables and figured out strategies to eliminate some of them (such as only comparing courses with the same level students + same focus). 

Applying this method.  You then used  a modified/hypothetical version of Merten's "steps"(see below) to design causal comparative/correlational studies for (possible) projects by Tim, Neiha, and Wayne.

1. Identify the research problem.

2. Identify the independent or predictor, dependent or criterion variables, and other relevant factors.

3. Identify participants (groups).

4. Describe methods for collecting data 

5. Reflect on possible sources for bias.
6. Pose (anticipated) competing explanations of (anticipated) findings.

I think I kind of sabotaged these discussions - turning everything into ethnographic/case study research - but then I guess that just goes to show the "methods" bias I carry with me.  I think - as you developed them - there were grounds for doing each study as causal comparative, though you would want to put some more time into the organization + design. So put those ideas into your bag of tricks = and keep them in mind as we work our way through the other methods.  

  

Sommers & Brodkey
Simone's and Musheerah's essays are posted to the right.  While our discussion did not focus on the study design - these two particular studies were selected because they "compared" two groups. In fact, each was a case study, though Sommers' piece comes closest to being causal comparative.

Nancy Sommers:
Using our list above, we might think about Sommers' essay as causal comparative in the following ways.
1. Research problem = how does revision correlate with experience writing?
2. Independent variable = writer's experience, dependent variable = revision process
3. Participants = inexperienced + experienced writers from similar geographic  areas (defined in essay) = (also  similar in terms of first language, socioeconoic, ethnic, gender, class distribution? what other similarities might be important.  In other words, what differences within the groups could confuse the data?)
4. Method: Participants wrote three papers (expressive, explanitory, persuasive),and revised each essay twice.  Each participant "was interviewed three times after the final revision of each essay" Essays were coded to identify process + writers' concerns.
5 & 6. Possible sources for bias + competing explanations: "post hoc" fallacy = "proving" the assumption that writers need to be "taught' to revise (novice writers do what they are "taught") => an alternative explanation might be that the younger writers were "developmentally" at a place where thinking processes might not favor revision (think about Bizzell's essay about Perry); this study is especially vulnerable to that since it does not control for age.  This is a much a study of older v younger writers as it is of experienced v inexperienced writers.  Also - as pointed out in class - we noted that the experienced writers were not "taught" to revise - since they (probably) had similar experiences in school - so the conclusion about changing teaching methods - while it may be true - is not relevant to how the experienced writers learned how to revise, since the study does not really examine the process through which experienced writers learned to revise.

Linda Brodkey .  
Brodkey's study does not fit quite so well as a causal comparative study - though it does look at positioning by identity (teacher-v student) within academic discourse = where teachers control the talk and have the power, and students receive talk and have considerably less power.

The points that most interested me were raised in our discussion of Brodkey's conclusions - that the power differential in the literacy letters exchanged between teachers and returning adult students could be accounted for both in terms of the teacherly discourse -and teachers ( unconsciously) not wanting to give up their power - and class.  In our discussion, we raised questions about whether this dynamic was "only" from class. We raised questions about student agency (especially because these were adult students) in terms of determining/following through with topics, and wondered about alternative explanations for why the exchanges turned out as they did.  We speculated about whether there might have been very different explanations about how/why the letter exchanges went as they did had Brodkey ASKED the participants what happened, or why they responded as they did.

We also noticed that though Brodky presented this as about equalizing power relationships in teacher discourse, she did not make any moves to equalize power within researcher discourse.  That is, she held full power in terms of interpretive authority.  Neither student nor teacher participants were asked for their input or interpretations.

Great class tonight.  Your applications of the methods opened new questions and - hopefully- posed possibilities for you as you approach your research.

For next week:
Read: Mertens, Ch 6: Survey methods; Anderson et al (2006, pdf on Course Blog;  Bartholomae (1985), 523;  Royster (1996), 555; Elbow (1999), 641.

As I mentioned in class, the Anderson piece will illustrate many issues that come up with surveys, and the Bartholomae, Royster and Elbow will take up issues in teaching writing as they overlap with discourse.

