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..
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Monday, March 12, 2012
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!!
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?
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
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
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
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
Monday, March 5, 2012
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.
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.
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.
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. (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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)