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..
No comments:
Post a Comment