Wrong email and article on group brainstorming

In case you haven't already noticed, the course email posted on the syllabus is incorrect.  I transposed the numbers.

It should be:  ENG5002.01@gmail.com

Also - the essay I mentioned the first night of class which discussed research on group brainstorming was "Groupthink: The brainstorming myth," by Jonah Lehrer and it was in the January 30, 2012 issue of The New Yorker, on page22.

1.30: Literature Review _ Berlin, Bizell & Kirsch&Ritchie

Characterizing yourself as a researcher:

You started class with some writing about your preferences/feelings associated with the four features Mertens uses to characterize the research paradigms: ontology, epistemology, methodology, and axiology.  This was meant to provide a collaborative chance to explore your assumptions about the way the world is, how knowledge is made + how to document it accurately and ethically AS PART OF your process for developing a research project.  

You also did some writing to think about your research project.  You have some time to think about this - but thinking about your thesis project at the same time you are studying research methodologies (and their underlying assumptions) can help you choose a project that is suited to your habits of thinking and relating to others.

Literature review

Choosing your focus: We did some talking about what kind of relationship you want to have with your research topic, and, in response to Mertens' prompt, we developed a list of factors that might influence your choice.

personal interest

intellectual curiosity

"distance"/objectivity v closeness/insider status to your research community 

 commitment to or investment in the study's purpose

the time-frame/resources necessary for the project

relationships to stakeholders/participants

how you want to "use" your research (to get a job, to fullfill personal goal, to pursue and educational goal...)

We glossed over differences between preliminary, primary + secondary resources, and focused on developing a research strategy.  Because Mertens is very clear and well organized, I emphasized non-mainstream methods (such as using the internet, forums, and Amazon) and left the more respectable discussions about using databases to her.  We briefly discussed how to narrow down your sources to the "most important" for your purposes; basically you need to walk the line between including the most important (most often cited) scholars relevant to your particular project, and dealing with researchers who are working on projects that are very close/relevant to your (but not necessarily cited so frequently).  I didn't mention this in class, but you should have sources not only to establishe  your focus = but also your methods - and any "challenges' to your ideas that you might want to address.

Reaction papers

I presented a poorly proofread reaction paper and offered a teacherly version of a presentation.  There is lots of room for you to improve on my performance.  The idea is that your presentation will help classmates collect their thoughts and consolidate their understanding of the ideas in the essay you are presenting.  You are the expert (I will help out if you ask), and you will be expected to lead the discussion.   As it turned out we spent most of our time on the content & my reaction = with not much attention to the question.  If your discussion works out that way - that's OK - just remember the idea is for the reaction papers to direct classmates' understanding and critique of the essays.  

Other readings
If you have questions about Bizzell an Kirsch & Ritchie - we can pick up on them next week.  Kirsch and Ritchie are particularly important in terms of thinking about how to do research that goes against dominant discourse (so that in some cases it is not possible to state your position without invoking a form or subject position that goes against your work's belief system).  Bizzell's piece is important in that it shows where composition was in terms of thinking about identity back in the 1980s.  Bizzell mentions the students right to their own language policy adopted by CCC, and indicates that compositionists' commitment to respecting the students' individual identities in some ways runs counter to the idea of  developmental stages.  She also points out the narrow focus of the study as compared to the broad claims (as a developmental theory -rather than particular observations about males of a particular age at a particular elite school).

For next week
Read:  Mertens,  Ch 5: Causal Comparative and Correlational Research;  Mertens;  Appendix: Research Proposals;  Brodkey  (1989) p 621;  Sommers  (1980), 43. 

Due: NIH training certificate (see assignment sheet- with link to training site -posted to the right)

I will work on posting the pdfs for the other readings - hopefully they will be up by next week. 

Useful links

A list of Writing Studies resources


List of preliminary (with links to secondary sources)
Association of Writers and Writing Programs
The Kean University English Department is a member, so you should be entitled to access - either through the Department, or through the Kean data bases.


The Art of Creative Research  (link from the Writer's Chronicle)


Becky Moore Howard's biliographies


Composition journals (grouped by topic)


Poets and Writers (full access available through Kean databases)


Research bibliographies (for composition, listed  by topic)


The Writer's Chronicle (creative writing resources = scroll down)




Networked communities/forums
CBW_Listserv


The Speakeasy


The WPA_Listserv


The Writer's Circle


WCenter




Professional organizations
American Educational Research Association


Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)


Association of Teachers of Technical Writing (ATTW)


Association of Writers and Writing Programs

Computers & Writing


Conference on Basic Writing


Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC)


Council of Writing Program Administrators


Modern Language Association


The National Council of Teachers of English


New Jersey Writing Alliance


Rhetoric Society of America


WAC Clearinghouse

Overview of course + research paradigms

NOTE:  Cross-talk in Comp Theory is sold out at the bookstore.  If you are waiting for a book you ordered online and would like to read the assigned essays, they were all published in journals available on the Kean database.  The references are:


James A Berlin's "Contemporary Compostion: The Major Pedagogical Theories" was published  in College English 44.8 (December 1982): 765-77.


Gesa Kirsch and Joy Ritchie's "Beyond the Personal: Theorizing a Politics of Location in Composition Research" was published in College Composition and Communication 46.1 (february 1995): 7-29.


and Patricia Bizzell's "William Perry and Liberal Education" was published in College English 46.5 (September 1984): 447-54.




Class January 23 set up the course.  We talked through the syllabus, calendar & major assignments and got started on a discussion of terminology for talking about research in writing studies.  


You also did some writing meant to help you think about your identity as a researcher.  Careful attention to the values, assumptions, and interests implied in the answers to the research interests survey, and  in the fast-writing where you designed a study, can help you identify gaps or tensions between your research goals - and the tools/ideas/and experiences you have to "draw from" to do that research. 


This course will be a "research resource": a place where you can explore (with me, classmates = and the writers in our textbooks) models and concepts for research.  Our discussions will be places for you to imagine, re-think, and plan both your thesis - and your identity within the community of researchers who both participate in and study discourse, writing, and the teaching of writing.  


Reaction papers:
We spent some time discussing the reaction paper assignment.  This discussion was to "set you up." No reaction paper assignments are actually due until February 6 (see Reaction Paper sign-up sheet in your google.docs).  


You will have various models, both for the reaction paper, and for the "presentation," in the reading assignments and in class next week.  For now, read the assignments (listed at the end of this post), and look through the essays listed on the Sign-up sheet.  Think about which essays make the best connection to your research interests.  Pay attention to which essays are associated with which methods - or skim some of the essays - to get a feel for which essays use methods that you might want to use.  

We agreed in class that you would not actually choose essays until we got together as a class and talked through the line up.  So look through and pick 4 or 5 that might interest you.  


Research paradigms and research language
We talked through the 4 x 4 matrix posed by Mertens: postpositivist, constructivist, transformative and pragmatic research paradigm characterized in terms of their ontology, epistemology, axiology, and methods.  A chart summarizing our discussion is posted to the right.  It is important for you to get comfortable with the language used for this discussion, and language to name important features of research (the list that includes the terms subjects/participants/stakeholders; independent/dependent variables, etc).  As we consider each method - we will think about how it plays out within the different paradigms, and we will use the language used to describe features of research.  


For next class: 
Read:  Mertens, Ch 3: Literature Review; Berlin (1982), 235; Bizzell (1984), 299 (this is a sample reaction paper); Kirsch & Ritchie (1995), 485. student reaction paper (and the essay he "reacted" to) = posted to the right
Write:  NIH training (due February 6)


What we will do January 30
In class we will begin with a discussion/some interactive writing to answer any questions you might have about literature reviews.  Of the research methods we will study, this may be the approach you are most familiar with, as it can be similar to the kind of writing produced for English classes. 


We will then spend some time looking at the "model" literature review essays = particularly Berlin (1982) + Kirsch & Ritchie (1995).  We will use these essays both to think about what kind of "research" unfolds within  literature reviews = and to begin to map the history of composition as a discipline as it unfolded within larger cultural trends in the United States.


We will also have an "overview" discussion of the essays for the course that will set you up to choose the essays you want to take the lead on (write reaction papers for) during class discussion.

Thanks for a great first class, and see you next week!